09 Jul 15
2 edits
When Immigrants Lose Their Human Rights
President Obama’s recent initiative on immigration has reignited the national debate on the issue.
GARY GUTTING: In your recent book, you talk a lot about the rights of people to immigrate or to remain in a country after they’ve immigrated. What would you say to those who think that immigration policy should instead focus on the right of a country to decide who gets to live there?
JOSEPH CARENS: I think this way of posing the question confuses two issues. The first is the question of who ought to have the authority to decide what a policy will be. The second is whether that policy is morally acceptable. Someone can have the right to make a decision and can still make a decision that is morally wrong.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/should-immigrants-lose-their-human-rights/
It seems clear that President Obama has a similar view of illegal immigrants as President Lincoln did for southern slaves. We now have sanctuary cities protecting illegal immigrates by flaunting federal law just as the Northern states did before and during the American Civil War.
So should illegal immigration be treated as a moral or a legal issue?
And is President Obama morally right to flaunt federal law as President Lincoln did?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHinds1. Is it morally permissible to enslave a person?
[b]When Immigrants Lose Their Human Rights
President Obama’s recent initiative on immigration has reignited the national debate on the issue.
GARY GUTTING: In your recent book, you talk a lot about the rights of people to immigrate or to remain in a country after they’ve immigrated. What would you say to those who think that immigration pol ...[text shortened]...
And is President Obama morally right to flaunt federal law as President Lincoln did? [/quote][/b]
2. Is it morally permissible to return a fugitive who was enslaved, to an enslaved condition?
If the two answers differ, how and why do they differ?
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by JS357No such thing as morality. Morality is just one person's or group's opinion. Should opinion be forced on others?
1. Is it morally permissible to enslave a person?
2. Is it morally permissible to return a fugitive who was enslaved, to an enslaved condition?
If the two answers differ, how and why do they differ?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by EladarVery well. You appear to be OK with "should" questions.
No such thing as morality. Morality is just one person's or group's opinion. Should opinion be forced on others?
Should people be enslaved?
Should a fugitive from enslavement be re-enslaved?
If your two opinions differ, why do they differ?
To your question: My opinion is that sometimes certain opinions should be forced on others using minimal reasonable and necessary force. The purpose should be to affect behavior, not belief.
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by JS357I should inform you that Eladar (a Christian) will not answer this question, because it has recently been shown to him that the bible approves of slavery. This forced him to take a "slavery is not that bad" kind of position. Your question puts him in a quandary.
Very well. You appear to be OK with "should" questions.
Should people be enslaved?
Should a fugitive from enslavement be re-enslaved?
If your two opinions differ, why do they differ?
To your question: My opinion is that sometimes certain opinions should be forced on others using minimal reasonable and necessary force. The purpose should be to affect behavior, not belief.
09 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBoth of course. It's also an economic issue and other type of issue as well.
[b]When Immigrants Lose Their Human Rights
President Obama’s recent initiative on immigration has reignited the national debate on the issue.
GARY GUTTING: In your recent book, you talk a lot about the rights of people to immigrate or to remain in a country after they’ve immigrated. What would you say to those who think that immigration pol ...[text shortened]...
And is President Obama morally right to flaunt federal law as President Lincoln did? [/quote][/b]
The second question is loaded and thus cannot be answered on its terms.
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by JS357You are being one trick pony.
Very well. You appear to be OK with "should" questions.
Should people be enslaved?
Should a fugitive from enslavement be re-enslaved?
If your two opinions differ, why do they differ?
To your question: My opinion is that sometimes certain opinions should be forced on others using minimal reasonable and necessary force. The purpose should be to affect behavior, not belief.
How many other threads are you going to derail with this discussion?
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by vivifyYeah, that discussion is why this one is a non-issue. Bring up the topic in every thread you don't wish to discuss and troll right along.
I should inform you that Eladar (a Christian) will not answer this question, because it has recently been shown to him that the bible approves of slavery. This forced him to take a "slavery is not that bad" kind of position. Your question puts him in a quandary.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by RJHindsFair enough.
Could you answer my questions first?
"So should illegal immigration be treated as a moral or a legal issue?"
Legal issue but people's moral standards will be involved in both legislating and enforcement.
"And is President Obama morally right to flaunt federal law as President Lincoln did?"
Legal issue. In both cases there was/is opportunity for judicial and legislative action and they both knew it. In effect, each of them was/is saying "I'm going to do this, stop me if I'm wrong." "Doing this" might have meant "I'm not going to initiate executive action against the so-called underground railroad/sanctuary cities."
Before the war, Lincoln was acting as president, during it he was also acting as CinC. This might affect the situation.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by vivifyA non-answer from someone so forthcoming with his views, is an answer.
I should inform you that Eladar (a Christian) will not answer this question, because it has recently been shown to him that the bible approves of slavery. This forced him to take a "slavery is not that bad" kind of position. Your question puts him in a quandary.
09 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357Lincoln was only President for three weeks before Fort Sumter.
Fair enough.
"So should illegal immigration be treated as a moral or a legal issue?"
Legal issue but people's moral standards will be involved in both legislating and enforcement.
"And is President Obama morally right to flaunt federal law as President Lincoln did?"
Legal issue. In both cases there was/is opportunity for judicial and legislative ac ...[text shortened]... was acting as president, during it he was also acting as CinC. This might affect the situation.
Nor does the evidence support the claim he "flaunted the law" regarding fugitive slaves during his administration. http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/18/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-lincoln-enforced-fugitive-slave-act/
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by EladarIt is the first time for these particular questions. Another one is whether you condemn or condone the use of the battle flag as a symbol of white supremacy. What they have in common is they seem impossible for the people I ask to answer.
You are being one trick pony.
How many other threads are you going to derail with this discussion?
09 Jul 15
Originally posted by vivifyAnyone with any knowledge of the Bible, Christian or not, knows that slavery in the Old testament was acceptable, as well as other practices, such as polygamy, that were not permissible to Christians.
I should inform you that Eladar (a Christian) will not answer this question, because it has recently been shown to him that the bible approves of slavery. This forced him to take a "slavery is not that bad" kind of position. Your question puts him in a quandary.
One might examine the conditions of black slaves in the antebellum South, and compare them to dirt poor whites who often lived in worse conditions, and with no security whatsoever. Starr Parker, and African American writer, has made realistic comparisons of today's welfare system to slavery. I'm not sure I completely agree with the analogy, but it fits in many ways.
We could make an argument for the morality of slavery, given proper care of the slaves. Chattel slavery has some ugly characteristics, but indentured servitude seems a fair way for a man to work off debt. Such a prospect might make people less likely to take on debt that they have little prospect of ever repaying. Somehow the modern notions of bankruptcy don't encourage responsible decision making.