The current crisis in our immigration policy has been exasperated by Arizona's "new law". Or is Arizona creating "new law"? Isn't Arizona just upholding our national boundaries that protect and define its citizenry? And what of the immigrants that have come to her for "refuge"? What about America, as a 'humane culture and society? Where do boundaries begin and end and where should they?
Arizona has argued that their law on protecting Americans from infilteration of illegals is one that is based on Constitutionality and compliments the federal standards. If the judge determines that Arizona is correct, many States will probably follow Arizona's lead.
The other side argues that immigration policy is solely the responsibility of the federal government, as the federal government is the "United States", therefore, a State does not have the right to supercede federal right.
Many such arguments have been made in the past, such as with the Civil War and the slavery issue. Do States have rights of protecting their economic viability over and above a "universalized and standardized" way of being in the world? Should the Southern States have been allowed to give the right of choice to their slaves with the possibility that the slaves would continue in their service to their masters? Or is slavery wrong in a universal sense and shouldn't be allowed, because of the universiality of the human? I think there is a distinction between slavery as forbidden and the treatment of slaves as humane or inhumane. The issue is whether the slave is voluntarily cooperative and willing and whether the "master" is humane in his treatment of his slave. Everyone cannot be the 'master"....but the slave should have a right to liberty, if he chooses. (Master= leader and slave=employee).
The immigration problem is a situation that is similar. Illegal immigrants means that there is a standard whereby we maintain public order, by establishing these laws to protect from those that would not benefit our society. In fact, illegals may be allowing the dissolution of our national security with terrorists. Such tolerance would be suicide, nationally.
I do believe that America is a humane nation, when it comes to our ideals. The suggestion that illegals could be given a chance to go "back home" without prosecution is a good one. Perhaps, these illegals would be given a certain amount of time for "grace'. Then, prosecution should be swift and strong.
We cannot ignore how politicians in the past have used the amnesty of illegals to pack the votes in at our polls and distort our "real voice" as a nation!
We cannot continue to tolerate the undermining of our borders. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue our identity as a nation-state. Our borders should define who is "in" and who is "out". And we should not feel guilty for such definition, because such definition demands respect. The humane choice is to continue our immigration standards, with naturalization. And it is obvious that because there are so many that want to be a part of our nation, that we must be doing something right!
Princple CAN be Humane!
Showing posts with label federalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federalism. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Abraham Lincoln's Impact on My Thoughts
Today was my friend's birthday, and so, we decided to visit the National Portrait Gallery, where they have special exhibit honoring Abraham Lincoln.
As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".
His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.
I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?
These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?
There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.
I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.
As I read about his life as president, and looked at the pictures, I couldn't help but think of what principles his life laid bare. He was committed to "a universal rights of men", as "all mean were created equal". He felt he was the "bearer" of our Founding Father's vision. And though he did not want to see the inevitable conflict between the North and the South, he lived to see the conflict end in "war". But, the end of the war resulted in his vision, and he got to pronounce the "abolition of slavery".
His life was cut short by an assasin's bullet, just after his second inaugeration. His assasin did not see that the "war had won" any better society, he only saw a man that stood in the way to his way of life.
I found myself reflecting back over one of my professor's musing over Lincoln's life. In his opinion, Lincoln created a centralized government. He did not give room for a division over slavery, as he was committed to unity. States had no right over the "United States". Federalism was born. But, the problem with centralization of government is the balance of power, which the states bring. Each state is given senators (equal representation) and representatives (numerical represetation) to help give an equal opportunity to the state's interests and the people's interests. The federal government is composed of these diverse interests. But, what happens, as in our world today, when global interest play into our sphere of concern?
These prinicples are not easy ones to address, as people are convinced differently as to which "side" is best. Do states have rights at the costs of federal interests? (think education, or other laws)...the same principle holds true for the individual and society. Do individuals have rights against corporate, society or group interests? Where do we draw our lines, and understand how these rights and interests intersect?
There is no simple solution to these concerns, as there is no balance of power as it concerns the world scene. And there is no divying up the different interests groups, when nations, cultures, and interests, collide. Religion only complicates these concerns to those seeking solution for unity. The fundamentally zealous are not open to diversity, where it concerns unity. Bad news for political solutions.
I don't know enough about foreign policy or international relations to come to any conclusion. I am reading, listening and learning. Any opinions or comments are welcome.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
What's So Wrong About the Bail-out and What is Right?
Americans are forunate to live in a country that believes in the individual's right to pursue his own ends. But, our Founding Fathers understood that without accountability, there inevidently would be corruption. We see this in many countries today.
Tribal scoieties live by the power of might towards one another. Their customs create a hierarchal form of governing that is affirmed by their magical thinking about the spiritual realm. God rules over these societies and they fear retribution if there is not proper sacrifice.
Monarchal governments are representative that "all men are not created equal". Understanding the royal blood-line helps these countries to maintain a reverence for higher powers.
Our representative government is one that is free and open for anyone to run for and win office, at least in theory. We believe that the people have the right, in fact, the duty, to be a part of their governing. Self-responsibility and duty to one's country are the mainstay of our governance. But, we have little knowledge or interest in higher powers or foreign affairs, at least for the most part.
Even while our country's government is a free and open one, this recent economic crisis is one that is not easily controlled by the common person. Although we can petition our Congreesmen, under fear of retribution, there is little practical help we can bring our government in these times. We trust our president to listen to wise counsel and our Represetatives to undertake our interests. But, perhaps our own interests has been the seed that has produced our ecocnomic crisis.
We all want representation, this is why we vote and stay informed abut politics, especially in an election year. We are concerned citizens for our state and for our nation. While we are all Ameicans, we identify ourselves by the local, the State, in which we reside. The State's interest is a priority to the Congressman as he must herald in how he advantages his State over others. So, while our nation's interests are debated and voted upon in legislation, "pork barrel spending is shuffled unnoticed under the door". Americans like for their States to get more from the government, so that their states, communities can have an advantage over others. But, at what costs to others and the nation at large?
I believe that federalism is good on one level, but a detriment to the country on another level. The idea behind federalism is that the local governance can best understand the needs of their local communities. The local, though, may not know what may be best for the nation. Take for instance, the globalized market, and foreign affairs. Without knowledge of other cultures or what is going on behind the scence on the national level, locals take the monies from the State to advance their cause of economic development. The local mayor and the Congressman's jobs are dependent on impacting their local economies, bringing in jobs and increasing grant monies for projects that make their local area a 'better place to live". All of this spending is over and above the necessities. Some of the criticism over military spending is for this very reason; the locals want more of it to spend on their local communities. This increases the national debt and leaves us dependent on government to "do what is right".
What is right for the local politician, is not necessarily what is right for the nation. This is our problem today, as we have become a nation that is focused on how we fare at a local level and there is nothing that brings us together as a unified whole. Perhaps, this economic crisis will be useful to open our eyes and ears and mouths to dialogue about what is right for the country.
Tribal scoieties live by the power of might towards one another. Their customs create a hierarchal form of governing that is affirmed by their magical thinking about the spiritual realm. God rules over these societies and they fear retribution if there is not proper sacrifice.
Monarchal governments are representative that "all men are not created equal". Understanding the royal blood-line helps these countries to maintain a reverence for higher powers.
Our representative government is one that is free and open for anyone to run for and win office, at least in theory. We believe that the people have the right, in fact, the duty, to be a part of their governing. Self-responsibility and duty to one's country are the mainstay of our governance. But, we have little knowledge or interest in higher powers or foreign affairs, at least for the most part.
Even while our country's government is a free and open one, this recent economic crisis is one that is not easily controlled by the common person. Although we can petition our Congreesmen, under fear of retribution, there is little practical help we can bring our government in these times. We trust our president to listen to wise counsel and our Represetatives to undertake our interests. But, perhaps our own interests has been the seed that has produced our ecocnomic crisis.
We all want representation, this is why we vote and stay informed abut politics, especially in an election year. We are concerned citizens for our state and for our nation. While we are all Ameicans, we identify ourselves by the local, the State, in which we reside. The State's interest is a priority to the Congressman as he must herald in how he advantages his State over others. So, while our nation's interests are debated and voted upon in legislation, "pork barrel spending is shuffled unnoticed under the door". Americans like for their States to get more from the government, so that their states, communities can have an advantage over others. But, at what costs to others and the nation at large?
I believe that federalism is good on one level, but a detriment to the country on another level. The idea behind federalism is that the local governance can best understand the needs of their local communities. The local, though, may not know what may be best for the nation. Take for instance, the globalized market, and foreign affairs. Without knowledge of other cultures or what is going on behind the scence on the national level, locals take the monies from the State to advance their cause of economic development. The local mayor and the Congressman's jobs are dependent on impacting their local economies, bringing in jobs and increasing grant monies for projects that make their local area a 'better place to live". All of this spending is over and above the necessities. Some of the criticism over military spending is for this very reason; the locals want more of it to spend on their local communities. This increases the national debt and leaves us dependent on government to "do what is right".
What is right for the local politician, is not necessarily what is right for the nation. This is our problem today, as we have become a nation that is focused on how we fare at a local level and there is nothing that brings us together as a unified whole. Perhaps, this economic crisis will be useful to open our eyes and ears and mouths to dialogue about what is right for the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
