On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:10:59 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> When he came back to the US, his opinion had changed; even coming from
>> Cuba, he had no idea conditions were that bad in the rural parts of
>> Mexico and he completely understood the motivation people had to cross
>> the border, even illegally, to escape from that extreme poverty.
> 
>   This presents a moral problem which easily makes multiculturalists
>   kind
> of hypocrite.
> 
>   Usually multiculturalists heavily oppose the deporting of illegal
> immigrants because they would usually be deported to an environment of
> extreme poverty, as you mention.
> 
>   However, this presents a moral dilemma: Why are those who have
>   successfully
> crossed be border considered to have "more right" to be protected than
> those who haven't? Is being able to cross the border some kind of test
> you have to pass in order to get the protection of multiculturalists and
> human right activists? What about those who didn't succeed in crossing
> the border, and those who haven't even attempted, but who live in such
> poor conditions? Don't they deserve such protection as well?

I think you're only looking at part of the picture.  Sure, some people 
who are "multiculturalists" take this attitude, but far more of them that 
I know *do* work to try to correct the problems in the place where the 
immigrants are coming from.  I have some very good friends in Oregon, for 
example, who recognize that the problem isn't just the people coming into 
the US, but also the conditions in their home country that drive them to 
look for an alternative - and sometimes things are so dire that the view 
is "a jail cell in the US has to be better than continuing here".  So 
what my friends do is they travel to countries in Latin America where 
these problems exist and they work with people there to help them build 
homes, learn how to grow crops, and how to make things better.  They do 
this outside of any government organization (or non-profit - they do it 
on their own).  They own their own business, and they do struggle a bit 
with the business, but they realize that no matter how bad things are for 
them, they've got it pretty good compared to the families they've helped, 
for example, in El Salvador.

Similarly, my manager at work (and one of my coworkers, independently) 
have worked with African villages to improve living conditions - having 
taken trips and made a personal investment to make the world a better 
place through their service projects.

I've mentioned I live in Utah before - and while there is a lot about the 
LDS church I dislike, the concept of service missions (as opposed to 
'recruiting missions' which many members do) is a very good one as well - 
similar concept, out of high school, kids who are members of the church 
spend a couple of years someplace away from home (could be Brazil, could 
be Washington state) helping people in need.  For all the problems I have 
with the LDS church (my wife is an ex-Mormon, and my father-in-law is an 
LDS bishop in PA), this is something I *really* admire about the 
organization.

So I think it is somewhat disingenuous to paint "multiculturalists" with 
the broad brush of "they solve the problem here, but not where people are 
coming from because it's easier to ignore from a distance".

That doesn't mean that everyone who should do it does do it.  I can't 
honestly say that I've done it.  I can honestly say that I feel somewhat 
conflicted that I haven't, but that I do feel it's important to do.  
Personally, I'm not sure what job skills I can bring to something like 
that - I don't know anything about building, farming, or anything like 
that.  I could learn, sure.  I just haven't made the time.  Maybe I 
should.

>   Or are they simply comfortably "far away" enough so that they can be
> ignored?
> 
>   Of course the problem is that of resources: No matter how rich the
> rich countries are, it's a physical impossibility to open the borders to
> everyone to come in who so wishes. If all western countries did that,
> probably 2-3 billion of people would move in, creating a complete
> economical catastrophe. The economy and society of the rich countries
> would simply collapse.
> 
>   Multiculturalists and human right activists understand that, so nobody
> seriously is demanding complete opening of borders (except perhaps a few
> wackos).
> 
>   And here's where the hypocrisy steps in: They defend to death the
>   right
> of illegal immigrants, those who have somehow succeeded in entering the
> country, to stay in the country, because if they were deported they
> would be returned to the poverty, but they don't demand bringing *all*
> people from those poor countries.
> 
>   Thus being able to get inside the borders of the rich country is, in
> practice, some kind of test: If you pass it, you get protection, if you
> don't pass it, then you don't get the same protection. People are
> treated differently depending on whether they had this luck or not.

That's an interesting point of view, and I see where you're coming from.  
In some ways, I even agree - but I don't think the solution is to deport 
everyone who illegally entered the country, which some extremists on the 
other side of the debate advocate.  There is the fact that those who did 
enter *did* make an effort and *are* contributing to society here.  Some 
do it by doing jobs nobody here wants to do (and that is a common 
statement as well, not sure 100% that I agree with the sentiment there, 
either).

It's not a black and white situation.

Jim

Post a reply to this message