Note that I am not asking for your opinion on forcing women to wear burquahs or flying airplanes into skyscrapers, neither of which is necessary for inclusion in the religion of Islam.

And I have to agree with you, Kat, this did prove a fine and enjoyable discussion. Would that more discussions could be so thoughtful.

I think that this country and our culture is strong enough to absorb any reasonable amount of immigration. Just like in every previous wave of immigration, what we don’t absorb and change in the first generation, we will surely in the second, and undoubtedly by third. Our language will not change fundamentally, but we will add new words and phrases to it. Because if there is one thing we know for sure, American’s are not going to learn another language. Children of immigrants will learn ours, even if their parents are incapable, and may act as interpreters just as it has always been. As long as we do our jobs and uphold our society as responsible citizens. Part of that job is insisting on not enabling alternate languages to take a foothold in business or government, lest we become a polyglot of babblers, unable to understand one another from one block to another. That is not racist or xenophobic, it is common sense.

However, we must keep in mind that the U.S. has never been overwhelmed with an UNreasonable number of immigrants solely due to immigration quotas and a certain amount of “weeding out” of undesirable persons, such as those with criminal records, etc. A policy which has never been proven more necessary than now as we face virtually unfettered illegal immigration over our borders, primarily latino. It is an unrefutable fact that this vast influx is having a severe effect on many levels in our society, and must be brought under control for the good of the society and the culture of the U.S., regardless of how we might empathize with the reasons for it. The illegal immigrants are not the problem or the enemy, as we can easily place ourselves in their positions. The problem is with the factors within our own society and government which is allowing it to continue, indeed encouraging it, at such an overwhelming rate to the detriment of our healthcare system, such as it is, our school system, such as it is, and our labor system, such as it used to be. The enemy is us. It is not a partisan issue, but one which must be solely placed upon the shoulders of each U.S. citizen to hold corporate and small business interests to account, and to demand appropriate action by our government. To oppose mass illegal immigration is not racism or xenophobia, but a desire to live in a productive, workable, fair society ruled by law rather than anarchy.

To attack thinking persons who are concerned with the welfare of our society as a whole, rather than only small percentages of the population, be them legal or illegal, simply out of sympathy for the poor and oppressed of the world is knee-jerk liberalism at its worst, which is arguably just as evil and absurd as blind, ignorant conservatism. Often, both have exactly the same results.

If the labor of latino immigrants is truly as necessary as proponents for illegal immigration attempt to make it out to be, then let them petition Congress to relax immigration quotas so that more may be allowed entry legally, while necessary measures are taken to uphold the relaxed quotas. Immigration quotas have often been relaxed in order to exploit the poor and oppressed for the convenience of business and government, which is in actuality what knee jerk liberals on this issue are blindly wailing for. Immigration quotas were relaxed to allow Chinese laborers in to build the railroads and for the Irish in to be drafted immediately into the Union army during the Civil War. They, however, had to come by ship and pass through ports and so were regulated. They could not tunnel from China and Ireland, for example. Since latino’s may, more stringent measures must be taken to enforce quota’s in this instance, particularly.

As for legal immigrants who profess Islam as their religion, they should be welcomed with open arms as long as they are willing to enter our society and adhere to our overall culture. A Morman may enter, assuredly, but not with 30 wives recognized by our society as legal partners. A Muslim may enter, assuredly, but not with 30 wives, nor even one who is allowed to be beaten, stoned to death, or otherwise oppressed in opposition to our laws and customs. Any Muslims may enter legally and participate fully in our society as long as they understand that at any time, an artist in our culture may paint a portrait of Mohammed in excrement and submerse it in urine and hang it in one of our national tax-payer supported museums and they can complain about it all they want, but they do not get to riot or disturb the peace in any way. Period. Because we are a free society, and they can either join in, or stay out. If that makes any particular Muslim want to bomb us for being the infidels we certainly are to one religion or another, at one time or another, due to cherishing and promoting free expression, then it is encumbent upon us to make sure that that Muslim is not one we freely let into our country and our society.

It is responsibility, not rhetoric, which is of dire necessity.

Also, the whole “eliminating the us vs. them distinction” thing has very real implications for our small world. It’s not just a sentiment — it’s a path towards a solution. When you start realizing that we all share the same “blood”, that we are all human, that we all have reasons (of some sort) for our actions, then you begin to see the real factors that lead to conflict in the first place. And that’s a step in the right direction.

But you have to admit that a) James ideal is a good one and b) that much of what makes humans human is our ability to move beyond our biological imperatives.

Waldo, I appreciate the sentiment, but that’s all it is to me–sentiment. Sentiment fuels a controversial issue by reducing the components to emotional black and white, it resolves nothing. Life is much more complex, messy and needfully cruel than this picture, and you and I would probably disagree to some extent about biological imperatives. Who is to say whether we are actually moving beyond them or merely influencing their development and progression?

I have a close in-law who is in his 1st full year of permanent residency. These attitudes and the policies based on them will effect him–and his family members should they want to move here to join him. So please excuse me from the “Goode sucks, we should all love each other” parade. As much as I might agree with the sentiment, this letter has broader implications for my family future and I find that much more personally compelling.

Look, we already consume a hugely disrepresentative portion of the world’s resources, I for one certainly don’t mind sharing. Overpopulation isn’t the problem (ever been out West?), it’s just distribution of resources. Maybe if we stopped helping to make the rest of the world such a shitty place to live, there wouldn’t be quite as many folks knocking on our door. Until then, I’d rather accomodate them than turn them away.

Last I checked, ours did. It has freedom of all expression, not just religious–which allows Goode to express his ugly anti-Muslim opinion. You can only legislate for proper action. You can not legislate for proper attitude.

Oh, I’m not saying Goode shouldn’t be allowed to write what he did. I’m just ashamed that my Representative is an ignorant racist, and at the very least he owes his constituents and his colleagues an apology.

Sorry to disappoint you, but many great minds across several fields ranging from psychology to physics

I thought this was pretty apparent, but maybe I’d better spell it out: I’m not literally advocating a hive-mind, and I understand what individuation is. A more literal expression of my views might read: It would be to everyone’s benefit for “us” to realize that Immigrants from every background and Muslims of any nationality are our fellow human beings and deserve our respect and understanding.

As I see it, the solution to the vast majority of the current political violence in the world must be rooted in an understanding that there is no “us” and “them,”

The individuation process starts as soon as a baby leaves the womb, when it becomes a biological necessity to differentiate between “us” and “them.” Sorry to disappoint you, but many great minds across several fields ranging from psychology to physics have documented and discussed the need for and results of individuation. “Us” and “them” are designations we probably won’t get rid of until we evolve into a different species altogether.

But you have to admit that a) James ideal is a good one and b) that much of what makes humans human is our ability to move beyond our biological imperatives.

Instead, I think, we should accept any and all people who want to move to the United States,

Then you’re a right eejit, aren’t you? We don’t have the resources, natural or economic, to support the arses of everyone who would move to the U.S. if we had a truly open-door policy. And just about every other nation on this planet has a stricter immigration policy than we do. Perhaps there’s good reason for that.

I am, however, in favor of a government that allows religious expression

Last I checked, ours did. It has freedom of all expression, not just religious–which allows Goode to express his ugly anti-Muslim opinion. You can only legislate for proper action. You can not legislate for proper attitude. Which, coincidentally, is what has Smails in a knot. No matter how much lip service an immigrant of any stripe may give to favoring the U.S., we can not know with certainty which ones are lying and cull them out at the door. Give credit where it’s due–he’s been down this mental path before most of this board and is trying to get us to discuss it rationally. He isn’t succeeding.

As I see it, the solution to the vast majority of the current political violence in the world must be rooted in an understanding that there is no “us” and “them,”

The individuation process starts as soon as a baby leaves the womb, when it becomes a biological necessity to differentiate between “us” and “them.” Sorry to disappoint you, but many great minds across several fields ranging from psychology to physics have documented and discussed the need for and results of individuation. “Us” and “them” are designations we probably won’t get rid of until we evolve into a different species altogether.

I’m not about to run home crying because Smails called me a Sandal-wearer.

He’s called me worse, but I manage to survive.

Of course not. They might bring their recipes with them.

Selby

I, for one, and mostly worried about those dirty Irish. Oh wait, they’re my grandparents.

Should the Norman descendants in British Isles move back to Northern France? Or the Saxons move back to Germany? Why don’t we give Italy back to the Etruscan remnants and kick out all the Romans?

Of course not. We’re in agreement as to why this argument is absurd.

For the same reasons, I would argue, we should not send Mexican immigrants back across the border, nor should we be afraid of Muslims from any background immigrating to the US.

Instead, I think, we should accept any and all people who want to move to the United States, provided they don’t have a violent criminal record, and we should embrace the opportunity to learn more about other cultures and allow others to learn about ours. I certainly don’t subscribe to many of the more conservative aspects of Islamic Law, but I have many of the same complaints about Christianity. I am, however, in favor of a government that allows religious expression — and one that understands the necessity of a plurality of beliefs, and understand that keeping church & state separate is an important policy that prevents one particular religion from oppressing others in the public sphere.

As I see it, the solution to the vast majority of the current political violence in the world must be rooted in an understanding that there is no “us” and “them,” that despite the positive and negative aspects that define each culture, the drastic xenophobic, self-centered condemnation of a entire way of life is inherently detrimental to everyone.

Sorry if any of you thinks that this makes me a dirty hippie, I know you think “multi-culturalism” isn’t “cool” or whatever but I’m not about to run home crying because Smails called me a Sandal-wearer.

I feel like a bit of a fool for this, but I really feel disappointed.

As I’ve tried to make clear pretty routinely, it’s my understanding that Rep. Goode is a straight-talking, ethical guy.

I’m not surprised at all. I met the man one time, in his office, and he came across as slimy, insincere, and shifty. I actually had some respect for him before that.