For all the jokes, however, it appeared [Stephen] Colbert was there [testifying before a House subcommittee] for more than comedy. When asked by Rep. Judy Chu (D-Monterey Park) why he was interested in farm workers, the comedian suddenly turned serious.

"I like talking about people who don't have any power," he said. "And it just seems like one of the least powerful people in the United States are migrant workers who come and do our work but don't have any rights as a result. And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave."

Colbert, a practicing Catholic who occasionally teaches Sunday school, quoted the biblical passage about helping "the least of my brothers," adding: "Migrant workers suffer and have no rights."

Comments

Search

laika  - The Nutshell   |2010-09-29 18:44:24 Stephen Colbert wrote: And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. there's the immigration "problem" in so very few words. and they say it was "inappropriate" for Colbert to testify.

holmegm  - re: The Nutshell   |2010-09-30 10:18:22 Stephen Colbert wrote: And yet we still invite them to come here, and at the same time ask them to leave. laika wrote: there's the immigration "problem" in so very few words. and they say it was "inappropriate" for Colbert to testify. Ya know ... I read your comment (and the quote you selected) before looking up at the story. So I just saw his comment in isolation. I was getting ready to keel over that Colbert wanted to restrict Muslim immigration or something ...

laika   |2010-10-08 12:42:32 holmegm wrote: I was getting ready to keel over that Colbert wanted to restrict Muslim immigration or something ... yeah, i should have been more specific; immigration issues are bigger than our friends from south-of-the-border alone. Colbert makes a good, if obvious, point, though. we "invite" people from the south by offering work at wages that appeal to them, but then we don't want them here. going after those who hire illegals would turn things around pronto. as long as they're here, though, and since the situation isn't likely to change, we should treat them with respect.

PineHall  - Respect   |2010-10-09 21:23:18 laika wrote: and since the situation isn't likely to change, we should treat them with respect. Treating people with respect, solves a lot of problems, racism, homophobia, workers rights, etc.

emperorbma   |2010-10-10 05:32:56 You are correct. Let me note, however, that what constitutes "respect" varies from person to person and culture to culture. There is also an underlying problem that immigration is actually perceived as an outright threat by some people. Some of the reasons for the latter might include things like a belief that the high crime rates of Mexico will also come across the border or that immigration will pidginize the English language and make it harder to teach students. It's certainly easier for most people to respect someone if they don't see an immanent threat from them. Of course, that doesn't justify anything either as Christians are called to love even "enemies," much less perceived threats. What it does show, however, is that there is no lack of reason behind some of the raised concerns. (i.e. the non-racist and non-elitist concerns aren't exactly empty) I think it is also unloving to not respect the legitimate concerns that people on this side of the border raise to immigration. We really can't write either side off as the bad guys here, even if sinners comprise both. P.S. Also, we Christians can't exactly avoid stepping on peoples' toes simply by virtue of the fact that we are Christians. Necessarily we step on the toes of everyone who is not a Christian simply by asserting that there is one God and Christ is His Son. However, "if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." (Romans 12:18) As another example, most people probably want us to respect them but most people also think that to "respect them" means that we assume them a "good person." Even though, as God's own Scriptures testified, everyone is a sinner before God. (Romans 3:23) We Christians can consider a person worthwhile or decent or reasonable (which is the basic meaning of what the world means by "good"), and pretty much always do I would hope, even if they aren't good (as God defines it), which is an entirely different standard.  Only Adam and Eve before the Fall and Jesus could be called good (as God defines it) and Jesus Himself eschews someone trying to abuse the phrase "good master" to address Him. The world considers calling people "good person" a basic courtesy and, therefore, to the nonbeliever we Christians appear condescending and hypocritical when, in fact, we are simply applying the conclusion of everything we believe to everyone in the same way we apply it to ourselves: knowing that we are sinners redeemed by grace through faith and the only good (as God defines it) seen is God's work in us and knowing they are sinners who do not have faith and, therefore, are not receiving God's grace... (at least, as far as the saving capacity, they are clearly receiving it in the Providential capacity despite their unbelief but, as was established, faith is absent)

emperorbma   |2010-10-10 05:42:22 emperorbma wrote: "good person." Also, consequently, there is an entire case study of how Christians and "the world" are speaking very different languages in this single phrase alone, much less the word "good" itself...

laika   |2010-10-10 19:26:03 emperorbma wrote: I think it is also unloving to not respect the legitimate concerns that people on this side of the border raise to immigration. We really can't write either side off as the bad guys here, even if sinners comprise both. while i can appreciate the legitimate concerns of American citizens, i'm actually more worried about the effects our corrosive society might have on the decent, hard-working Latinos of my experience. but sure, concerns about a porous border are legit. and most of the immigrants are illegal. that can't be denied.

emperorbma   |2010-10-11 00:54:55 Well, we probably need to be concerned about those same corrosive effects on the ordinary American citizen, too. Likewise, "illegal" is simply because the government chooses to label it thusly. (Fortunately, it isn't as evil as China... which is raising a furor about the latest Nobel Peace Prize laureate) There is no reason why there couldn't be a decent immigrant "trial visa" system or some sort of grassroots equivalent that gives these folks full citizenship if they don't commit some offense that requires them to be deported. Of course, my ideal perspective is that this would be handled by the interested parties and not the government bureaucrats.

laika   |2010-10-11 17:24:57 emperorbma wrote: Of course, my ideal perspective is that this would be handled by the interested parties and not the government bureaucrats. privatized immigration? isn't that exactly what we we have right now? i'm afraid that we already know what the wisdom of the marketplace has to say about the situation.

emperorbma   |2010-10-11 19:16:17 laika wrote: privatized immigration? isn't that exactly what we we have right now? One of the main indications that there is not a free market is the existence of a so-called "black market" to bypass the government's excessive and draconian restrictions. Is there honestly no such black market on the borders? I would beg to differ. There is, in fact, a booming black market. The cues here suggest that the government is acting like the "primary actor" service provider but it clearly does so very ineptly. (as the government will necessarily do, due to red tape and bureaucracy) The net result is an influx of black market businesses that cater to the niche market. The low quality is because they have to dodge the oppression of the men in the suits gunning for them each time they do their job. What I am advocating is that immigration should be legalized but regulated well. A crime is already a well-defined thing: anything that involves fraud or threats to person and property. The government should prosecute these legitimate offenses and not the contrived red tape and paper trail that it pursues currently. Deportation or imprisonment is really the only thing the government can do authoritatively and it should only do so when there is a legitimate reason.  Otherwise, a genuine free market requires it to permit people to decide to immigrate free of their own volition. By the same token, businesses also need to cooperate to create the necessary services that permit immigration such as transportation and housing. What we have now is sort of he other way around: the government is acting like it provides the all "necessary services" (i.e. visas) and the businesses are the ones who are trying to regulate the flow (i.e. by creating demand)...

laika   |2010-10-11 22:59:25 emperorbma wrote: What I am advocating is that immigration should be legalized but regulated well. but legal immigration is already an option. how would allowing private businesses to determine who enters the country improve the existing system? we already have huge private for-profit armies; do you imagine some role for them in the border protection aspect of your immigration for profit model?

holmegm   |2010-10-13 09:15:55 I think a sane immigration system would be one that is mainly focused on promoting the general welfare of our own country. Inviting people who will actually make things better for us, as a country, not worse. Bizarre idea, I know. A sane immigration system would as a bonus help provide for the common defense ... e.g. "hmm, your culture is sort of murderously hating us right now; maybe a few less of you this year."

emperorbma   |2010-10-13 13:51:58 Okay, let me put it this way. If it is legal to immigrate, then why aren't people immigrating legally? Surely you aren't suggesting that these hard-working and industrious folks, as we have already established, simply want the border guards to hunt them down? No, there is a reason why they aren't immigrating legally. The only rational cause I could suggest is that there is something cost-prohibitive in immigrating legally that doesn't happen when they immigrate illegally.  What could it possibly be? Hint: It's red and tapey and miles long... So, who is in the business of making red tape? There is your culprit... A business that literally exists on the profit of successful transactions [here, translated as: immigrating without the BS] doesn't have the luxury of miles of red tape. * Most of these folks, however, are strictly "black market" because of the government... (* - Stock-holder corporations notwithstanding, because they are being bankrolled like governments and, therefore, immune from market pressures as long as they don't anger their stockholders. (cronyism)  It's more of the stupid "corporate personhood" nonsense that is, after all, entirely the fault of government stupidity...)

laika   |2010-10-14 16:05:52 emperorbma wrote: Most of these folks, however, are strictly "black market" because of the government... i'm afraid i'm just not following you. isn't there a security aspect to deciding who gets to immigrate? of course there's a black market if the border is porous and demand for cheap labor is high.

emperorbma   |2010-10-15 14:07:42 laika wrote: i'm afraid i'm just not following you. Sorry about that, I have been known to make intuitive leaps when something seems obvious to me. I should probably explain myself better. What I am saying, basically, is that the government has placed a restrictive bureaucracy on immigration that makes it an unreasonable burden on those who are trying to immigrate. In a fair system, the government should not be the only legitimate provider for immigration services but it should share responsibility with providers who facilitate the transaction. (You know, the ability to do background checks isn't exactly exclusive to the Feds.) As it stands, those who are actively facilitating the transaction of "immigration" must do so as a black market enterprise because the government demands certain exclusive monopoly rights to manage the immigration process. Therefore, those who are providing the "alternative services" that cater to the niche market are black marketeers and the government ends up pursuing those who defy its "red tape" empire instead of trying to negotiate with people who are providing the services to do so in a civilly responsible manner.  [Imagine if they did the same thing with tax firms and people who write tax software. There would be an uprising because taxes are complicated as hell... and I speak as a person who does the latter for a living] It is basically the "law of unintended consequences" that if you try to put your thumb down on something, it will slip further from your grasp. The best form of governance is one that doesn't have to interfere all the time and the way to do this is to help the people govern themselves... Yes, it is a security issue. The thing is that security only pertains to non-contrived threats. The red-tape is a contrivance and it creates an unnecessary burden on those who are immigrating to the extent that they actively seek alternatives even at risk of the government's reprisal. (You know, kind of like how Prohibition had the exact OPPOSITE effect?) Instead, the government should be pursuing those immigrants who are actually committing the crimes rather than those who are merely "illegal immigrants" because they dodged the red tape. As I said, crime is well-defined and it doesn't need to be extended to those who are no threat but didn't bow to the government's bureaucratic bullying. (There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government the right to have an intrusive bureaucracy invade every facet of your life, but it sure acts like there is doesn't it?)

Only registered users can write comments!

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.20

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."