-=> On 04-09-98  15:11, Jean Halverson did testify and affirm <=-
-=> to Robert Craft concerning California and Hispan <=-
 
 JH> snip-- 
 
 MA> In both cases, those seeking hope and liberty, followed the
 MA> nothern star in hopes of realizing their dreams. In both
 MA> cases, those who wrap themselves in unjust and inhumane
 MA> law, armed and deadly, stand in their way. 
 
 RC> Again, more hyperbole. The liberality and openness of US
 RC> immigration policies are exceeded by very few countries. 
 
 JH> But just because our laws are more lenient than others does
 JH> that mean our laws in this respect are correct? 
 
 RC> That depends upon what you consider the purpose of
 RC> immigrantion and naturalization policy. 
 JH> The history of the laws suggests that the reasons are to
 JH> maintain a distinctly white, european country. Sounds
 JH> racist to me. 
No, it's not racist - it's discriminatory. And, before you
jump at that, just remember: every time one makes a choice,
one is discriminating between alternatives. No one is
making any judgements about the value or virtues of any
race. The goal is simply to maintain a consistent national
demography and culture.
 JH> I'm not saying that people should disregard our laws, but
 JH> rather that our laws (as well as the Aryan ideology behind
 JH> them) are morally wrong. 
 
 RC> What is morally wrong with formulating an immigration
 RC> policy which reflects the population demographics or our
 RC> national origin?
 
 JH> Your national origin and maybe my national origin, but for
 JH> what reason? 
Because a country is it's culture and it's peoples. Given
the two century success of current and previous policy,
it's rather foolhardy to be making abrupt changes
*particularly* in the absence of any evidence of the
efficacy of those changes.
::snip::
 JH> But there is a higher standard that we have to compare our
 JH> actions to. The real question is not whether our laws are
 JH> more lenient than x country's laws, but instead how do our
 JH> laws compare to the higher standard? 
 
 RC> What higher standard? 
 
 JH> God's standard.
I'm not being flip, but exactly where in the Bible does God
address immigration? Seems to me that's one of the items
falling under "Render unto Caesar...".
 JH> Why do we have to consider immigrants based on our
 JH> demographics? Sounds rather Swedish to me.
Because a country is it's peoples and it's culture and
you've shown no cause to change either of them. 
 RC> BTW, the ONLY totalitarian regime from which refugees can
 RC> reach us without passing thru some other country in which
 RC> they could take refuge is Cuba. Ignoring for the moment the
 RC> occasional North Korean who jumps ship in an American
 RC> harbor, the majority of hardship refugee immigrants should
 RC> be Cuban.
 JH> You don't consider China a totalitarian regime? 
Of course it is, but other than those escaping the
occasional slave ship, refugees from China don't make it
here without first going thru some other country in which
they could seek refuge. 
BTW, the GAO just announced that 9.6% of current American
residents were born elsewhere. That hardly reflects a
repressive immigration policy. 
... Clinton flunked the SHINOLA test.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0
---------------