Rachel’s Rebuttal
Hey everyone, Guest Blogger Charlotte here. You may recall me quoting (or misquoting) my friend Rachel in my previous post. Besides being a great friend, she also has a marvelous intellect and has written out her rebuttal to my post. I thought it deserved it’s own post (with m’s permission). She makes some excellent points - enjoy!
PS> Don’t worry, I survived 
Oh, Charlotte… where to begin???
The Foolish Premise
Your French Revolution analogy is laughably weak for many reasons, but we’ll start with the differences in Responsibility, Quantity, and Proximity.
Responsibility - Marie and Louis were entrusted to govern and protect the people of France who revolted against them. They were responsible for the security and general welfare of the people. When they failed to meet their obligation, the people removed them from their position of responsibility and authority. As of today, when I last checked the news, the United States government and citizens do not have any form of responsibility nor authority over the people of Mexico. Therefore we should not be held accountable for the condition of their country and citizens. This portion of your premise is absurd. We are NOT Marie Antoinette, and we do not deserve beheading as retribution for our comparative prosperity as a society. Success is not evil. Happiness is not something to be punished.
Quantity - The “few aristocrats” of the French Revolution cannot compare in size to the 300-million people in the United States who are “living high on the hog”. I don’t disagree with you that we enjoy a high standard of living in comparison - consider that some 80 or 90% of our “poverty-level” citizens have at least one color television, not to mention the electricity to power it. Comparatively, Mexico, with its 100-million citizens can hardly be compared to the “whole ton of peasants” who stormed the Bastille. Again, I’m not saying the Mexicans aren’t living like, well, hogs - I’m just saying that if they decided to revolt against the US, we wouldn’t exactly be sitting ducks.
Proximity - France, today, includes 260 sq miles (they, of course, would call it 675 sq km) of land. Marie and Louis lived in Versailles, just outside the most densely populated area, in North Central France. They were SURROUNDED by the angry, impoverished, masses. All 10 million sq miles of the United States are safely located north of the 2 million sq miles of Mexico.
So, your assertion of the inevitability of Mexico revolting against the United States, AND WINNING, is logistically ridiculous.
The Faulty Macro-Economics Theory
You’ve stated: “their economy is largely tied to our economy”.
Then, four paragraphs later, you suggest that by sharing what we have with the Mexicans, “Our standard of living will go down. And theirs will rise.” Blatant contradiction.
If our economy suffers (whoops, look like that ship has left the dock) and our standard of living goes down, guess what will happen to the Mexican economy – and the economies of many other developing nations who rely on us for a major portion of their income through imports, tariffs, outsourced jobs, and just plain handouts? They will suffer! Don’t believe me? Here’s a news excerpt from March 1, 2008.
The world’s hungry soon will find even slimmer pickings when it comes to emergency food aid from the United States, whose humanitarian relief agency is scaling back amid skyrocketing global prices, The Washington Post reports.
The U.S. Agency for International Development plans to reduce the number of recipient nations, the amount of food given or a combination, the story says.
Officials based their decision on a 41 percent increase in the cost of wheat, corn, rice and other cereals over the last six months, which resulted in a $120 million budget shortfall that is expected to rise to $200 million by 2009.
You see, macro-economics cannot be interpreted through the scarcity theory wherein there is only so much prosperity to be had and if one recipient gets “more than their fair share” then another recipients gets jilted. In reality, prosperity begets prosperity. The more resources we have, the more resources we can apply towards innovations, technological advances, and efficiency improvements which will not only foster more prosperity, but will also benefit the rest of mankind. (Struggling to think of examples? How about the MIOX Water Purification System for bringing safe, clean water to developing countries? How about penicillin?)
Who are you calling HYSTERICAL?!?!?!?!?!
Just because my voice raises an octave and my eyes become as big around as dinner plates when I discuss this topic doesn’t mean I’m wrong.
Illegal immigrants are taking American jobs. And stop believing that line about them being “jobs American’s don’t want”. That’s merely an excuse for allowing slavery to exist in the United States once again, and this time we’re importing our slaves from Mexico instead of Africa. Allowing “undocumented workers” to come pick lettuce for 50 cents and hour doesn’t help our economy or theirs.
Illegal immigrants are draining our healthcare system. A disproportionate number of them do deal drugs, bring gangs and violent crime, and kill people. Please don’t even try to pretend these things do not negatively affect our culture.
Mexican immigrants engage in these activities for multiple reasons. One reason is that extreme poverty is directly correlated to these particular types of crime. Another reason is because illegal immigrants have little respect for the laws and values of the United States. This is a result of the culture and environment from which they come. My company has a manufacturing facility in Monterrey, Mexico and I am in charge of all information technology for the plant. After 3 years, we have thus far been unable to reach our profit goals from that facility for a few key reasons: theft (external and internal), unexpected security costs (including the need to hire three armed guards per shift instead of one), and incredibly high employee turnover.
You can accuse me of stereotyping if you wish, but the people of Mexico have lived and learned an entirely different culture in which corruption, theft and crime are either practiced, tolerated, or ignored out of fear of reprisal.
If we allow Mexican immigrants (illegal now, or “legal” at some point by act of Congress) they will come in greater numbers. They will work for very cheap wages. Some of those wages will return to Mexico, and more of the Mexicans will come to the United States. Our welfare, healthcare and education systems will collapse under the strain. Mexico itself would come to resemble a spoiled, irresponsible college student who gets an allowance from Mom and Dad, uses it to buy beer and women, and never shows up to class or applies himself to earn that college degree and start a career of his own.
What Jacob Said
You have misinterpreted Jacob’s words to the Nephites. You also try to take God’s admonition to man and apply it to our nation collectively, which is pure folly at best, and at worst is one of Satan’s tools to deceive and lead mankind to destruction.
- “the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches”
- Seeking riches is not wrong. In fact, it is a blessing from God – one we should accept and for which we should be grateful. Riches allow you to accomplish great things, including building the Kingdom of God.
- “because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are alifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they”
- Jacob isn’t saying that wearing costly apparel is wrong, he says that being lifted up in the pride of your hearts is wrong. It is a sin to believe that you are better than someone else because of your riches. So, if I believe that I am better than impoverished Mexicans, or citizens of any developing country, or anyone in the world – that’s when I’m in big trouble.
- “And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.”
- Like I said, big trouble. But, don’t forget what the previous verse clearly stated. We will be punished for our pride, not our wealth.
You will argue, of course, that resisting illegal immigration is an outward manifestation of pride. For some individuals, you may be right. And God will decide to which individuals that applies, and he will condemn them. You cannot. Nor can you “save them” from condemnation by electing members of Congress who will grant amnesty to 35 million people. Oh, and by the way, you can’t save yourself that way, either. Judgment day won’t be a high school band competition where we all get judged on our performance as a country. We will stand as individuals. We will either progress to the next level of competition alone, or get on the bus back to Boise, all by ourselves.
You paraphrase Jacob as having said: “we may have worked for what we have but we don’t deserve it any more than the next person because God gave us everything we have.” You add: “We are so blessed to be born in America with all the resources and opportunities that we have.”
Although you took some liberties in extrapolating Jacob’s words, you are absolutely correct in both statements. But now let’s consider how God wants us to employ the riches and bounty with which we’ve been blessed.
God has instructed us to be good stewards of those resources. He has instructed us to help the poor and needy, often specifically mentioning the widows, orphans, blind and otherwise afflicted. King Benjamin taught us that we cannot judge whether a person is worthy of our assistance, and we cannot assume that they have brought about their poor circumstances themselves. We are instructed to help and serve our fellow men regardless of their circumstances. Clearly we agree on this point. But, consider the good Samaritan. When he found the man in the road, did he drop a bagful of cash and walk on? Did he walk straight to the local publican’s house and let him know that he should send someone to help? No, he took personal responsibility to feed, clothes, shelter and treat the man himself. Again, please correlate the good Samaritan to an individual, not an entire society or nation. We will only be blessed for, and judged upon, our own individual actions and the contents of our own hearts.
‘So, What Should We Do?’ Part I: Individual Responsibility
As individuals, we must live according to the example of Christ and the teachings of the prophets. Seek after the bounty and blessings of this land, and then give of your bounty and of yourself. Give to those in need without judgment. And give wisely, in ways that will be most beneficial and not wasteful. We are told not to judge those in need, but we should make wise judgments about where to send our money and spend our efforts. If I may offer some suggestions:
- Research the charities to which you donate and make sure a sufficient percentage of your money will reach the intended recipients, not just pay the salaries of administrative staff.
- Give of your time and talents, not just your money. Volunteer to be a Big Brother or Big Sister. I can tell you from experience this is incredibly rewarding and will teach you much about yourself as you serve as a role model and friend to a young person in your own community.
- Instead of just dropping a few bucks in the red kettle during the holiday season, consider participating in the Salvation Army’s Adopt-A-Family program.
- Rather than just participating in walks and races for various forms of cancer, volunteer to drive cancer patients to their treatments and back home.
- The Salvation Army also has a program which pairs volunteers with families in need of mentoring – you can teach a young mother how to care for children, teach a struggling couple how to create and follow a budget, help a father improve his skills and prepare for job interviews, and help people of all kinds learn important life skills so they can seek and obtain the blessing and bounty this country offers.
‘So, What Should We Do?’ Part I: Public Policy
I’ve said this already, but it warrants repeating. When we leave this earth, we will not be judged by God as a Nation based on the laws we pass. A government exists, at the will of the governed, to protect the Freedom of its citizens. They do not exist to impose the moral laws upon its citizens by which they will individually be judged by God. To do so eliminates the free agency of the individual, and yes, I believe this to be evil and exactly the plan Satan had in mind for us. One third of the host of heaven thought it sounded like a good idea in the pre-existence – a sure-fire, fast-track back to glory. Apparently, a good portion of the population of the United States thinks it would be a good idea now that we are here in our second estate. But, governments must operate very differently from individuals in order to protect the Freedom of it citizens.
The United States must protect the Freedom of US citizens to pursue wealth and prosperity, and leave to the citizens the choice of how to use the wealth they obtain. Another quick lesson in economics… If they choose to use that wealth to build homes and schools for people in Honduras, they will be blessed for their choice, and the people of Honduras will benefit. If they choose to buy a yacht and sail around the world, the yacht maker will be able to employ a designer, a foreman, a carpenter, an upholsterer, and a warehouse janitor. Those five employees will be able to buy bananas at the grocery store that were grown and picked in Honduras. The people of Honduras will benefit and God gets to decide what to do with the guy in the yacht. We don’t. You can’t assume that God will condemn him for buying a yacht.
But, I digressed back into the Personal Responsibility section – back to public policy. The US must:
- Enforce illegal immigration laws that already exist, punishing illegal immigrants and the companies who employ them illegally
- Eliminate incentives that draw illegal immigrants to this country (healthcare, welfare, education, sanctuary cities, etc…)
- Increase efforts to secure the border – no, it won’t stop everyone, but removing the incentives (see above) will give them a lot fewer people to try to stop
- Eliminate restrictions and laws that hinder free trade so that all countries may participate in the global marketplace and benefit according to the value of their natural resources and productivity.
- Allow the free market to demonstrate to Mexico (and all nations) that US companies will bring jobs and revenue to their countries if and when they provide a favorable environment.
We must defend our country and our way of life, and continue to strive to improve our standard of living. That is our responsibility as a nation and a world leader.
To return to the French Revolution analogy…
As I’ve said, it is unrealistic to imagine that a country with 1/3 the population, 1/5 the land mass, and a Gross Domestic Product that is 1/16 of ours would march their little People’s Army across the Rio Grande to storm our Bastille (what, all the way to Washington, D.C.?) and overthrow our government, or in some other way execute or enslave the American people.
However,
There is one possible scenario in which the US could be overthrown by Mexico and “beheaded”. That is, if we construct the guillotine, march ourselves to it, and help the executioner to pull the rope. And that is EXACTLY what you have proposed. We can be overcome from within, and you are suggesting that we throw open our doors and let in millions of people who, you yourself believe, are going to come in anyway even if we did try to stop them. You have said that they will conquer us if we don’t give them a healthy share of what they are trying to steal. So, you acknowledge that they have both the ability and the desire to take what is not theirs. And yet, rather than resists, you wish to appease them and hope that it will result in some beautiful, Utopian “synergy” by which we can all just get along. Has history shown that tactic to be very successful? Let me think for a minute. Umm… No!!
The last line of your posting was the most comical. “…in the end, it’s all going to equal out. Wouldn’t you rather it be on your terms?”
My terms?? I’m sorry, but my terms are not to roll over and allow myself to be victimized. I choose to stand up and defend my Freedom, my way of life, my standard of living, and my choice to give and share with others of my own free will. And I will defend that right on behalf of my children, grandchildren, and my great, great, great grand-children. Because that is the first and most important gift with which God has blessed this land and this nation. Freedom to choose is the gift he gave us each as individuals, even before he gave us a savior, or a body. If we don’t value, protect, and defend our Freedom, then no other temporal blessings matter.
Wrong Queen, Wrong Louis
Finally, and trivial though it might be, the phrase “Let them eat cake” was probably never spoken by Marie Antoinette. It is actually a mis-translation of a statement by Maria Theresa of Spain (wife of Louis the 14th) who actually said “Let them eat the crust of the pate.”
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
March 14, 2008 5:45 pm
By m, March 14, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
I agree the French Revolution comparison is weak, although the main analogy, Have’s vs. Have-Not’s, does ring true.
In terms of macro theory, it seems like Charlotte got caught in the zero-sum fallacy of wealth. I agree our economies are positively linked.
“Allowing ‘undocumented workers’ to come pick lettuce for 50 cents and hour doesn’t help our economy or theirs.” - I’m not sure what you mean by this. We get cheap labor and they get more money here than they would at home. As long as they aren’t coerced to take the job, that’s the free market in action. Hear, hear!
I believe you’re correct, that illegal immigrants increase the burden on our health care, legal and social welfare systems. However, one thing to understand is the increased value they bring, in terms of cheap labor. If production costs for the vegetables they pick or meat they render or homes they build were to increase by 100, 200 or 500%, we’re going to end up paying for it. So, in return for the value they provide in that sense, they get access to our infrastructure.
You say: “If we allow Mexican immigrants… they will come in greater numbers.” Frankly, since I see the cheap labor as a good thing, I don’t see a problem with this, on our side. The real problem, I think, is the stagnation Mexico experiences because the only people left are the only ones not capable of getting out. I think that’s one of the reasons we’ve been commanded us to gather in our stakes in order to build up Zion.
“…please correlate the good Samaritan to an individual, not an entire society or nation. We will only be blessed for, and judged upon, our own individual actions and the contents of our own hearts.” - I think this statement can be dangerous. Certainly, what we do on a day-to-day basis is important, if for nothing else than because it happens every day, over and over again. But, when we have an opportunity to enhance the lives of millions, we will be held accountable for our part in that opportunity.
It’s funny that you have a protectionist perspective (in terms of immigration) but you said this: “The United States must protect the Freedom of US citizens to pursue wealth and prosperity”. I don’t think cutting a segment of people willing to enter the job market is going to enhance our wealth and prosperity.
I say, let the market decide who comes and who doesn’t. If somebody commits a legitimate crime, they should be dealt with. But if wanting to come here and better your life and that of your family were a crime, there’s a ton of Mormons who wouldn’t be here right now.
By Ailene Hert, March 15, 2008 @ 6:06 am
Again, I don’t mind if people come here… I just think they should make an effort to do it legally! Since I think many readers here are from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, I’ll quote the 12th Article of Faith:
We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
In essense, we must be law abiding citizens. Immigrants, cheap labor or not, must also be law abiding citizens. Sure… illegal immigration might be a minor crime as opposed to murder… but it’s still illegal, nonetheless. You’re either in accordance with the laws of the land, or you are not. There isn’t an in between.
By Ailene Hert, March 15, 2008 @ 6:09 am
Oh, and there are ways for those that are not citizens of the county to legally work in our country as well… so, if they are not citizens and want to work here… they should work here legally too (and if they are working legally, I could care less that they aren’t official citizens).
By m, March 15, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
@Ailene: I completely agree that people should obey the law. It’s funny, because the one thing we do know about illegal immigrants is that they’re willing to break the law to come over.
However, my point is that the laws should be changed to allow more people to come over. In fact, since it’s so important to obey the law, I think we should be more careful about the laws we make…
By Ailene Hert, March 17, 2008 @ 6:33 am
I don’t know what current laws the immigrants have to go through to become citizens or to work here. I don’t think citizenship or the ability to work should just be handed to them. I think that they should be able to speak English, understand and obey the laws of the land, as well as be able to establish a decent job over here to provide for their families. Obviously different circumstances would warrant different arrangements… but those, I think, are the basics…
By Tearese, March 17, 2008 @ 9:31 am
Just thought it was funny…the repeated acknowledgment that seeking riches or being rich is not wrong…true…but did you know that the Catholic Church has just declared that having excessive wealth is now a major sin? Tsk, tsk.
Not that that has anything to do with anything.
By Charlotte, March 17, 2008 @ 11:53 am
I would just like to point out that what Ailene and M and Heidi are saying is MY WHOLE POINT. We need to change the laws to make it legal for them to come here. Everyone should obey the laws. And the laws should be made for the people, not the other way around. Loved your point about the free market M - i agree.
By Ailene Hert, March 17, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Hmm… actually I didn’t say that the laws should be changed. I don’t know what the current laws ARE… so I can’t say whether or not they should be changed. However, I can say that whatever the laws are… however convenient or inconvenient they may be, that they should be followed.
By Charlotte, March 18, 2008 @ 5:29 am
I’m sorry Ailene - what I meant when I said “what Ailene is saying…is my whole point” was that I AGREE that the immigrants need to follow our laws. I’m not saying we should just “roll over and play dead” (as Rachel put it). My suggestion (not yours) is that our immigration laws are broken and need to be changed. Sorry that I didn’t make that clear enough.
By Ailene Hert, March 18, 2008 @ 6:15 am
Hmmm… interesting theory. However, there are many laws that are broken. Just because a law is broken doesn’t mean that we should change our laws to make what they are doing legal… perhaps this may be an extreme case of your point… but what if we decided to legalize street drugs, and lower the drinking age, just because so many people currently break that law?
I don’t know if that’s what you’re saying or not… but I personally wouldn’t change immigration laws just based on the fact that so many people break them. In general, people need to conform to the law… not the law to the people. (There are some exceptions, being that we live in a democracy, but I think the general rule applies in this case).
By rnlockett, March 18, 2008 @ 8:37 am
Right on, Ailene!
The current immigration laws are inconvenient (waah-waah-wahh). It takes time - in many cases months or years - to complete the process of legally immigrating to the US. And, there are limits on the number of people who can immigrate from each country. Obviously the number allowed from Mexico is a bit less than 35 million per year.
However, these laws should not be changed. The reason they are in place is so that every immigrant can go undergo a thorough process which includes background checks and a minimal amount of education on the laws and government of their new country. Finally, they are asked to pledge allegiance to the United States of America. These things are necessary, and I believe they should be made MORE stringent! Especially in this age of terrorism and international warfare, I believe we should put new immigrants through even more thorough screening and education - not less!
Finally, it is important to limit the numbers of immigrants from each country. As I’ve said before, allowing “everyone” to leave Mexico and come to America will not improve their economy. It will damage ours, and it will leave no one in Mexico but those who are unable to leave.
Immigration reform is needed, but not in the direction Charlotte and others are seeking.
By Ailene Hert, March 18, 2008 @ 10:04 am
rnlockett said legal immigrants must “undergo a thorough process which includes background checks and a minimal amount of education on the laws and government of their new country. Finally, they are asked to pledge allegiance to the United States of America.”
On those points, I agree that those steps are still necessary for legal immigration.
I am not certain of what other immigration laws there are, so I can’t state my opinion of the current laws… I just know that if it’s law, it should be followed (and I’ve stated that about a million times now… :))