Saturday, May 22, 2010

Is there such a thing as an illegal person?


I don't get what people don't get.

There are no such thing as "illegal" people.

We are all God's children on the planet earth.

One of the original sins was Cain killing Able. God was not pleased.

The first principle of Unitarian Universalism is the belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

The UU principal is being violated in Arizona where people are being discriminated against merely because of the color of their skin and hair and how they look.

Why are Unitarian Universalists debating the acceptability of this? Why would Unitarian Universalists want to enable this kind of thinking and this kind of practice of discrimination?

Just because of money?

There comes a time to take a stand, to stand up for what you stand for.

"Nice" UUs want to debate this. The UU ministers are debating a boycott of Arizona. We also believe in the "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" which, like Fox news, leads some to be "fair and balanced" while injustice is perpetrated on God's children.

The problem with Unitarian Universalists is that they are so inclusive that they will fall for anything.

Our Universalist heritage informs us that all of God's children are loved. All the God's children are worthy. All of God's children are legal.

Will we actually practice what we sometimes preach?

9 comments:

  1. I don't get what you are getting at.

    People can't be illegal, only their behaviour...such as crossing the border illegally. Or an employer getting immigration documents for a foreign national.
    The Arizona law doesn't further criminalize these activities. It tells the police to request documentation if they think a person is an illegal immigrant. The problem isn't the behaviour being criminalized (because it's already so), it's with the lack of boundaries in the law. If the law said "Anyone arrested must prove they are a citizen of the United States or legally residing in the US or face deportation" I'd support that.
    Because you can still respect people's inherent worth and dignity, after they commit a crime. But they need to submit to the consequences.
    Finally, what about the separation between church and state? We don't want the government intruding upon our spiritual lives, but we can impose our spirituality on them? What are we, fundie Christians?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think it should be a human right for people to freely move about the planet. The ethnocentric idea that people can only exist in certain places I find offensive. I am advocating for a cosmocentric perspective where human beings are welcome anywhere on the planet.

    If an ethnocentric policy is to prevail then anyone in that jurisdiction should have to submit to the same authentification procedures and produce citizenship documentation. This leads to national ID cards for every American subject to presentation at any time otherwise face the risk of detention. Do we really want to live in this kind of country?

    The problem with the law in Arizona is that it does not subject all its citizens to the necessity of presenting birth certificates only some of its residents.

    With the birther controversy which has rattled this country the last few years about its president, the idea that residents have to "prove" their citizenship is fraught with many destructive unintended consequences which I find quite frightening and repulsive.

    I am thinking, perhaps mistakenly, that most Unitarian Universalists are cosmocentric, but I recognize that a great number are ethnocentric and probably even egocentric. I think it is in the best interest of homo sapiens to move the species along to a cosmocentric orientation. The survival of our species depends on it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David, I think you have both overstated the case and conflated elements of it clouding your thinking about the Arizona law. I suspect too, that you have not read thoroughly and understood exactly what the Arizona law says. It is, of course, the immigration status i.e. legality of of persons stopped in AZ that is at issue, not their appearance or nationality. Racial profiling is what most object to. It seems obvious to me that profiling will necessarily be a factor, and the prejudice and hatred that, unfortunately, so many have toward North Americans of native American origin will contribute to it. Your notion of freedom to travel across borders without restriction and interference is quaint, but unfathomable in any near future. Meanwhile, I suggest we re-work the North American free trade legislation that so harshly affects Mexicans. If North Americans had the ability to live and work anywhere in North America, like those living in the Euro zone, immigration problems would disappear. Hatred of 'the other' wouldn't, but we'd be a lot closer to the global family I understand you envision.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Jeremy:

    I love the idea of a North American free zone similar to what exists in Europe.

    Thank you for your excellent comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. We have a defacto free zone in Arizona, as it does not have a fence or wall as Texas and California do, making it impossible to stop illegal entry. So let's look at the results: according to the DEA and the Justice Dept., Mexico is the nation's #1 supplier of marijuana, cocaine, and methedrine. Those last two are destroying hundreds of thousands of lives here in the US. On the other hand, massive amounts of money and guns are flowing south across the border, resulting in thousands of deaths and civil destabilization in Mexico. Which of these are the good things that make you want to erase all borders?

    ReplyDelete
  6. We learned in the 20s and 30s that prohibition does not work. Drugs need to be legalized, taxed, and sold in government licensed dispensaries.

    This one thing would eliminate the need for guns and borders for the purpose of drug control. The US government now admits that the "war on drugs" is a failure and that we need to work on the demand side of the equation through prevention and treatment programs and scale back significantly if not totally on the supply side.

    I could site all the references to back up my assertions but I don't have time right now and I suspect you can find the information on your own if you are so inclined.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You want to legalize and dispense meth? And cocaine? Marijuana is one thing, heroin another, and meth is another level. And I don't want to pay for some junkie to get clean, and then reuse and then get clean again. I want my taxes to go to support services for me, you know, subsidized student loans and free health care.

    I agree with Jeremy, your idea of a cosmocentric planet is quaint. As are your fears about a national ID card. Spain has national ID cards, and when you travel abroad you're supposed to carry your passport to present when asked.

    Second, you forget about terrorism and you seem to want to glorify Unitarian Universalists as better than others because they are cosmocentric. Terrorism does exist in this world and is a problem. As for the UUs, we are nothing special and the UU hippies are behind the times.

    America is not a liberal nation, and will never be. Look at American history.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Unfortunately, people often formulate their arguments without taking into consideration the facts. As Senator Daniel Moynihan said, "People are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

    The fact is that tobacco is the deadliest drug in America and kills over 410,000 Americans every year. Street drugs kill about 30,000. Why is tobacco legal, taxed, and so widely tolerated while other drugs are not.

    Further Alcohol kills another 100,000 people per year and also is taxed and retail establishments are licensed by the state to dispense it.

    The two deadliest drugs in America which kill over half a million every year are easily tolerated but street drugs are not. This aging hippie may be growing older, but I have grown up and I see the world for what it is and people who would spend billions of dollars and millions of lives fighting street drugs are way off base when it comes to over all public health.

    Having a "cosmocentric orientation" is not "quait" but here and the capitalists are way ahead of us religious people with their so called "global ecomomy" and the world bank is running the world in case you haven't noticed.

    As far as Unitarian Universalists being special, I think they are or I wouldn't be associating with them, I would still be a Roman Catholic.

    Further about 16,000 Americans have been killed in drunk diving crashes for the last 10 years. That's about 130,000 since 9/11. How many Americans have been killed by terrorists since that time.

    You will not be killed by a terrorist, trust me. You might be killed by a drunk driver tonight. That's a threat you should be more worried about.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You bet money matters.

    If you think it doesn't, you pay the $600K to move GA out of AZ.

    Do you have that kind of change lying around your house?

    ReplyDelete