You are currently browsing the archives for the immigration category.
- cultural/racial (30)
- economy (18)
- foreign policy (4)
- immigration (5)
- Islam (3)
- multiculturalism (13)
- natural law and rights (30)
- Personal (1)
- philosophy (82)
- politics (73)
- sex (4)
- Theology (40)
- Uncategorized (6)
- worldview (11)
- 18. February 2012: The concept of Biblical slavery, and America's prison system
- 29. January 2012: The wives of others (covetousness and the perils of social liberalism)
- 16. January 2012: America, Rome, and military expenditures
- 28. December 2011: Jesus: the true American Dream
- 17. December 2011: The question of peaceable assembly and local government
- 14. December 2011: The moral parameters of private lending (a case against usury)
- 3. December 2011: Why true conservatives do not attend AIDS rallies
- 23. November 2011: Sexual harassment policy in America
- 22. November 2011: Are markets intrinsically moral?
- 14. November 2011: How Jewish land reform can end American socialism
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- January 2009
Archive for the immigration Category
Concerning the protection of Americans abroad
18. July 2011 by admin.
To what extent must Americans sacrifice to protect their citizens abroad? This question was recently raised by the sitting American President, as he sought to avoid the death penalty for a notorious Mexican national who had raped and murdered a young girl on US soil. Obama’s concern, not unconsidered by many other Americans, asserts that if Americans execute foreign nationals, traveling Americans may be subjected to the judicial decisions of far less civilized countries, perhaps unfairly. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in foreign policy, natural law and rights, immigration, philosophy, politics | Print | 4 Comments »
Quitting kumbaya: why division is necessary
7. March 2011 by admin.
The other day, I greatly offended an Arabic associate of mine. During a conversation about the social contract, I tried to use an example of a group forming themselves into a nation, and I had begun the example with the statement, “suppose that a group of people like you were to get together, and decide to build your own country, with your own laws.”
His objection to my statement was that Christians and conservatives oftentimes enjoy separating themselves from everyone else, that we believe that people like him are not part of our group, that we in essence discriminate. In this particular instance, I referred to him as people like you, leading toward an idea and an effect which I had not intended. Why, he asked, could we not just all be considered human, and on the same team? Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Islam, natural law and rights, multiculturalism, worldview, immigration, politics, philosophy, cultural/racial | Print | 1 Comment »
What is truly American foreign policy?
15. November 2010 by admin.
In these troublesome times, as the costs of occupation take their toll on both this generation and our children’s children, and as the repercussions of foreign involvement threaten our global standing and security, an increasing constituency of both the left and right are beginning to wonder whether America was ever intended to be an internationally-active force. Citing numerous embarrassments in Middle-Eastern policy, exportation of jobs resulting from a botched free trade, and the flagrant disregard of our trading partners’ injustices, these isolationists, while not incorrect about the problems of foreign involvement, forget that our Founding Fathers never intended us for autarky or isolationism. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in foreign policy, immigration, politics, economy | Print | 1 Comment »
Is it xenophobia? The case for culture
26. September 2010 by admin.
One of the major insults the Left enjoys throwing at conservatives is that we’re xenophobic. Every time the question of amnesty, border control, assimilation, and immigration is raised, it seems the Democrats (and even some high-ranking Republicans) go for the throat, loudly proclaiming that our only reason for serious immigration reform is a deeply-rooted racism, a fear and hatred of other cultures–especially brown and black ones–and a selfishness which keeps us from embracing the poor. Unfortunately, this packs quite an emotional punch: much of the active American public are quick to take action against conservatives solely based upon this concept.
But before addressing the concept of conservative xenophobia, we need to have a clear understanding of Leftism. According to Dictionary.com, Leftism is “A descriptive term for liberal, radical, or revolutionary political views, particularly the view that there are unacceptable social inequalities in the present order of society. Communists and socialists, as well as moderate liberals, come under the term left-wing.” In totality, and especially in regard to the issue of massive and illegal immigration, Leftists are concerned that the welfare of non-citizens is sub-par, and so Leftists want to allow them access to the wealth and political power of our United States. It is this redistributionary stance regarding wealth and power that makes the Leftist a Leftist, and differs sharply from a conservative viewpoint on immigration, which values the immigrant solely based upon their contribution to the American dream by becoming a true-blooded American. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in multiculturalism, immigration, philosophy, politics | Print | No Comments »
The case against “tolerance”
29. August 2010 by admin.
The other day, I had the privilege of watching the television while a smarmy Muslim condescendingly downplayed the significance of the 9/11 mosque controversy. His argument consisted of something along the lines of “Is this what our national dialogue has been reduced to?” As though almost to say that Americans were too culturally insensitive and bigoted to allow the building of a mosque which would overlook Ground Zero. And to be sure, most people who support the building of the mosque adopt this pompous position, pretending that if we truly are tolerant and accepting of other cultures, we should be able to accept the building of an Islamic temple over a building ruined by an Islamically-motivated mass-murder. Surely, they argue, we are beyond squabblings and sensitivities, and we should be able to just accept cohabitation with other cultures.
It is this attitude which precisely highlights the problem with the doctrine of tolerance. While those who accept a multicultural postmodern perspective agree that acceptance must hypothetically occur amongst all in a racially diverse and religiously pluralistic society, the logical mechanics of tolerance suggest that the direction of tolerance can only exist toward one group in any clash of cultures. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in multiculturalism, Islam, immigration, philosophy, cultural/racial | Print | 2 Comments »