Imigration

[MMI]

But what are you supposed to do when you offer your neighbor help and he refuses it? And not only refuses it, but keeps tossing burning embers towards your house?

Now the metaphor escapes me. Who the hell would do that? Are you implying that illegal imigrants have a death wish or are all pyromaniacs?

No, we are not responsible for each other. Or not every other person. We accept responsibility for some, and those we help as much as we can. But I, for one, will not accept responsibility for every hungry person in the world.

We accept responsibility for people who are the same as us?

It is, in fact, our argument that it is in USA's own best interests to tolerate illegal immigrants, because the benefits it receives are greater than the costs if has to pay.

You think not?

... by no means an unbiased article, and I reject it completely.

A quote from that article: "The latest flap is about a booklet produced by the Mexican government that is targeted at those Mexicans that may be considering crossing the border illegally. Some radical sites are even suggesting "It is a guide on how to enter the US illegally. It is an act of war. It is part of a long-term plan to flood the US, particularly California and the Southwest, with illegal Mexicans...". [emphasis mine

Interesting that those radical sites talk of acts of war. One wonders if that justifies the deaths that the Mexican Government seeks to help its nationals avoid. I realise that in opposing right-wing extremists one also opposes the racist killers among them, but I didn't realise that the murders carried out by this group had reached such numbers that the Mexican Government had to take steps to warn people of the risks they faced, even if it cannot stop them.

I consider it to be a deliberate twisting of the truth to say that this publication demonstrates that Mexico is "exporting" its problems.

Except that sometimes you have to let some patients die in order to save others because you don't have the resources for all.

No-one would disagree: sometimes you have to make a brutal choice, whatever side of the argument you support.

The greatest number who can be saved with the resources at hand should get the aid. Giving everything to a few desperate cases only pushes those less desperate into a more desperate position. Spreading the resources to as many as possible, though, will lift many out of desperation, while leaving a relative few in a more desperate situation. That's triage: saving as many as possible with what you have.

By that logic, does not the European Union stand first in line for handouts for its poor, followed by the USA, then Japan and China ... These organisations/countries are the wealthiest, so the need is less and can be spread furthest. It does make a kind of sense, I have to admit.

Non-sense.