Imigration

[Thorne]

but if it were a choice between allocating some small part of my taxes to help desparate "outsiders" or to direct that money to some other civic purpose instead, I would vote to give aid every time.

So you would choose desperate outsiders over desperate insiders? This is totally beyond my comprehension.

But then you say you would willingly feed the world if you could, because it would be the right thing to do.

That, Thorne, is so true and shows a spark of humanity through the cold, emotionless facade you like to present to us all.

Damn! And I thought I hid it so well!

You family is lucky to have someone to support them. How many illegal aliens are so fortunate? Should they be deprived of the support society can easily afford because they are in a wretched situation already?

Easily afford? This country is in debt up to our eyeballs, our future mortgaged away to line the pockets of corrupt politicians. The last thing we can afford is to keep throwing money into endless pool of illegals!

I suggest that what you are describing is not evolution (survival of the fittest) but the development of a sophisticated social structure, and, perhaps, an economy.

I suggest it is both. Cooperation and compassion have been observed in other primates, and other animals as well. Sophisticated social structures had to evolve from less sophisticated ones over time. It is a matter of both biological and cultural evolution.

What makes a child better than an old man?

Aside from the fact that or biological make-up leads us to protect the children, a child has far more potential value to society than an old man who has already lived the bulk of his life.

Would you actually pass a frail and feeble old man to save a healthy and agile child?

I would, and if I were the old man I would encourage any rescuer to do the same. Despite being healthy and agile, the child is much more likely to panic and be unable to escape on his own. Ideally, of course, I would like to save both, but if forced to choose, the child would win out every time.

How are we supposed to extend this analogy to young (mostly) illegal immigrants and the (generally) older US citizenry?

The analogy breaks down because, with few exceptions, the "child" is relatively safe and demanding a glass of water while the "old man" is in need of medical care and assistance that they "child" can get elsewhere.

Can you not see that, if I as an illegal alien, know I am going to be deported once I have been fed and cured or delivered of my baby, I would rather starve, suffer (and infect), and risk my new baby's very life than reveal myself to the hospital?

If they are willing to risk their child's life rather than be sent home, do we really want to bother helping them?

Forget "inhumane" - we are talking about economic migrants, mostly. What about simple human sympathy?

I do feel sympathy. But they are illegal, and should be subject to the law. I would also feel sympathy for a mother who killed her children in a fit of depression. I would still want her locked away in prison, but I'd be sympathetic.