Two people with contradictory conclusions can be more alike than two people with identical conclusions.
For instance, let's talk about what to do with illegal immigrants already in this country. Jim and Sally both emphatically believe these people should be able to stay in this country. They conclude the same thing so they will probably be thought of as having similar ideologies, right?
Well, what if Jim is a "greedy" contractor who views illegal immigrants as nothing more than cheap labor with little gumption to revolt against oppressive work standards thus resulting in more profit and less hassle for himself? And what if Sally is genuinely sympathetic to the immigrants' plight and as such believes they should be allowed to stay? The two share no common ideology in this case. They only share a conclusion.
On the other hand, let's say Sally is talking to Bob and they are at odds over what to do with illegal immigrants. Sally believes they should be allowed to stay but Bob thinks otherwise. They must share different ideologies, right?
Well, what if each is motivated by sympathy to peoples' plight but assume Bob is thinking more that the sheer number of illegal immigrants in this country will “cannibalize” social services for the “legal” immigrants and citizens already here? In other words, they are both motivated by sympathy and mercy for people but are at odds over how to engender the desired good for society.
My underlying point is that it seems so often there is much argument concerning conflicting conclusions whereas I think these conflicting conclusions do not necessarily suggest difference in ideology or moral sentiments. But because this is thought to be the case, conflict ensues regarding whose conclusion is right.
And so fosters a lack of understanding which ultimately causes disharmony and precludes “us” from getting along. A primary focus of my viewpoint is that I care less what somebody believes and more why somebody believes.
For instance, let's talk about what to do with illegal immigrants already in this country. Jim and Sally both emphatically believe these people should be able to stay in this country. They conclude the same thing so they will probably be thought of as having similar ideologies, right?
Well, what if Jim is a "greedy" contractor who views illegal immigrants as nothing more than cheap labor with little gumption to revolt against oppressive work standards thus resulting in more profit and less hassle for himself? And what if Sally is genuinely sympathetic to the immigrants' plight and as such believes they should be allowed to stay? The two share no common ideology in this case. They only share a conclusion.
On the other hand, let's say Sally is talking to Bob and they are at odds over what to do with illegal immigrants. Sally believes they should be allowed to stay but Bob thinks otherwise. They must share different ideologies, right?
Well, what if each is motivated by sympathy to peoples' plight but assume Bob is thinking more that the sheer number of illegal immigrants in this country will “cannibalize” social services for the “legal” immigrants and citizens already here? In other words, they are both motivated by sympathy and mercy for people but are at odds over how to engender the desired good for society.
My underlying point is that it seems so often there is much argument concerning conflicting conclusions whereas I think these conflicting conclusions do not necessarily suggest difference in ideology or moral sentiments. But because this is thought to be the case, conflict ensues regarding whose conclusion is right.
And so fosters a lack of understanding which ultimately causes disharmony and precludes “us” from getting along. A primary focus of my viewpoint is that I care less what somebody believes and more why somebody believes.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS CORPORATE WELFARE?
ReplyDeleteThe injury court case of Luis Jimenez, an illegal alien from Guatemala, who was a patient at the Martin Memorial Medical Center in South Florida, will have far reaching impact, regarding mandated laws. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986. Hospital and ambulance services must impart care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay.
The only problem with this is that this federal mandated law never pays the full amount to the institution, if any? So the hospital passes it on to other patients, the insurance company, which once again the costs fall on the taxpayer. Whoever this individual was working for at the time of his accident, should be forced to pay part or all hospital services. Jimenez's lawsuit seeks nearly $1 million to cover the estimated lifetime costs of his care in Guatemala, because the hospital tried to relieve them of the financial burden.
The hospital spent more than $1.5 million on his care, over three years of treatment for his brain damage. If Washington pushes a Path to Citizenship, we can expect spiraling costs for the 20 plus million of legalized person who is already in our sovereign nation. I myself want an alternative to the corruption and greed, shown by insurance companies, which is a government run agency.
By enactment Immigration of reform, millions will demand health care, Pensions, retirement and a rush on government benefits. For those who haven't already cheated the system, will be a major catastrophe for every taxpayer. On being given a green card they can immediately sponsor their family members. Once here, they can immediately place the burden of sick, handicapped and those with mental disorders, in the hands of welfare services.
WE should then be prepared to receive millions of more illegal aliens, who have absconded from their own country, to take advantage of US taxpayers. All Americans should watch this court case carefully, because the implications are sky high taxes. Clogged health care services, education for every child and section 8 housing, along with every benefit, citizens and permanent residents have no knowledge of; will be the absolute outcome of Obama's AMNESTY. Get on the phone and tell your politician, you support THE SAVE ACT . Support for the bi-partisan SAVE Act, which will expand E-Verify and protect American jobs! Focuses on the heart of the problem-the jobs that attract illegal aliens. It would phase in a requirement for every employer to use the electronic verification system. NUMBERSUSA, AMERICANPATROL