Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011 From: The Old Pueblo Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether I have a question about the understanding of the conservative philosophy as it relates to border security.... Often I hear many a conservative wish, desire, demand, and yes, even threaten the nation to be a "limited government". And while not one conservative has yet to fully explain what that would mean to myself. I'm confronted by another concept from the same philosophy: tighter border security. I do not see how these two concepts, 'Tighter Border Security' and 'Limited Government' could operate together. Since 'Tighter Border Security' would mean more people being paid with government funds (local, state, and/or federal). And that those of 'Limited Government' want less people in government (i.e. less people being paid government money). Could some of the conservatives on here, whom have been raging against the President for tighter border security, while at the same time, demanding limited government, explain how this apparent contradiction can possibly operate in a sane fashion? Both sides have their pet issues and various causes which sometimes come into conflict with their stated principles. The problem is that they're never really totally honest when they say "limited government." They just want to pick and choose which areas government should be allowed to interfere and which areas they shouldn't be allowed to interfere. I never really thought they were sincere about "limited government." But when it comes to border security, another incongruity which I find striking is that conservatives were very much in support of NAFTA and removing barriers of trade and commerce between the US, Canada, and Mexico. Conservatives were strongly pushing for that with all their political muscle and capital. Mexico is supposedly an ally and friend of the United States as well, a policy which has been strongly supported by liberals and conservatives. But then, the border is such a hostile, crime-ridden place, where so many people feel the need to turn it into some kind of 2000-mile-long armed camp of some sort. So, somebody in Washington has to make up their fucking minds: Does the United States consider Mexico to be a friend or an enemy? If they're a friend, then let's treat them as friends and conduct our border and immigration policies accordingly and humanely. I think that's within the spirit of our stated "good neighbor" policy. But if we want to abandon that policy and consider Mexico to be an enemy, then there will be consequences for that to both nations. I don't blame conservatives entirely for the problems we're facing now, since liberals have had their hand in it as well. But what frustrates me about a lot of conservatives (and some liberals too) is they seem to wantonly deny the cause and effect relationship between events, actions, and consequences. They seem to be satisfied with specious arguments which sound good on the surface, but without much analysis or delving into issues too deeply.
|