On Sun, 2004-12-26 at 19:57 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Such a ridiculous platform statement totally ignores history, and > the propensity of human nature in such things as greed, abuse of > power, and theft, and all kinds of things present not only in > today's world, but the entire history of the human race. As long > as that human condition prevails in human nature, open borders is > never going to be considered to become a realistic practical > option for this country, and probably most other countries, > although Europe seems to be find a way to largely erase borders, > and only time will tell if that ultimately will become workable. > In other words, given the two-thousand plus years of European > history, the European Union is only a small scratch on the > surface of such history. The history of US immigration policies also shows that our current restrictive polices are of fairly recent history. The INS was created in 1891, and as such has been in business less than half of our history, though approaching it. The INS' roots appear to be in 1882 with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Indeed, look at the timeline involved. The CEA was set to expire in 1992. The purpose of the CEA was to cut down immigrant Chinese workers. It was not until 1950 that the INS had anything to do with security related immigration. Prior to 1950 INS was tasked with maintaining ethnic/racial proportions and keeping out Asian immigrants. 1950 brought about the Internal Security Act (ISA) which "barred admission to any foreigner who might engage in activities that would be prejudicial to the public interest or would endanger the welfare or safety of the United States. It permitted deportation of non-citizens who belong to the U.S. Communist Party or whose future activities might be "subversive to the national security."" and was aimed primarily at Communists. In 1952 the McCarran-Walter Act *decreased* the restrictions on racial quotas and limitations. Clearly a step more toward an open borders policy than toward tighter restrictions. This was followed in 1965 when Congress finally eliminated race as a considered criteria. In 1990 the limit on legal immigration was raised to 700,000. Another step toward more open borders. So backtracking through history it appears that the US only used immigration as a "keep out nasties" as opposed to racial biases in the last 54 years, about a quarter of it's history. Which part of history does the LP platform ignore? Historically, such as when looking at "the entire history" of the human race, it was terribly impractical to have such an immigration policy. Many argue that even today it is still not solvable. I am part of that group. As many libertarians I have had the pleasure of discussing immigration with agree, the INS actually has a role in a libertarian government, though much limited in comparison today. We believe in an INS that serves solely to screen for criminal undesirables. Take the NSA of 1950, subtract the whole racial thing, remove all quotas and numerical limits to immigration and you've got a pretty good idea. Keep out criminals and terrorists, and that's it. Not that doing so is a small feat. It involves certain levels of trust in foreign governments. But there are ways to deal with that which are likely off topic here. So I fail to see how history shows us that open immigration is not-workable, nor replete with problems. > Also, the open borders thing in Europe is creating new issues, > not only in terms of legal wrangling with laws on the books in > various member states, but with religious growth of islamic > immigration in France, Germany, the Netherlands, and other member > states. There is also an apparent growth of neo-fascism growing > in France and Germany (perhaps also in the Netherlands) in very > recent times as a result of a growing and sizable muslim > community. And then, there is desecration of Jewish institutions > in France of recent note, likely by muslim fundamentalists, and > the backlash to all of this may become a growing trend depending > upon the outcome of America's new emphasis upon occupation of > islamic states and our growing propensity to invoke military > force for regime changes is such states. Yet Germany and France have not only not partaken of the efforts in Iraq, they staunchly/weakly opposed it. Yet they are being targeted by Islamic fundamentalists. Why do you suppose that is? Are they perhaps being targeted for religious reasons, maybe they fundamentalists figure that they didn't do enough to stop the US/UK/Others and are thus as guilty? Why do you suppose a Muslim flood into Europe resulting in acts of terrorism and destruction are a result of the US actions, when the two countries you mentioned were against it? Is it not possible that the motivations of the terrorists and fundamentalists are much more simple and not as intertwined with US foreign policy as you presume? > > So, I suspect that you are really offering a 'reactionary' > adjunct to the 'Christmas story' evening showing up at all. > Perhaps you don't like Christianity and have no use for it. At > the same time, millions of others relate to it in a very close > fashion, and in this sense, the message isn't proselytizing in > nature, but a story that many people around this planet still > believe is true and sacred. It is the story in which America's > most favourite holiday originated! That story won't disappear, > and based upon my observations again this year, Christmas in > America isn't likely to disappear either any time soon! Well you certainly go to some far lengths to show why you posting such overtly religious posts are on topic, I'll grant you that. Of course, using the justification you gave above would open the door to a lot of annualized story posts you'd likely call off-topic despite matching the qualifications you posted. Especially given the pagan roots of Christmas. Christmas actually did disappear from a significant portion of America in the past. The Puritans banned it after rediscovering the pagan roots (England and the Massachusetts Colony 1659-1681 - the penalty in Boston was 5 schillings). Indeed after the American Revolution Christmas fell out of favor as it was considered an "English tradition" not to return to popularity for many years resulting in the eventual declaration of federal holiday until June 26, 1870 - close to 100 years into the nation's history. The whole act of the "Christmas" tree, the decorating, the silver and gold, the date, the wreaths, holly, mistletoe, even the name "Yule" is of pagan origin and some even argue banned in scripture. Those who do so usually reference Jeremiah 10:2-4 which reads: "Thus saith the Lord, learn not the way of the heathen; and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven. For the heathen are dismayed at them. For the customs of the people are vain. For one cutteth a tree out of the forest. The work of the hands of the workman with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold. They fasten it with nails and with hammers that it move not." It is usually argued that this is a reference to the solstice celebrations; the commentary on the "signs of heaven" being the changing star patterns as well as the "return of the sun" Of note is that early Christian texts had no celebration for several hundred years after the death of the Christ. Not suprising given that they did not celebrate the births of their leaders, saints, etc.; and that there is no directive to do so. Yet the history of the festivals and holly days that are the foundation of the holiday season are mostly positive, and have nothing to do with Christianity until the Church, unable to prevent it's newly acquired subjects form living it up, decided to reinterpret these rituals and traditions into Christianity. Recall that at that time Church and Government were intertwined, often being one. The "twelve days of Christmas" actually have a gruesome history going back to Mesopotamia. Over time *travellers taking advantage of open borders* carried the tales and traditions West (to Rome) and North (to Gaul). >From the Roman Saturnalia, a twelve day celebration of the rebirth of the god Saturn, we get carolers -groups of singers going door to door singing songs of revel and receiving food in exchange. Neighbors would visit each other and give gifts - and make sure poorer neighbors had enough to make it through winter. The Romans used many candles to ward off the spirits of the dark, and decorated their halls with greenery. The celts used boughs of holly, evergreen wreaths, and ivy to celebrate the rebirth of the year, to show the integration of masculine and feminine, and to pine for fertility (pardon the pun). During these times, masters and slaves, or lords and peasants were considered equal -again going back to the celebrations of Marduk in Mesopotamia - even in some cases switching places. The Yule log is of, IIRC, Scandinavian descent, and jul meant "joy". Though interpretations vary. Santa Claus is likely a morphing of Woden (aka Odin in some texts) into an acceptable personage to early Church fathers (who failed to see him for what he was). IMO, we would do well to remember what the origins of the season teach us - and they aren't sourced from Christianity. Indeed, in my view Christmas is a poor choice to propagate libertarianism if using the "Christian" view of it. In my view, the Church used it's position of governmental authority to misappropriate the holly days of the "pagans" into holidays of their own for purposes of controlling them. I don't believe that is very libertarian. America's favorite holiday did not originate with the birth of Christ (which according the scriptures I learned was likely some time in September or March), it originated way back in Mesopotamia, become morphed into the return/rebirth of the god Saturn - who incidentally died on December 22 and was reborn on the 25th-, and was then (mis)appropriated as the birth of Christ. But moving beyond that bit of history, what can we learn from the 4,000 year history of what we now call Christmas? When looking at the pagan rites we see an acknowledgement that man a part of nature, not above it or separated from it. We see the natural cycles of the season, of birth, life, death and even forms of rebirth -and that we too are part of these cycles as well. We see the divine in ourselves, as well as the ever presence of chaos. In some ways the ancient pagan rites showed us that even in what we perceived as chaos was nestled order. The pagan roots of Christmas are grounded above all it one sentiment: hospitality. In each of the pagan rites up until the Catholic Church we see the theme of hospitality at times when hospitality is most bleak. In the dead of winter when food supplies may be getting low we were encouraged to and indeed revelled in sharing our fires, our food, and even our lives with our neighbors - not just family or friends. We were reminded that in our darkest hours of need, that letting loose and being hospitable were not only measures of goodwill and tension relief, but crucial to renewing our spirit and replenishing our spiritual or psychic or whatever you want to call it energies. Indeed, when you look at it like this, you can see why I harbor some disdain for what Christianity did to the celebrations. Instead of it being a time of equals, of sharing with those around you; it became about worshipping a single authoritative entity above others. The gifts were somehow representative of gifts to a believed authority. To me those are not libertarian values. It somewhat reminds me of some IMO unusually insightful (for Savage) comments I heard Michael Savage make the other night. I don't listen to him but did manage to catch a few moments as I was searching the XM channels last week. You don't have to believe in god to be moral. And before I go, many are unaware of the relationship between Christmas and "Ground Hog's Day". Given the brief history review of the Christmas origins, you might surmise that the two are again rooted in pagan tradition - and you would be right. February 2nd (or thereabouts) was known as Candlemas. It occurs 40 days after "Christmas" and marks the midpoint between winter solstice and spring equinox. It was considered a time of purification and of turning the ground in preparation for the first planting about six weeks later. Sound familiar? And yes, the Church appropriated that one, too. Even making a saint out of one of the pagan goddesses (St. Brigid originated as the goddess Brigid. Goddess of fire and fertility.)! The Church in the 6th century appropriated this as the purification of Mary, knowing that Jewish women undergo a period of 40 days of purification after the birth of a male child (80 for females children -- dunno what they did in the case of male/female twins. ;) ). Thus they kept the connection between December 25 (Saturnalia/Christmass) and February 2nd. Incidentally, Candlemass was when you took down your decorations from the "Christmas" celebrations. Of course, the 12 days of Christmas representing the 12 days of celebration from pagan past starts on the 25th. So for those who wonder when to take the decorations down, now you know. ;) Well, I'd better get back to email/work. I'll go back to lurking on the Christmas story "tempest in a teacup" now. ;) Cheers, Bill _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [email protected] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
