Slightly Interesting Views On Ponder-Worthy Philosophical Prompts

One of the most controversial questions in this book

 19. "Is it just and right to deny entry to a country when doing so probably means death for the immigrant and their family?"

Ibis: For some, at first glance this may appear to be a pretty open close question. Obviously you let them in. I mean, all lives matter and we have space and people's taxes to pay for them. Sure, let them in! Sounds like a brilliant idea!

If only life were that simple.

I feel like the answer to this question depends upon the purpose of the country:

1. If the country is merely for charity purposes and doesn't care about anything besides helping others, then the answer would simply be yes. No question.

ooooooooooorrrrrrrr

2. If the country is trying to become a thriving, influential country, then whether this immigrant and their family is let in is entirely dependent upon how important and valuable they are/will be to the country they are trying to get into.

Obviously I'm going to talk about the second option, because the first is fairly obvious. Let's all love one another and be equal and never kill(ever) because all human life is precious and we're all the same! (funny, don't know whether I'm describing the liberal agenda or Russian Communism((and we all know how splendidly that turned out))).

So, if the country isn't merely looking to take in whatever mindless git roaming around the border, then they will obviously have some sort of standard or test that the person should have to take in order to be eligible to stay in the country. If you are trying to run a legitimate business (and you want to make a profit and an actual contribution to the world), would you rather hire the person who can benefit your company or the person that has no experience whatsoever with no ability in the field at all? Obviously, since you're smart, you would pick the person that would help your business and tell the other person to kindly take a hike. There are times when you can't just be nice to everyone, when you are going to have to hurt someone's feelings so that the rest of your country(or business) can survive. If you're not willing to stand up and fight for the welfare of your own people, why should you be responsible for the welfare of people from other countries?

Risu: To start I'm going to use the term risk and reward.

Nora Roberts once said, "There's no reward without work, no victory without effort, and no battle won without risk."

The question is asking if it is right and just to deny an immigrant family entry into a country when they may die if turned away. Let's use an analogy to simplify the problem: A core class teacher has given your class a project to do in groups, this project is the final. This is a nice teacher so you can pick who you want to work with or if you want to work alone. Naturally most of us will gravitate toward a friend. Now you have a nice group set up, everyone in it participates in class and does their fair share of the work. Then one of the kids failing the class, even though they seem to be trying, wants to join your group.

What do you do?

You don't want to be mean and turn them away, but what if they don't get their part done? This project is your final. In a core class you have to pass in order to graduate. Even they don't do their part and the group still manages to get a passing grade on it...that will put several out of the running for academic scholarships into college. After all, having a low score in a core class isn't something colleges want to see.

Well, some people might be relying on that scholarship to get into a college.

This decision right here could very easily turn out well. The student failing may be inspired to try harder, maybe they graduate top of their class and become a successful entrepreneur.

Maybe it goes wrong, and all the students flunks the class because of it. Then they can't get the academic scholarship. Some of the students may get partial academic scholarships and be able to make those work. What about those that were relying on a full ride scholarship. Now they can't become a biological engineer or a lawyer. All they can do is work a minimum wage job.

The situation with the immigrants is similar, but not exactly the same. We want people who can advance our society and we can't afford to hold up those who can't stand on their own. Does that mean we shouldn't help people? Absolutely not. We should help people whenever we possibly can. This is where risk and reward come into play.

In my analogy above the students were risking their futures for someone else's future and near future. A noble cause in my opinion, in truth it doesn't seem like such a bad idea does it? No one would get hurt except the group offering to let the failing student join, right? Wrong.

If the project goes wrong and students can't get scholarships that will mean one of three courses of action.

1) The parents will have to help their child by paying for more of the college fees

2) The student will end up exaughsting themselves trying to put themselves through college

3) The student will decide not to go to college

Now you're putting a lot of thought into it.

Countries can't afford to make many mistakes. Maybe the failing student will turn things around. That makes everyone's lives easier. Suppose an immigrant family was successful and ended up creating an empire as well as thousands of jobs. That would be amazing wouldn't it? Rarely does this situation play out in such a way. Normally the project will do poorly, not eliminating the chance of getting a scholarship, but definitely decreasing the amount the college will give. Most of the time the project will not be a complete failure either.

As cruel as it sounds, the main thing to look at here is what is more important. The lives of a few families adds up. Soon we are talking about millions of people instead of four or five. That's a lot of people who need help, if so many live are in jeopardy why wouldn't we want to do all we can to save them? We fail to realize what we are risking here. A collapse in the economy. We have seen the effects of a collapse in the stock market. In the 1930's this was known as the Great Depression in America. While it began in America it's effects were widespread causing most of the world to fall upon hard times. Today, the countries of the world rely on one another even more than they did almost 90 years ago. Not only that, but the influence the U.S. had in terms of buying power has increased drastically.

If America's economy were to collapse because the government was over extending itself, most of the world would see major changes taking place.

While it is a good thing to help others in need, it's not as simple as helping someone who fell to stand back up. It's closer to being almost broke, struggling to pay rent on time. Then someone worse than you comes along and asks for you to support them as well. That's more expense to you. Maybe this person you help goes on to make millions, or they could be the reason you end up on the street because you lost everything to debt.

Be a human, feel empathy for others and do your best to help them out. However, keep in mind that the risk does not always equal the reward. Without risk there is no reward, be cautious what you choose to risk.