Legitimacy and Religion in the Middle East

"Western and Marxist analysts of the politics of the the politics of the Third World have been primarily concerned with economic development, the organized instruments of the physical force, bureaucracies, class structure. and foreign policy. " While these are no doubt significant, they are not sufficient for explaining the level of political stability because they do not provide adequate insight into why people are willing to sacrifice their lives and their material possessions for or against a regime. As Hossein Razi says: "when the articulate members of a population are by and large satisfied with the government's actions in the areas of identity, participation, distribution, equality, and a sovereignty according to the norms they believe in, there is no crisis of legitimacy." People care mostly not how a government came to power but what it does. Why religion is such a strong link in Middle East? Because as Razi says again:" Because it generates the widest bonds of commonly held values in the region. By contrast, the family, clan, section, group, association, and occupation constitute sources of microloyalty, which in the absence of shared religious or nationalist values may generate destructive discord and conflict." Since one in every five inhabitants of our planet is Muslim, i have Muslim friends. I wanted to talk about legitimacy and religion, and i did briefly, but more important i would like to put it out there, the fact that not all the Muslims are radicals, and you cannot put all of them in the same category. Yes terrorism is a very known fact, but stereotyping can't only lead to hate and discrimination. Remember what happened in the Crusades? Can we blame every Christian for whatever happened? No. People grow up with different beliefs, depends on the environment they are, so we should respect different believes as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. And if God exist, would he be racist? Would he believe and love only a certain group of people? If that's the God that each religion or ideology believes in, i question the notion of God.

Immigration Policy and Principles of Humanity
By Suruchi Bhutani

Bill Ong Hing, author of Deporting Our Souls: Values, Morality, and Immigration Policy, questioned current U.S. immigration policies in a recent presentation for the Ethics at Noon program. Above all, he urged the audience to understand the reasons that prompt immigrants to enter the United States illegally. Arguing that immigrants are very useful to this country and that they deserve respect, Hing recommended an immigration policy based on principles of common humanity.
Hing, professor of law at University of California-Davis, started the discussion by exposing a particular plight of many immigrants from countries such as Cambodia and Mexico. He explained that many of these immigrants are forced into illegal activities, either to protect themselves from crime or due to factors such as lack of education. Current U.S. immigration law treats them very harshly by deporting them and not giving them a second chance to improve.
Hing asked why illegal immigrants continue to enter the U.S. in large numbers, especially from neighboring Latin American countries. He explained that they come primarily for economic prosperity but that certain U.S. policies, such as subsidizing farmers and allowing unlimited Chinese imports, have led to a collapse of local industries within Mexico and other Latin American countries. As a result, the illegal movement immigrants to the United States has further increased.
Hing criticized Operation Gatekeeper, which was designed to deter illegal border crossings from Mexico, but which has resulted in at least one death per day. He called this program inhuman and urged the United States to solve the problem at its core; that is, by implementing proper labor migration rules.
Hing cited the example of the European Union, which has successfully included several poor countries without initiating an exodus of labor to the richer countries. The key in achieving this was for the EU to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure and education for its poorer members. He urged the United States to consider a similar approach.
Another issue discussed was family immigration. U.S. lawmakers are currently considering a policy change that would no longer extend as strong a preference to the admission of siblings of already legalized immigrants. But Hing argued that most of the family members who would immigrate if siblings and other indirect family were allowed would be working age and law abiding, and would actually help the economy.
Hing also stressed the need to integrate the immigrant population with U.S. society. Citing the bipartisan Little Hoover Commission Report “Creating Common GroundCalifornia's Strategies For Integrating Newcomers,” he urged implementing social programs that integrate immigrants. When immigrants do well, he said, the society benefits.
Suruchi Bhutani is a media intern at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

Amnesty

Since we have a new president and I've been talking with a lot of my friends about issues like amnesty bill and abortion, i think a lot of Americans don't really understand the idea of migrating to USA. You see, i do agree with passing the amnesty bill, so to cut it short here is what amnesty bill :"The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, or, in its full name, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) was a bill discussed in the 110th United States Congress that would have provided legal status and a path to legal citizenship for the approximately 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. The bill was portrayed as a compromise between legalization of illegal immigrants and increased border enforcement: it included funding for 300 miles (480 km) of vehicle barriers, 105 camera and radar towers, and 20,000 more Border Patrol agents, while simultaneously restructuring visa criteria around high skill workers. The bill also received heated criticism from both sides of the immigration debate. The bill was introduced in the United States Senate on May 9, 2007, but was never voted on, though a series of votes on amendments and cloture took place. The last vote on cloture, on June 7, 2007, 11:59 AM, failed 34-61 effectively ending the bill's chances. A related bill S. 1639, on June 28, 2007, 11:04 AM, also failed 46-53." What some people argue about is that why should we legalize people that broke the law by getting or staying in the country illegally, when others come here and stay here legally. Well for most of the citizens of the world, coming and staying in USA is not that easy. For a fact, besides other paperwork needed for getting a visa to come to USA you also need a bank statement in which you have to have a decent amount of money. It's not as easy to stay more or work legally in the USA either, since a lot of visa's does not allows you to work. Other issues like "illegal immigrants don't pay taxes" are supported by a lot of American tax payers, the problem here is not that they don't want to, but since they don't have a social security number, because they are illegal, they accept low payed jobs, because they can't do better, and because the employers don't really care about them, they are satisfied in paying them lower wages as long as it will increase their profits. By passing this bill, these illegal immigrants will get a social security number and be able to pay taxes, and have a chance for education and better job conditions and wages. They are already here, what should we do? Throw them out of the country is impossible, and what they actually come here to do that it is so immoral? Just work in hope for a better life for themselves and their families since their home country can't offer this. Also this bill promotes better Border Patrol, so we can stop more illegal immigrants to come in.

Good source site...

I'm sure that some of you have seen this already but here is a site that has many articles relating to business ethics and could be a source of good discussion.

http://www.business-ethics.com 

Also here is a link to an article that I found within that site that proposes an interesting question. Let me know what you think, but I think I might have to donate the money! Sounds like a win/win to me...

http://www.business-ethics.com/node/94

U.S. Weapons Sales

I read an article in the paper today that definitely presents an ethical issue. The article discusses the Bush Administration's increase in sales of U.S. Military weapons. Apparently, so far this fiscal year, weapons sales have soared to $32 billion. This is up from 12 billion in 2005. The United States is currently exporting weapons to Iraq, Afghanistan, Northern Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe. I am not an expert on the alliances we have formed throughout the world, but the claim that weapons exports will "build a more secure world" seems absurd. I can see how aiding an ally in need could be a useful military strategy, but helping other countries build an arsenal that could potentially used against us is frightening. Anyway let me know what you all think.

Mark

First blog

Hey guys, don't really know how this works or what we are supposed to say in here but hopefully it's up and running. Sorry it took me so long.

Mark