During the first day of Rosh Hashana, there is a well-established practice known as תשליך. The word itself comes from Micah 7:19, where "you will cast all their sins into the depths of the sea." What the practice entails is finding a body of running water and throwing pieces of bread into that body of water as a symbolic casting of one's sins.
What many do not realize is that this ceremony has its origins in superstitions. Rabbi Israel Drazin, in his intellectually stimulating book entitled "Maimonides: The Exceptional Mind," outlines the history of this ritual in depth. Essentially, we are dealing with a practice that emanated from ancient notions, one of them being that G-d and demons can be found near water. If you believe in G-d's omnipresence, this notion should make you stop and think for a moment. But many biblical figures thought so, whether it was Abraham who made a covenant before a well in Be'er Sheva (Genesis 21:31-32), King David's son, Adonijah, who thinks he can offer a sacrifice in front of a river and help him succeed his father as king (1 Kings 1:9), or the Psalmist (29:3, 139). Even the Talmud tells of stories such as feeding spirits to appease them (Chullin 105b) and drinking water from a river at night is bad because of the shabiri, the demons that cause blindness (Pesachim 112a).
By the time this practice was created in the Middle Ages, it makes sense why the primary theme of this practice was to bribe Satan. The Kabbalists added the practice of shaking of the ends of one's clothing to shake off the klippah, as if the act itself absolved them of any sins. This was problematic because taking the non-rationalist approach meant believing that the ceremony literally absolved one from their sins. Since superstitions such as these make people small-minded, this mentality had the potential from steering people from doing actual repentance, which is why so many rabbis opposed the practice.
This brings me to the important question of "do superstitious origins negate the ceremony's validity?" If your intention is to bribe Satan with pieces of bread, as if bits of stale bread is going to distract G-d's servant from doing his job, then I would have to say that this practice is absolutely ridiculous. Even saying מנהג אבותינ תורה הוא ("the customs of our ancestors is law [for us]") would be insufficient because customs can be overturned in Jewish law.
In spite of these non-rational origins, there can be reconciliation between the practice's history and how we perceive the practice today. Even though I believe that "tradition for tradition's sake" is as dangerous and menacing of an argument as "change for change's sake," I nevertheless enjoy Judaism for its traditions. Judaism is uniquely beautiful for the continuity it has kept over the centuries, hence its allure for me. I can perform the same practice as my Jewish ancestors did back in the Middle Ages, but I can derive a different purpose and meaning from it.
To paraphrase R. Aryeh Kaplan in his book Jewish Meditation, a mitzvah can be an action-based meditation. This insight has changed how I view mitzvot. The mitzvah is supposed to get your mind engaged and focused on G-dliness. Let's apply that concept to תשליך. When you are casting the bread into the water, what should be on your mind? That these crumbs are a metaphorical representation of my sins, and that by throwing them away, you are starting anew. There's that Jewish theme of renewal again. How about the water? In Judaism, water symbolizes life and renewal. Much like Daniel (10:4) did, we can experience G-d's revelation in front of water and contemplate the vast wonders that life has to offer. Let's try an insight with the fish, since one is supposed to find a body of water with fish. As Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz points out, just as fish have no eyelids and always have their eyes open, we should always "keep our eyes open" by constantly being attentive to G-d and His will. Even the act of being in front of a body of water can be an opportunity to realize G-d's wonder through His creations.
As you go to symbolically cast your sins in the ceremony of תשליך this year, take just one of those insights and keep it in the back of your mind throughout the experience. I guarantee it will enhance your appreciation for תשליך.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Sunday, August 22, 2010
The BBC is Pro-Israel for Once?!
This one took me by surprise. Not only are we talking about a European media outlet, but we are talking about one in Britain that has been accused on more than one occassion of leaning Left, which translates into major anti-Israel sentiment. The anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic (anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic, same difference!) groups are on the warpath in Europe as they actually found the BBC's coverage on the flotilla scenario to be pro-Israel. I guess there's a first time for everything. I hope this is a new trend in European media reporting, but I think it might be more realistic to just take this small victory and go from there. In any event, per a link from Aish HaTorah, here is the actual BBC coverage:
Friday, August 20, 2010
Parsha Ki Tetze: Can We Avert Out Fate?
Karl Marx believed that history was nothing more than a cyclical clash of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Greek mythology advanced the idea that you cannot avoid your fate, an idea best illustrated by the story of Oedipus. The Twinkie Defense exemplifies the notion of genetic determinism. Calvinist predestination states that G-d “freely and unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass,” even when it comes to G-d predetermining whether you receive salvation or eternal damnation.
What these four very different paradigms are echoing is what many have thought throughout history: our circumstances are beyond our control, and there is nothing we can do to choose, let alone change, our outcome. We call this point of view pre-determinism.
Are we really stuck with the cards we have been dealt, and we’re just going along for the ride? Or do we have enough control of the outcome that we are able to dodge “fate” and actually prolong our lives?
When it comes to making a choice between right and wrong, Judaism unequivocally advocates free will. Otherwise, G-d giving us a bunch of laws that we cannot follow would be a superfluous, farcical act. However, we have to realize that ethics (i.e., right vs. wrong) are merely reactionary choices to a given situation. How we respond to situations beyond our control (i.e., exerting self-control) is important because it doesn’t let external forces get the better of you. It has a degree of self-empowerment, and I’m not here to diminish that.
Instead of analyzing reactive self-empowerment, I would like to analyze the possibility of the proactive measure of prolonging one’s life. Going back to Calvinist predestination, we have no say in the matter. It’s all up to G-d, and we have to accept that everything is all G-d’s doing. This mentality leaves no leeway for free will in this area.
This week’s Parsha, on the other hand, has a different story to tell:
In this instance, the Torah is commanding us to build a fence around our roof [if we have one]. Why? In order to protect those who are on the roof from falling off. The verse teaches us the importance of taking preventative measures to avoid dangerous situations (Talmud, Ketubot, 41b; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpta 427:7). If we take the Calvinist’s viewpoint that one’s longevity is predetermined and no human action could deter his inevitable surmise (i.e., it’s all in G-d’s hands), building such a fence would be a pointless endeavor. If the person’s date of death has not arrived, then the person would not need to be protected for the fence. We can use the same line of reasoning with the cities of refuge (Numbers 35:11-12) and exempting a soldier who just betrothed a wife from going into battles [lest he die in warfare and another man takes her to be his wife] (Deuteronomy 20:7).
G-d did not want us to only have the choice of whether to act ethically. He also gave us the choice between life and death, and commanded us to choose life so we may live (Deuteronomy 30). G-d is not some micro-managing interferer that treats us like infantile munchkins. G-d is much more like a parent who wants to see His children grow and learn how to stand on their own two feet. That is why He gives us the ability to prolong our lives. By realizing the power that G-d has given us as human beings, we can better appreciate the gift of life that He has given us.
שבת שלום!
What these four very different paradigms are echoing is what many have thought throughout history: our circumstances are beyond our control, and there is nothing we can do to choose, let alone change, our outcome. We call this point of view pre-determinism.
Are we really stuck with the cards we have been dealt, and we’re just going along for the ride? Or do we have enough control of the outcome that we are able to dodge “fate” and actually prolong our lives?
When it comes to making a choice between right and wrong, Judaism unequivocally advocates free will. Otherwise, G-d giving us a bunch of laws that we cannot follow would be a superfluous, farcical act. However, we have to realize that ethics (i.e., right vs. wrong) are merely reactionary choices to a given situation. How we respond to situations beyond our control (i.e., exerting self-control) is important because it doesn’t let external forces get the better of you. It has a degree of self-empowerment, and I’m not here to diminish that.
Instead of analyzing reactive self-empowerment, I would like to analyze the possibility of the proactive measure of prolonging one’s life. Going back to Calvinist predestination, we have no say in the matter. It’s all up to G-d, and we have to accept that everything is all G-d’s doing. This mentality leaves no leeway for free will in this area.
This week’s Parsha, on the other hand, has a different story to tell:
כִּי תִבְנֶה בַּיִת חָדָשׁ, וְעָשִׂיתָ מַעֲקֶה לְגַגֶּךָ; וְלא-תָשִׂים דָּמִים בְּבֵיתֶךָ, כִּי-יִפּל הַנּפֵל מִמֶּנּוּ.
When you build a new house, then you shall make a parapet for your roof, that you do not bring blood upon your house, if any man fall from it. -Deuteronomy 22:8
In this instance, the Torah is commanding us to build a fence around our roof [if we have one]. Why? In order to protect those who are on the roof from falling off. The verse teaches us the importance of taking preventative measures to avoid dangerous situations (Talmud, Ketubot, 41b; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpta 427:7). If we take the Calvinist’s viewpoint that one’s longevity is predetermined and no human action could deter his inevitable surmise (i.e., it’s all in G-d’s hands), building such a fence would be a pointless endeavor. If the person’s date of death has not arrived, then the person would not need to be protected for the fence. We can use the same line of reasoning with the cities of refuge (Numbers 35:11-12) and exempting a soldier who just betrothed a wife from going into battles [lest he die in warfare and another man takes her to be his wife] (Deuteronomy 20:7).
G-d did not want us to only have the choice of whether to act ethically. He also gave us the choice between life and death, and commanded us to choose life so we may live (Deuteronomy 30). G-d is not some micro-managing interferer that treats us like infantile munchkins. G-d is much more like a parent who wants to see His children grow and learn how to stand on their own two feet. That is why He gives us the ability to prolong our lives. By realizing the power that G-d has given us as human beings, we can better appreciate the gift of life that He has given us.
שבת שלום!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Isaiah 53: May the Real Servant Please Stand Up?
When reading Isaiah 53 upon first glance, you could attribute this passage to the suffering of Jesus, presuming that you read the Christian New Testament first and then read this passage retrospectively. I can understand that from a Christian perspective, this passage is the slam dunk for Christian apologetics. Not only that, but reading the verse in such a manner has a lot at stake. It is the only verse in Tanach that remotely sounds Christian, which sticks a craw in a Jew’s theological backside. For Christendom, this chapter unquestionably talks about Jesus. For Jewry, however, we have to step back, pause, and analyze the text simply because the Christian interpretation of this passage is out of place within the greater context of the Tanach.
This begs the question: who is the suffering servant? Is the servant Jesus, as the Christians purport, or is it somebody else? Do we have any textual or contextual analysis that can be done in order to shed some light on who this servant is? If there is not, then a Christian interpretation is just as good as the Jewish one—both unsubstantiated. Fortunately, we don’t have to take that path since we have ample evidence to give us the answer to this question.
In case, for whatever strange reason, the explicit and unambiguous statement that the Suffering Servant as the people Israel is insufficient, let’s dive a bit further into the text:
Prepositions are tiny words, especially in Hebrew when they are denoted by a single letter, but they are nevertheless important in deriving meaning of the text. The Hebrew preposition “for” is indicated by ל, whereas “from” is indicated with מ. The words "transgressions" and "iniquities" both have מ proceeding them in this verse, thereby making the translation "from," not "for." Now that we have looked at the actual meaning of the prepositions, we can get an accurate reading of the verse: “But he was wounded from our transgressions, he was crushed from our iniquities.” The nations are now realizing that the suffering of the Jewish people was brought upon by them. This theme is further elaborated upon by Jeremiah (10:25, 50:7).
This begs the question: who is the suffering servant? Is the servant Jesus, as the Christians purport, or is it somebody else? Do we have any textual or contextual analysis that can be done in order to shed some light on who this servant is? If there is not, then a Christian interpretation is just as good as the Jewish one—both unsubstantiated. Fortunately, we don’t have to take that path since we have ample evidence to give us the answer to this question.
Before going into greater textual analysis, we need to know where in Isaiah we are. At this point, we are in the midst of the “Messages of Consolation," which tells how the people Israel will be restored to its previous status of prominence and will ultimately be vindicated as G-d’s people. The fourth [of four] Suffering Servant passages, i.e. the one in question, actually starts at Isaiah 52:13, not at the beginning of Isaiah 53 because the Tanach initially did not have the modern-day chapter divisions.
Now that we know where in the story we are, we can begin. At 52:13, Isaiah says, “Behold, My servant shall prosper.” Who is the servant? Good question. Are we able to use the text to figure out who the servant is? Fortunately, yes. This is the part that lacks ambiguity. In previous Suffering Servant songs, the servant is already identified as the people Israel (Isaiah 41:8-9, 44:1-2, 44:21, 45:4, 48:20, 49:3). Just to reiterate this very, very important point: Tanach does not refer to the suffering servant as Jesus, much less the Messiah. The Suffering Servant is unquestionably the people Israel personified!
In case, for whatever strange reason, the explicit and unambiguous statement that the Suffering Servant as the people Israel is insufficient, let’s dive a bit further into the text:
- The narrator of this Suffering Servant passage is the gentile nations and their kings, who are speaking through Isaiah’s prophecies. We can confirm this with Isaiah 53:1 that states “who would have believed what we have heard?”
- Isaiah 53:3 states that the servant would be “despised and isolated from men.” Hatred of the Jew and living in ghettos are predominant motifs of Jewish history. The same cannot be said of Jesus, since he was supposedly a “man loved by all (Luke 4:14-15),” and followed by the multitudes (Matthew 4:25).
- If there were ever an axe for a Christians to grind in this passage, it would be Isaiah 53:5, where Christendom translates it is “but he was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities.” With that translation, it sounds a lot like Jesus. But let’s look at what the actual Hebrew says:
וְהוּא מְחלָל מִפְּשָׁעֵנוּ, מְדֻכָּא מֵעֲונתֵינוּ
- Isaiah 53:9 states “and with the rich in his deaths.” Jesus only had one death. The people Israel, on the other hand, have had many. The fact that the word for “deaths,” מתיו, is in the plural reinforces the fact that we are dealing with a collective entity.
- Isaiah 53:10 says that “he [the servant] shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed,” which is זֶרַע, always refers to physical descendants. Seeing how Jesus never had children, this verse cannot be referring to Jesus.
- Isaiah 53:10 also says that “he shall prolong his days.” These words cannot be applied to a divine, infinite being who is the “uncaused cause” whose existence, by definition of being infinite, is eternal. This is yet another facet of the text that cannot be attributed to Jesus.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Shul Crisis: A Need to Renovate Jewish Prayer Services
The synagogue. It's the Jewish house of worship. This sanctuary of holiness is meant to be a place in which Jews are supposed to go and realize G-d's wonders. Instead, it's a place where Jews frequently and begrudgingly go to fulfill some seemingly antiquated traditions in order to make their parents or grandparents happy. Let's face it. Most Jews would rather be somewhere else than go to synagogue. If a Jew decides to even go to synagogue at all, it will be during the High Holy Days Services. What has caused such disdain for the Jewish house of worship?
Dennis Prager outlines this phenomenon in his article Siddur Baseball. He attributes the main reason to being to the length of the services. Most Christian services I know of don't exceed an hour, and the same goes for the Muslims. In the Reform movement, Shabbat Services are usually an hour. Conservative Shabbat services usually go two plus hours, and I have never been to an Orthodox service that was ever shorter than three hours. This is not merely an issue that can be done away with the society that likes everything to be instantaneous and in thirty-second sound bytes. A three-hour block of time is too long for most people, Americanized or not. The situation is exacerbated when Orthodox Jews try to do speed-davening within that time period. How can any individual who wants to pray with kavanah get anything out of a service that is going 200 mph? It's spiritually hostile for a soul yearning for G-dliness.
Prager brings up another good point. The speed stymies religious inspiration, but so does a lack of music. Even in spite of the prohibition of music on the Sabbath and chagim, something I have talked about in length before, I, along with many others, find musical instruments to be something that elevates a spritual practice. That is why it is no accident that Psalm 150 emphasizes the fact that musical instruments enhance their religious experience. Although you will have the "religious establishment" be the naysayers on this, I think that synagogues should give it a go.
An even important place to make change would be to shorten the services. Nothing exemplifies this better than the Amidah. As Prager puts it, why are there two Amidah services during Shabbat morning? Every time I get to the second Amidah in the Mussaf service, the only thing running through my mind is, "Are we really going to do this again? Didn't we just do this about an hour ago?" Although the idea to condense services is not original, it might nevertheless be warranted. Redundancies and repetition wear on people. So does praying so fast that you cannot even digest that which has just been put before you. Instead of tefilah being invigorating and stimulating, these trends make an age-long tradition insipid and antiquated. In order for the synagogue to be a place of spiritual vitality, this Jewish institution needs to change its approach on services lest tefilah ends up merely as an ancient practice found in religious textbooks.
Dennis Prager outlines this phenomenon in his article Siddur Baseball. He attributes the main reason to being to the length of the services. Most Christian services I know of don't exceed an hour, and the same goes for the Muslims. In the Reform movement, Shabbat Services are usually an hour. Conservative Shabbat services usually go two plus hours, and I have never been to an Orthodox service that was ever shorter than three hours. This is not merely an issue that can be done away with the society that likes everything to be instantaneous and in thirty-second sound bytes. A three-hour block of time is too long for most people, Americanized or not. The situation is exacerbated when Orthodox Jews try to do speed-davening within that time period. How can any individual who wants to pray with kavanah get anything out of a service that is going 200 mph? It's spiritually hostile for a soul yearning for G-dliness.
Prager brings up another good point. The speed stymies religious inspiration, but so does a lack of music. Even in spite of the prohibition of music on the Sabbath and chagim, something I have talked about in length before, I, along with many others, find musical instruments to be something that elevates a spritual practice. That is why it is no accident that Psalm 150 emphasizes the fact that musical instruments enhance their religious experience. Although you will have the "religious establishment" be the naysayers on this, I think that synagogues should give it a go.
An even important place to make change would be to shorten the services. Nothing exemplifies this better than the Amidah. As Prager puts it, why are there two Amidah services during Shabbat morning? Every time I get to the second Amidah in the Mussaf service, the only thing running through my mind is, "Are we really going to do this again? Didn't we just do this about an hour ago?" Although the idea to condense services is not original, it might nevertheless be warranted. Redundancies and repetition wear on people. So does praying so fast that you cannot even digest that which has just been put before you. Instead of tefilah being invigorating and stimulating, these trends make an age-long tradition insipid and antiquated. In order for the synagogue to be a place of spiritual vitality, this Jewish institution needs to change its approach on services lest tefilah ends up merely as an ancient practice found in religious textbooks.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Obama and Bibi: It's Like Looking at Night and Day
Lately, it has been nice to read articles by George Will. The article he wrote last Thursday, entitled Netanyahu, the anti-Obama....absolutely loved it! The way Will illustrates the stark contrasts between the two leaders has well worth the read.
As Will points out, “two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” The first is of Theodor Herzl, and the second is of Winston Churchill. Both role models were fervently Zionist, and both were able to amply grasp the reality around them. Obama, on the other hand, has one role model: himself.
Extent of one’s narcissism and hubris is not the only thing that separates these two. These two men have a completely different worldview on international relations. This goes beyond Netanyahu’s nationalistic zeal and Obama’s deranged notion of post-nationalism. Netanyahu recognizes reality. He realizes that he is surrounded by enemies that want Israel annihilated. He realizes that Iran is in the process of creating a sizable that, in all probability, will be used to create a nuclear bomb intent on blowing up Israel. Even more importantly, much like Churchill, he wants to prevent calamity and disaster before it strikes.
Enter Netanyahu’s opposite: Obama. Obama wants world order. As stated in his Berlin speech, he’s a “citizen of the world.” Funny how I missed the fact that there is actually a political entity that governs the human race on a global level. This leftist utopia has not come to pass. If anything, it could very well be in the midst of failure. With possible exception of its intervention in Kosovo, the United Nations is ineffective as a security force. Maintaining security, in effect, maintains peace, which means the United Nations is an overall failure. The same post-national failure goes for the European Union. Its economy has been relatively stagnant. With certain countries, i.e., Spain, Portugal, Greece, in financial crisis, we’re finally seeing the ugly side of “post-nationalism.” The European Union even tried to pass a constitution that would create a centralized utopia. Alas, it’s not working quite as planned. Basing your reality on an unrealized utopia is foolish at best, but since you’re running the country, Mr. Obama, it’s detrimental to the "peace process."
Does Obama honestly think that Netanyahu is going to back down? It’s not only because Netanyahu has a solidified right-winged coalition in the Knesset. It’s because he’s Israeli. If Obama thinks he can mold Netanyahu into a “little dreidel that he madewww.googl out of clay,” he’s got another thing coming. Clearly, Obama has never met Israelis. If he did, he’d know that Israelis don’t back down from a fight and they will stand their ground. Either Obama will realize the incompetency of his foreign policy, which will most likely be delivered in an electoral coup de grâce this November, or his legacy will ultimately marred with ineptness and failure in the Middle East.
As Will points out, “two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” The first is of Theodor Herzl, and the second is of Winston Churchill. Both role models were fervently Zionist, and both were able to amply grasp the reality around them. Obama, on the other hand, has one role model: himself.
Extent of one’s narcissism and hubris is not the only thing that separates these two. These two men have a completely different worldview on international relations. This goes beyond Netanyahu’s nationalistic zeal and Obama’s deranged notion of post-nationalism. Netanyahu recognizes reality. He realizes that he is surrounded by enemies that want Israel annihilated. He realizes that Iran is in the process of creating a sizable that, in all probability, will be used to create a nuclear bomb intent on blowing up Israel. Even more importantly, much like Churchill, he wants to prevent calamity and disaster before it strikes.
Enter Netanyahu’s opposite: Obama. Obama wants world order. As stated in his Berlin speech, he’s a “citizen of the world.” Funny how I missed the fact that there is actually a political entity that governs the human race on a global level. This leftist utopia has not come to pass. If anything, it could very well be in the midst of failure. With possible exception of its intervention in Kosovo, the United Nations is ineffective as a security force. Maintaining security, in effect, maintains peace, which means the United Nations is an overall failure. The same post-national failure goes for the European Union. Its economy has been relatively stagnant. With certain countries, i.e., Spain, Portugal, Greece, in financial crisis, we’re finally seeing the ugly side of “post-nationalism.” The European Union even tried to pass a constitution that would create a centralized utopia. Alas, it’s not working quite as planned. Basing your reality on an unrealized utopia is foolish at best, but since you’re running the country, Mr. Obama, it’s detrimental to the "peace process."
Does Obama honestly think that Netanyahu is going to back down? It’s not only because Netanyahu has a solidified right-winged coalition in the Knesset. It’s because he’s Israeli. If Obama thinks he can mold Netanyahu into a “little dreidel that he madewww.googl out of clay,” he’s got another thing coming. Clearly, Obama has never met Israelis. If he did, he’d know that Israelis don’t back down from a fight and they will stand their ground. Either Obama will realize the incompetency of his foreign policy, which will most likely be delivered in an electoral coup de grâce this November, or his legacy will ultimately marred with ineptness and failure in the Middle East.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Are Illegal Immigrants Moochers?
Normally, I enjoy studies from the Cato Institute because their libertarian analysis is right on the mark. However, I have come across an exception today. In its Immigration Reform Bulletin, Stuart Anderson writes a piece entitled "Evidence Shows Immigrants Come to Work, Not to Collect Welfare."
My first issue with this is that the data used was primarily from the former half of the decade, which can be problematic in analysis because America has gone through a recession since then. But let's presume the numbers are accurate. The study points out that 92% of illegal immigrants participate in the labor force, whereas natives only participate 83%. Most illegal immigrants who come to this country are looking for a better life. And in light of the narco-terrorism that has been going on in 2006, who can blame them? Mexicans can make a whole lot more in the States compared to what they were making in Mexico. Making a higher wage and sending it back to your family in a poorer nation increases your purchasing power parity immensely. Of course it's about the money! But getting welfare benefits on the side isn't necessarily mutually exclusive in this case. Within the first page of his bulletin, Anderson states that "eligibility for programs usually requires immigrants to have been in the United States for 5 years or more in a lawful immigration status." If that is true, he really would need to explain one of the tables he uses [see below]:
So here's my question to Anderson: why is it that the percentage of individual citizens (not households, like you were kvetching about earlier, but individuals) that are on entitlement programs comparable to that of the native citizenry?? I'm sure the typical Mexican is not thinking, "oh, I want America to give me benefits." They're thinking "I want a better way of life for my family." But just because they want a better life for their family does not negate the fact that the benefits they are receiving from the United States government is costing the taxpayer money.
I firmly believe that a stable nation needs to be one of enforceable laws that make sense (obviously, the smaller the government and the lesser the laws, the better, but there still need to be some laws to maintain society). If someone breaks a law, they should be punished in proportion to their crime. Although I do not agree with the method in which illegal immigrants arrive in this country, it is not prudent to blame the Mexicans. After all, Uncle Sam is the one cutting the check for non-citizens to have Medicaid and food stamps. Big Government is the one perpetuating the problem. This is something that Anderson does not touch upon.
In spite of their legal status, do illegal immigrants work hard? On the whole, yes. Are they the real source of the problem? Absolutely not! If the government cut back on its entitlement programs as a whole, there would be no "mooching." If this happened, I would guarantee that many more Americans would view immigrants, legal or illegal, in a positive light. That way, illegal immigrants would be less inclined to insulate themselves in barrios and can actually integrate into society. By drastically cutting back on these programs, or even better, getting rid of them, we can benefit immigration reform, as well as the economy. Wouldn't that be something?
My first issue with this is that the data used was primarily from the former half of the decade, which can be problematic in analysis because America has gone through a recession since then. But let's presume the numbers are accurate. The study points out that 92% of illegal immigrants participate in the labor force, whereas natives only participate 83%. Most illegal immigrants who come to this country are looking for a better life. And in light of the narco-terrorism that has been going on in 2006, who can blame them? Mexicans can make a whole lot more in the States compared to what they were making in Mexico. Making a higher wage and sending it back to your family in a poorer nation increases your purchasing power parity immensely. Of course it's about the money! But getting welfare benefits on the side isn't necessarily mutually exclusive in this case. Within the first page of his bulletin, Anderson states that "eligibility for programs usually requires immigrants to have been in the United States for 5 years or more in a lawful immigration status." If that is true, he really would need to explain one of the tables he uses [see below]:
So here's my question to Anderson: why is it that the percentage of individual citizens (not households, like you were kvetching about earlier, but individuals) that are on entitlement programs comparable to that of the native citizenry?? I'm sure the typical Mexican is not thinking, "oh, I want America to give me benefits." They're thinking "I want a better way of life for my family." But just because they want a better life for their family does not negate the fact that the benefits they are receiving from the United States government is costing the taxpayer money.
I firmly believe that a stable nation needs to be one of enforceable laws that make sense (obviously, the smaller the government and the lesser the laws, the better, but there still need to be some laws to maintain society). If someone breaks a law, they should be punished in proportion to their crime. Although I do not agree with the method in which illegal immigrants arrive in this country, it is not prudent to blame the Mexicans. After all, Uncle Sam is the one cutting the check for non-citizens to have Medicaid and food stamps. Big Government is the one perpetuating the problem. This is something that Anderson does not touch upon.
In spite of their legal status, do illegal immigrants work hard? On the whole, yes. Are they the real source of the problem? Absolutely not! If the government cut back on its entitlement programs as a whole, there would be no "mooching." If this happened, I would guarantee that many more Americans would view immigrants, legal or illegal, in a positive light. That way, illegal immigrants would be less inclined to insulate themselves in barrios and can actually integrate into society. By drastically cutting back on these programs, or even better, getting rid of them, we can benefit immigration reform, as well as the economy. Wouldn't that be something?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)