Why Generalisations Are Bad
(and yes, I spelled that with an S because that's still what comes naturally to me!)
There have been two generalisations bugging me recently. By this, I mean the 'lumping together' of things even though there are differences in those things.
1. The non-citizen immigrant. It used to be just the left that implied that there wasn't a difference between legal and illegal immigrants. I always put it down to wanting to get more support for those who broke the law in coming to this country. But now I'm seeing it on the right as well. It's as though all non-citizens are bad. This morning I caught a headline from a conservative blogger that stated how much money was being spent on food stamps for non-citizens. Guess what? Legal non-citizens are 'entitled' to apply for these entitlements as well as citizens.
I became a citizen in 2010. In 2004, I was unexpectedly laid off. During the two months I looked for another job, I applied for and received unemployment. I had paid into the system, I had been a tax payer, darn right I was going to apply for assistance. In winter 2005/spring 2006, my husband and I applied and received heating assistance. At the time, he was in grad school, I didn't have full time employment, and we lived in a cold trailer with a huge propane tank as our primary supply of heat. The following year, we were ineligible to receive this benefit (which was problematic as we still couldn't afford to spend $500-700 on propane at one time until the student loan came in). Why were we ineligible? Because the non-citizen now had a full time job. It didn't matter that the American was in full time education.
Many non-citizens are legal permanent residents. They hold full time jobs and pay taxes. If they contribute to the system they ought to be able to receive from the system. If they get laid off, are sick, etc., then they deserve that little bit of help. So please, don't scream about how non-citizens are getting these entitlements and how awful it is. Do the research and find out what the illegal immigrants are getting and leave the law-abiding ones alone.
2. This morning, I saw again how the NRA are campaigning for a nationwide database of the mentally ill. I have seen many times the view that the government should leave the Second Amendment alone and focus on the mentally ill. Sadly, the Constitution does not contain any rights for the mentally ill. Presumably because there has never really been a need for such before.
I am mentally ill. I am on medication. I see my doctor on a regular basis. I do not want to be on a database. In fact, I refuse. Being on such a database would most likely imply that I'm a danger to society. What is my "illness?" I am a depressive, with anxiety and low self-esteem added to the mix. My experience has been that depressives are more likely to harm themselves than other people.
I have seen just one article explaining the criteria to be used in order to put someone on the database. The person would have to have been involuntarily hospitalised and/or have made serious threats toward others. I have not seen the NRA explain what they class as "mental illness." I have not seen or heard any politician explain what they mean by "mental illness." Yet "mental illness" covers a multitude of issues, from depression to paranoia, schizophrenia, etc. Not all of us are a threat to society. If such a database comes into being, with no public knowledge of the types of mental illness to be included, I can see that many of us will stop going to our doctors. We'll stop receiving the medication we need. And, in the end, we'll all be worse off. Because, let's face it, we've all heard, "They were off their medication at the time they did this." I already think it's hysterical (ha ha) that the New York law implies I shouldn't be anywhere near a gun. Someone better tell my father-in-law, my uncles-in-law, and my mother-in-law's boyfriend. Even though I've never shown the slightest bit of interest in their weapons...
I believe in the Constitution, all of it. I have more than one copy of it, and they're in the bookcase by my desk for easy reference. I've taught my English father bits of it to explain why some things are the way they are in the USA. I believe in the right to protect yourself. I wish my husband could carry since he does home health physical therapy. I wish the nurses who work with him could as well. But when we speak and campaign, we need to make sure we are not inadvertently hurting those who do not deserve to be treated so unfairly. So please, I urge you to remember: not all non-citizens are illegally claiming that to which they have no right, and not all those with mental illness are dangerous to society.
I'm getting off my soapbox now.
PS: can we please have a tag for immigration? I was actually surprised to not see one in the tags drop down box. Thanks.
There have been two generalisations bugging me recently. By this, I mean the 'lumping together' of things even though there are differences in those things.
1. The non-citizen immigrant. It used to be just the left that implied that there wasn't a difference between legal and illegal immigrants. I always put it down to wanting to get more support for those who broke the law in coming to this country. But now I'm seeing it on the right as well. It's as though all non-citizens are bad. This morning I caught a headline from a conservative blogger that stated how much money was being spent on food stamps for non-citizens. Guess what? Legal non-citizens are 'entitled' to apply for these entitlements as well as citizens.
I became a citizen in 2010. In 2004, I was unexpectedly laid off. During the two months I looked for another job, I applied for and received unemployment. I had paid into the system, I had been a tax payer, darn right I was going to apply for assistance. In winter 2005/spring 2006, my husband and I applied and received heating assistance. At the time, he was in grad school, I didn't have full time employment, and we lived in a cold trailer with a huge propane tank as our primary supply of heat. The following year, we were ineligible to receive this benefit (which was problematic as we still couldn't afford to spend $500-700 on propane at one time until the student loan came in). Why were we ineligible? Because the non-citizen now had a full time job. It didn't matter that the American was in full time education.
Many non-citizens are legal permanent residents. They hold full time jobs and pay taxes. If they contribute to the system they ought to be able to receive from the system. If they get laid off, are sick, etc., then they deserve that little bit of help. So please, don't scream about how non-citizens are getting these entitlements and how awful it is. Do the research and find out what the illegal immigrants are getting and leave the law-abiding ones alone.
2. This morning, I saw again how the NRA are campaigning for a nationwide database of the mentally ill. I have seen many times the view that the government should leave the Second Amendment alone and focus on the mentally ill. Sadly, the Constitution does not contain any rights for the mentally ill. Presumably because there has never really been a need for such before.
I am mentally ill. I am on medication. I see my doctor on a regular basis. I do not want to be on a database. In fact, I refuse. Being on such a database would most likely imply that I'm a danger to society. What is my "illness?" I am a depressive, with anxiety and low self-esteem added to the mix. My experience has been that depressives are more likely to harm themselves than other people.
I have seen just one article explaining the criteria to be used in order to put someone on the database. The person would have to have been involuntarily hospitalised and/or have made serious threats toward others. I have not seen the NRA explain what they class as "mental illness." I have not seen or heard any politician explain what they mean by "mental illness." Yet "mental illness" covers a multitude of issues, from depression to paranoia, schizophrenia, etc. Not all of us are a threat to society. If such a database comes into being, with no public knowledge of the types of mental illness to be included, I can see that many of us will stop going to our doctors. We'll stop receiving the medication we need. And, in the end, we'll all be worse off. Because, let's face it, we've all heard, "They were off their medication at the time they did this." I already think it's hysterical (ha ha) that the New York law implies I shouldn't be anywhere near a gun. Someone better tell my father-in-law, my uncles-in-law, and my mother-in-law's boyfriend. Even though I've never shown the slightest bit of interest in their weapons...
I believe in the Constitution, all of it. I have more than one copy of it, and they're in the bookcase by my desk for easy reference. I've taught my English father bits of it to explain why some things are the way they are in the USA. I believe in the right to protect yourself. I wish my husband could carry since he does home health physical therapy. I wish the nurses who work with him could as well. But when we speak and campaign, we need to make sure we are not inadvertently hurting those who do not deserve to be treated so unfairly. So please, I urge you to remember: not all non-citizens are illegally claiming that to which they have no right, and not all those with mental illness are dangerous to society.
I'm getting off my soapbox now.
PS: can we please have a tag for immigration? I was actually surprised to not see one in the tags drop down box. Thanks.