It was one of the most delicious meals I've ever eaten, about twelve courses. That was one of the courses. We can all be conned but at what point do we realize that we're being conned and to what point do we allow ourselves to be conned? Presents stories in which Sherlock Holmes uses his understanding of probability, statistics, decision theory, and game theory to solve crimes and champion the innocent, rather than common sense alone. By understanding the lies the King of Cons tells you, you will be better able to grasp the hope of the Savior and fight your way from the lies with which You've Been Conned.
Reveals what's really behind the transformation of Rosie, from the sweet, all-American mom beloved by middle America, to the crusading, tough-talking lesbian that she's become. Refuting the myth that America's socially conservative thinkers, journalists, and commentators tend to support the war in Iraq, this text incorporates the opinions of some of the leading figures in America's conservative movement on why the This harrowing tale is based on true events of a brave woman who encountered a near death experience at the hands of her con man husband. A critical analysis of the consequences of felony disenfranchisement laws that prohibit people in prison or on parole from voting cites the laws' origins in the post-Civil War segregationist South, in an account by an award-winning The inside story of the internet boom and bust, of the business deals which made headlines, and the colourful cast of characters behind them.
The book is a reaction to contemporary trends. Bo De Yang, A racy, highly entertaining history of cons and conmen. To the many people who've been the subject of a con, this book will be of personal interest: James Morton, Hilary Bateson, Describes how to detect cybercrime and protect businesses against such problems as impersonation, fraud, stalking, breaches of security, and copyright infringement.
Anyway that unta fellow conned us of RM million. The money has never been recovered. Except that the story did not actually exhibit that lesson. So, ultimately, the early skepticism about global warming represented simple resistance to a narrative that would undermine the prospects for industries that support the local economy. That should not be called the death of truth, but a lack of trust that climate change proponents will take the interests of this community into account.
That is why the theme of disdain-shown-topeople-like-me is so important. There is nothing here that could not be overcome by sharing the burden of fighting climate change rather than crowing about closing coal mines. It was not going to be people in New York City. It was going to be their communities that paid the price.
It is not clear whether the student who had bolted acknowledged that humans are to blame for global warming or whether she only acknowledged that others in her circle of friends so believed. Why should they not be hostile to such a message? It may not be the case that the President is believed. Plenty of Trump supporters may know, for example, that most steel and coal jobs are gone for good.
There is, but it still represents a failure of trust. Distrust works this way on the political left as well. Consider the resistance to scientific reassurances about vaccines and genetically modified food. The unwillingness of the left to take charges against Secretary Clinton seriously looks to supporters of President Trump like the 8. Unless there is positive proof from FoxPand no proof would ever be positive enoughPit is considered all lies.
As the Jesuit Philosopher Bernard Lonergan points out, the scientist does not recheck all prior results, but mostly relies on prior science to be true. I have not yet said what truth is, exactly, because I do not have a definition as such. All we can really say, a la Wittgenstein, is that truth is what is the case. As Hilary Putnam argues, if all values are subjective, so are all facts because establishing facts depends on values such as reasonableness, consistency and simplicity. Putnam thought a theory of truth might not be possible. But what if we now doubt that there is that kind of truth about reality or that we could know it if there were?
What if there is no necessary connection between our language and reality? Thus, the death of truth is also the death of rational politics. In other words, if nothing is binding in the sense that it represents what is real, and everything depends solely on my preference, then my opponent and I have nothing in common. If all points of view are arbitrary, we can assume that my preferences represent whatever is a benefit to me. From this perspective, politics can be nothing more than hostile camps opposing each other on grounds of tribal self-interest and identity.
Is it any wonder that, under these conditions, there is such a widespread attitude of hopelessness and fatalism in our culture? Is it any wonder that democracy has deteriorated into contests of turnout of the base, as opposed to attempted persuasion? Is it any wonder that we now see rage and political violence? Richard Aldous, Critical Thinkers: It is unfortunately beyond my scope here to show that it was New Atheists like Lilla who helped destroy the very notion of a common good to be pursued by political action that led us to the point he now decries and takes no responsibility for bringing about.
See, for example, the shootings of Representative Steve Scalise and four others on June 14, and the car attack that led to one death in Charlottesville on August 12, Democracy requires reasoning about fundamental matters in public life. In law, where we do still purport to give reasons for decisions, increasingly, two hostile ideological blocs on the Supreme Court face each other across an unbridgeable divide that is no longer rationally addressed.
It is not surprising that confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justices have become a tissue of lies. Justice Thomas falsely denied he was a natural law thinker. A Selective History and Analysis, 32 U. The notion of law as a set of eternal principles that could be searched for, reasoned about and discovered, is absent. So, the absence of trust leading to the death of truth is a catastrophe on many levels. How did the loss of trust come about? That is the subject of the next section. If truth died because of a loss of trust, then we have to ask how that loss of trust happened.
Josh Blackman, Originalism at the Right Time? Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. Harold Berman saw this coming a while ago. Or was it President Bush and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Or President Nixon and Watergate? Or, as George Will claims,39 was it the lies by the government during the Vietnam War that taught us distrust? But why did this lying not lead to the public insisting on truth? Why did it lead Mr. Ameling to believe that it is all lies? Why did it lead us to abandon dialogue rather than improve it? It has been suggested that America has been all about untruth, exaggeration and unreality from the beginning of our history.
I understand this claim, but I cannot accept it. It is a kind of fatalism. Someone like President Trump could never have been elected before. That is a fundamental change. Something prepared the ground for our current, all-encompassing skepticism. Perhaps it was technology generally, because under the reign of technology, from Photoshop to special effects to virtual reality, nothing is what it seems.
Technology taught distrust as early as the War of the Worlds radio broadcast in To trust, we must have an idea of who we are and why we are here. That is what is now lacking. For the video, see Rep. Distrust on this level has been present in the West from the beginning of modernity. There was room in Descartes for trust only at one, crucial point. Descartes felt he could prove his own existence through the very act of questioning itPthe famous cogito ergo sum.
But what about the world around us? What about the existence of other people? Descartes hypothesized that an evil demon might be fooling us into believing that there is an outside world. But then, that God died. Not for those religious believers who live in perfect trust even today. Such persons are not the consciousness of this culture. God died in the sense that the culture, as a whole, including many so-called religious believers, could no longer relax in the unselfconscious certainty that love and goodness lie at the heart of reality.
The universe was no longer beneficent and caring. There was no satisfying answer to the question, what is the point of all this? In this understanding, the universe is composed of forcesPblind, indifferent and cold, but real. Tables and chairs are really empty space.
Algorithms using big data can predict human behavior. Brain science can account for Distrust of reality could be placed much earlier. After all, even the resurrection of Jesus Christ does not quite undo the expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Evolution accounts for love. Our mania for facts resides here. We imagine facts to be reliable. What becomes unreal in this scientific account is what Husserl called the lifeworldPour human scaled world with its meaning and consequence.
As Richard Dawkins starkly explained in ,: And our interpretations are incommensurate. Under this view, humans are free and unconstrained. Capitalism roots here, as does our mania for choice. It is not only that each person makes her own meaning, but that you make your meaning and I make mine. Even in John Rawls, Kantian reason has deteriorated into the principles that we choose in an original position. This understanding of the ontological primacy of the individual achieves its perfect expression in the famous Gestalt Prayer of Fritz Perls: I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, And you are not in this world to live up to mine. Under subjectivism, values are also unreal. They are posited by the individual as expressions of opinion or will and ultimately of power. In both the scientific and non-scientific accounts, values are not something one could have knowledge about. Under these forms of positivism, morality cannot be objective and cannot be binding.
The image of human beings reasoning toward moral truth is regarded as an illusion. One way that the binding power of morality is undermined is the linkage of human beings to the brutally animalisticPalthough actual animals are not particularly brutal. A Short Inquiry into Human Freedom. The title of that review was Consume, Screw, Kill: The Homo sapiens kmic Books like these combat what is considered to be an ingrained human illusion.
Since humans are animals, and thus not unique, By positivism, I am referring broadly to the tradition associated with Auguste Comte Nm: The universe is said, as in Dawkins above, to have no intrinsic meaning. Often, the criticism of this human illusion is voiced by critics of traditional religion. Here is one famed culturally iconic source, Neil deGrasse Tyson, in the Cosmos series, explaining this erroneous human tendency: We hunger for significance.
For signs that our personal existence is of special meaning to the universe. To that end, we are all too eager to deceive ourselves and others. To discern a sacred image in a grilled cheese sandwich. Sagan and Tyson were trying to show that we must care for the Earth because we are alone and the universe is indifferent. No God will save us. But the effect of such a message is the opposite of what they intended.
The effect is to instill hopelessness in the culture. In the mid-twentieth century, there was confident judicial rhetoric of right and wrong. The Brown desegregation de-. Bromwich, supra note 54, at Or, think of Skinner v. Skepticism really arrived65 in American law through the postmodernism of the Critical Legal Studies Movement, which built on the insights of Legal Realism.
This view led the vaunted icon of traditional values, the late Antonin Scalia, to argue grotesquely that because some cultures exposed unwanted infants, or disposed of the incompetent elderly, no judgment could be made about the humanity of an unborn child. See discussion in Ledewitz, supra note On the left, John Hart Ely anticipated Justice Scalia by twelve years, in his classic book featuring its skepticism in its title, Democracy and Distrust. Ultimately, in the Lawrence case,72 the logical conclusion of this legal skepticism was reached: The statute at issue was held to fail what is called the rational basis test.
Why is a moral judgment insufficient to uphold a law? At the end of the majority opinion, Justice Kennedy seemed to suggest that the problem was that this particular moral judgment was wrongPthat homosexual conduct is not immoral. Nor is this just the case with abortion. The question of cultural relativism also arises, for example, in something like the practice of female genital mutilation.
Can we really say nothing about the immorality of this practice just because some societies have engaged in it? That is the moral dead end that Austin Dacey saw coming in because of the moral relativism of the secular left in America, which he tried to contest by the reinvigoration of The Secular Conscience. His point was that any notion of a legal right answer is inconsistent with our current understanding of reality and thus is a form of nonsense.
But Smith noted that, schizophrenically, lawyers retain both forms of discourse. Smith thought that lawyers could just go on despite the gap between what we think we believe about the universe and what we say about law. Given the intensifying ideological split on the Supreme Court, I am not sure that Smith was right about lawyers. It may be that such cognitive dissonance eventually leads to aggression and bad faith. But, even if Smith was right about the limited craft values of law, his suggestion that we might just soldier on without confronting the harmful ontology that we have accepted plainly does not work with regard to society as a whole.
We now see how sick society is. We will not regain political health until we confront the depth of what Somehow, we must restore trust in ourselves and in the universe. The reader may ask whether this is not all an exaggeration? Is the loss of trust in the universe really that important? It is, because the absence of trust undermines our capacity to respond fruitfully to all problems. When, under the influence of the lack of trust in the universe, we conclude that the moral arc of the universe does not bend toward justice,81 it affects how we approach everything. To see this, consider a column by Ross Douthat, the New York Times columnist, advising both political parties to abandon debating healthcare in favor of more fundamental matters.
Douthat asked, what is the greatest threat today to the American Dream? First, an economic stagnation that we are only just now, eight years into an economic recovery, beginning to escape P a stagnation that has left median incomes roughly flat for almost a generation, encouraged populism on the left and right, and made every kind of polarization that much worse.
Second, a social crisis that the opioid epidemic has thrown into horrifying relief, but that was apparent in other indicators for a whilePin the decline of marriage, rising suicide rates, an upward lurch in mortality for poorer whites, a historically low birthrate, a large-scale male abandonment of the work force, a dissolving trend in religious and civic life, a crisis of patriotism, belonging, trust.
The question is, what can be done to restore trust in reality?
- Report on Human Rights Practices Country of Iceland;
- Meaning of "mendacity" in the English dictionary.
- MENDACITY - Definition and synonyms of mendacity in the English dictionary.
- Gelobet seist du, Jesu Christ, fughetta, from Kirnbergers Collection, BWV697?
- Look At Me!.
- Women in Iraq: Past Meets Present!
- Esther McVey has to go. Her downright lies are dangerous | Polly Toynbee | Opinion | The Guardian;
In that same column, Douthat had suggestions for each political party going forward. They consisted of the usual bromidesPcutting regulations to spur growth, increasing the child tax credit to aid. A spiritual absence cannot be repaired by a materialist response. A spiritual response is needed. Every culture lives from a story. Then for a long time, it was the echo of the biblical story, with democracy and constitutional self-government substituting for the City of God.
Those were stories that evinced trust. That story cannot sustain a civilization. It cannot promote trust. If there is to be a resurrection of truth, it will have to begin with a resurrection of trust in reality. And it will have to begin with each of us. The Canadian Jesuit Bernard Lonergan put the question that each of us has to answer very simply: The big bang shows us there is a tendency toward being. The early galaxies show us there is a tendency toward order.
Life shows us there is a tendency in matter toward self-organization. Consciousness shows us there is a tendency toward intellect. Evolution shows us If it is a destructive story, then the people in that culture will be held captive by it. And history shows that Martin Luther King, Jr. Of course, we make many mistakes, we lose ground very easily, and racism with all its attendant evils has not been banished. But you would have to be blind not to see moral progress among humanity. The birth of the Black Lives Matter movement demonstrates our progress.
Police shootings now provoke a national response that was never present before. And, when President Trump invited a harsher police response in a July, speech, police forces across the country said, no thank you. So, what accounts for the lack of trust? It is mostly the old Enlightenment brief against religion as superstition. That brief seems to require hopelessness as a badge of intellectual rigor. This is no brief for traditional religion. There are secular, even scientific, sources that can lead us back to trust.
Putnam argued that although we could not know everything, but we could know some things. There could not be one true account of reality, but there could be accounts that are in parts truer than others. Yes, there are different perspectives, but they are not all equal. In other words, we have to actively inquire toward truth and that activity is coherent. Putnam thought that a relativist like Richard Rorty was really a disappointed believer in metaphysical realism88Pthat is, in a kind of traditional religion.
If Rorty could not have the certainty of traditional theism, then he would have nothing. If Putnam is right, then our lack of trust is in part a fear of commitment to a pursuit of meaning, because we fear it is not true. I grant the reasonableness of such a fear. There is no guarantee of truth or significance, or of any of the traditional values anymore. July 30, , http: Yet, when we dare to genuinely inquire, despite the risk of failure, we find deep reasons for trust. Doctorow, through a character in his novel City of GodPRabbi Sarah BlumenthalPwrites that the essence of humanity is the sense that what we do matters: It sounds like an unprovable tenet of organized religion.
All human beings live in moral consequence. An atheist like Christopher Hitchens, who denies ultimate meaning, shouts out his atheism so that his fellow human beings are not taken in by the lie of God. A postmodernist like Stanley Fish, who says there is no text here, proclaims that with exactitude, expecting to be understood.
Both try to live in the truth though they think they deny truth. In other words, there is no way for a human being to live a life of meaninglessness. The assertion that we do is really just a bad habit. But what does human moral consequence suggest about the universe? Since this very universe gave birth to beings like us, for whom truth is so important, we may conclude that this universe deserves our trust. FG92 is willing to look at evolution itself as evidence of a beneficent universe: We find here the final application of the doctrine of objective immortality.
Throughout the perishing occasions in the life of each temporal creature, the inward source of distaste or of refreshment, the judge arising out of the very nature of things, redeemer or goddess of mischief, is the transformation of Itself, everlasting in the Being of God. In this way, the insistent craving is justifiedPthe insistent craving that zest for existence be refreshed by the ever-present, unfading importance of our immediate actions, which perish and yet live for evermore.
But, if the physicist Werner Heisenberg could speak of the: How could truth have died?
Meaning of "mendacity" in the English dictionary
And what should we do about it? The answer is that truth did not die, we just lost our way. But it will be hell to find our way back. We now need the social imagination to rebuild institutions of trust. It is a loose formation of persons of good will who understand the source of our decline as bad habits of mind and try to embody social health in community.
In building Cosmopolis, we defeat distrust through working toward communities of trust. Where should we begin? We have to start where we are, in the communities and institutions in which we are already situated. Duquesne Law School has helped me begin by hosting this very symposium. And I think, in general, law schools, because of their intense involvement with social problems and their mix of action and thought, are very good candidates, though not exclusive, for a kind of proto-Cosmopolis site. Jonathan Cott, The Cosmos: For more on the role of religious law schools, see Ledewitz, supra note 8.
There is no rulebook for how we should proceed. But there are some guidelines for building Cosmopolis. For law professors this is particularly difficult because we pride ourselves on taking positions on important issues and cases. But partisanship is so prevalent today that all such activity is suspect. Every analysis looks like an argument. Every paper looks like a brief.
I rarely trust what law professors write, including my own biases. There cannot be shibboleths, taboos, preconceptions of any kind. In some universities, there are topics that can hardly be discussed. Similarly, there are red States in which words like climate change are practically banned from public discourse.
The only way to ensure the needed transparency in Cosmopolis is through genuine diversity, not only of race and gender, but of party and viewpoint. There must be conservatives, liberals, capitalists, anarchists, communistsPand even religious believers. There must be people in Cosmopolis who can come to the table with the trust of each of our disparate communities. Third, though not emphasized by Lonergan, there must be more care for language in Cosmopolis than we usually exhibit. A poem expresses truth not only in its ideas but in its form. Our very language must express our reverence for each other and for the universe.
There is a practice in some religious law schools of opening each class with a prayer. I think, instead, we have to imagine each class, each encounter, as a prayer. Every occasion a kind of religious holy day. My proposal that law professors cease arguing for immediate case outcomes in favor of a longer-term effort to develop a science of human flourishing toward which law could orient itself, see infra, corresponds roughly to the distinction drawn by Robin West between genuine normative jurisprudence and faux-normative jurisprudence that actually argues toward what the law is said already to be.
See West, supra note 71, at We in law school have to be a community that lives the resurrection of truth. Living the truth is the only way that truth can be resurrected. But we cannot rest with trust, or even with truth. Finally, we have to ask, what is our ultimate goal? We want to restore trust and truth, but to what end? There is very little realistic, responsible discussion of issues in public life. What passes today for political debate is like a fantasy world.
The effect of the breakdown is perhaps most clearly apparent in the fiscal realm. On the right, huge tax cuts are proposed at a time of already mounting deficits, with the false claim that such cuts, whatever their effect on the economy, will not increase the federal deficit. This is not even defended rationally. There are discussions of single payer healthcare without even a mention of the cost and difficulty. There is not any suggestion that entitlement spending might have to be limited.
The fact that a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, last balanced the federal budget is not embraced anywhere in the Democratic Party as a model. Just consider hurricane relief in Deficits are just one example of the political fantasy world in which we live.
Esther McVey has to go. Her downright lies are dangerous
We cannot have healthy debate about any of the challenges facing us. Worse than just our current incapacity, is our skepticism about the very possibility, or even desirability, of self-government. For the Republicans, the notion of convincing a majority of the American people has given way to efforts to frustrate majority will.
These efforts take the form of occasional outright voter suppression, but usually are composed of the legal, but dubious, policies of gerrymandering and voter ID laws. We have to be clear about this. Democracy requires majority rule over the long-term. All those anti-democratic provisions in the Constitution are meant to function as a limit on majority power, not to substitute permanent minority rule. If one of our major political Parties now is willing to live with permanent minority rulePor even to enshrine it by manipulating the already anti-democratic Electoral CollegePthe American experiment in self-government is over.
Eventually, the military will take power. What about the Democratic Party? On this side of the aisle, people can afford to laude majority rule because they expect to take power demographically. So, the strategy is just to get Democratic Party voters to show up at the polls. Selfrule requires policy-discussion and conscious choice by the people, not turnout success. Turning democracy into a function of election technology not only loses electionsPas it lost the electionP but leads to empty election campaigns.
I am still waiting to hear just what policies the Democrats were offering if elected in I know that a major issue that I was voting for in casting a ballot for. Hillary ClintonPefforts to limit climate changePwas hardly mentioned on the national stage. Law school as Cosmopolis is a path to change all thisPa path that leads back to self-government. It does not rest at accomplishing the resurrection of truth for itself.
Cosmopolis changes the society around it. The deepest description I know of what a law school can be is from Roberto Unger, who was not using the term, Cosmopolis, but who saw lawyers as the agents who could return productive political debate to the greater society. Law School as Cosmopolis can be the place where a new form of politics is actually practicedPa politics of trust that aims at discovering and implementing a science of human flourishing in a benevolent universe through the use of reverent language.
We law professors and our students become that polis. Then that model will be seen and emulated throughout society. Within, there must be intense, strictly nonpartisan debate held to the highest standards of intellectual rigor and scientific evidence. But debate must be conducted with care and respect for every member of the community and with genuine faith in the future. There must be total openness and thorough rejection of all the forms of reductionismPstarting with relativism, nihilism and materialism.
Debate must be open to wonder and not wither under cynical gazes. With regard to the outside, the greater society, law school as Cosmopolis must enforce clarity and candor in political debate, particularly among political allies.
We must not be rubber stamps for our side, but harsh critics of our side. Eventually, the practice of no sides will triumph in renewed human solidarity. Beyond that, Cosmopolis does not bring about change directly. Cosmopolis practices the wisdom attributed, not quite accurately, I know I will be asked what any of this has to do with the primary function of law schools: The answer is, everything.
But it is far short of what America must have from its law schools today. Today, law school must be the place where the very possibility of a common good is shown to be real. It is said that the reason the early church spread within the Roman Empire was because pagans looked on the early church communities and were amazed at how humane and loving they were. Nothing like these churches existed. They were irresistible to a worn out, cynical age. Law school as a living experiment in a new politics is the only way I know that we can change that. Legal Education for the Public Good, 46 U.
The Immanent Frame is asking the same question Lonergan asked above, but with more poignancy. Lonergan, the committed Christian, did not really doubt that there is more than thisPthat the universe is on our side. By asking the question, he was trying to help the rest of us see that. The contributors at The Immanent Frame, our contemporaries, are much more uncertain. We are learning that doubt and uncertainty cannot sustain one. That is why we are in the crisis we are in. That is all we can know, but it is also all that we need to know.
It is sufficient to restore the trust that we need to go on. I had hoped here to engage the observation by the Dean of University of St. Thomas School of Law, Robert Vischer, who is a thoughtful and careful practitioner of Christian legal training, and who kindly read an earlier version of the paper that I gave at this symposium, that the early church communities shared a robust conception of life together based on the life of Christ that Cosmopolis cannot have. This very fair critique echoes the fact that Lonergan never put all of his eggs in the Cosmopolis basket but retained a crucial role for the church.
I would answer Dean Vischer if I could. There has never really been one before. All I can say here is that the starting point for the survival of secular civilization is a rediscovery of trust in the universe and therefore of truth.
Translation of «mendacity» into 25 languages
The rest is a path for the future to forge. The author thanks Paul R. MacLeod for conversations and comments on previous drafts of this essay. Though not an original thinker, Wilson did labor to consolidate and preserve the tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence, and adapt that tradition to the new circumstances in the post-revolutionary United States.
He wanted, his biographers have noted, to be the American Blackstone, and, like Blackstone, he located the basic concepts of the law within a broader theological framework. That strand of jurisprudence provided an account of law that took very seriously the claims of both truth and reason. Human Rights and Human Dignity: He overlooks the fact that modern relativism begins in Enlightenment thinkers.
To mention only a few, Montesquieu argued that values are culturally variable, Marx insisted on the class origins of moralities and worldviews, while Karl Mannheim suggested that much of human knowledge consists of ideological perspectives formed in particular social situations. The postmodern assertion that reality is socially constructed is a footnote to the Enlightenment rather than a departure from it. He is right that the internet and social media have transformed communication, giving disinformation and deception in markets and politics added potency.
Davis considers how this has happened, and in a rich and probing analysis of the use and misuse of the media suggests the answer can be found in the economics of information. What seems like an irrational message may contain information of a subtle and tacit kind to which people respond. Even when what is being communicated has little or no cognitive content, there are rational explanations as to why such messages can be so effective.
One of the implications of his analysis is that bullshit can be found across the political spectrum. He devotes remarkably little attention to the fact, but liberals engage in bullshit as much as populists. In the event counter-productive, Project Fear was an example of incompetent bullshit — a larger category of discourse than Davis seems to think. Most voters made their decision on the basis of what was most important to them — in other words, they were guided by their values.
Davis says little about ethics. Perhaps, as an economist, he feels he has no business pontificating on the subject. Or maybe, like many liberals, he thinks what ethics demands is self-evident. Populism is, among other things, the return to politics of issues that had been depoliticised on the basis that only one view of them could possibly be right or rational. In the febrile liberalism of recent times, anyone who questions continued large-scale immigration must be ignorant of its economic benefits or else racist.