The issue of illegal immigration (which is a separate issue from legal immigration, in case you hadn't noticed) is the hot jalapeño in the Zeitgeist Cantina: it is a chili too hot to handle. Rest assured, I won't touch it here, unless, of course, I am promised ample supplies of Corona and lime. And that would be Corona Extra; there is no place for a Corona Light unless one is talking about the spectral glory of the fully-eclipsed sun (which would be unpleasant, since the whole delight of a Corona and lime is found in a siesta in the full sun).
I do have two things to say, both of which are partially eclipsed by my juvenescence in issues of such import: I am afraid I can only add a small amount of light to the full beam of knowledge so many others have (seemingly overnight!) acquired in matters of border security, guest worker programs, and deportation difficulties.
A couple of weeks ago there was an exchange between Boston radio personality Michael Graham and a man, Mike from Cambridge, who had called into Graham's commuter show, aired from 3-7 weeknights. The issue at hand was a Boston city council resolution offering safe harbor for all illegal immigrants. Mike from Cambridge (who was perhaps even an academic from either of Cambridge's little known schools, Harvard and M.I.T.), called to defend the council's decision. His conversation with host Graham went something like this:
Graham: If we are not going to defend our country's borders, perhaps we should just not pretend to defend them at all; let's get rid of border security.
Mike from Cambridge: That is not what we are saying, but the idea has merit.
Graham: But Mike, if we are going to go that far, then why have any borders at all?
Mike from Cambridge: Well, it is true that the idea of the nation-state is problematic.
I would like to thank Mr. Graham for forcing the issue so deftly; and I thank Mike from Cambridge for his candor. Graham, of course, got Mike of Cambridge to show the cards he was holding; and while Mike from Cambridge threw down only two pair, he surely wants a full house. For Mike of Cambridge has shown us the pro-illegal immigration, pro-open borders agenda: It is inherently anti-American precisely because America is a country, a "nation-state." In other words, this is about demolishing borders for the sake of that greater social construct, Lennonland. You know, that land without borders, that flower-power world where, if we all just Imagine, all the people, inspired by the late-John Lennon, will live in egalitarian equanimity and joy, "living life in peace".
Imagine there's no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace...
(Shouldn't that be, Imagine there ARE no countries? Good grammar isn't hard to do.)
One wonders if those who support open borders also support free enrollment at Columbia, Harvard, or Berkeley. Why not let Harvard Square bleed into Harvard Yard? Why not let Salem State students join M.I.T.'s commencement exercises? Imagine no private universities, no admissions office or SAT requirements; imagine Penn and Thomas Jefferson and Temple universities living life as one. Really, it isn't hard to do...
And here's my second point: the reason we should permit open borders, or so I've been told, is because America needs to take responsibility for the poor who seek to come here; for it is America who has made them poor, exploited by America's greed machine. I readily admit that I am positing the wearisome Marxist idea that a nation can only become wealthy by making other nations poor. While it is indeed the case that some American companies have exploited their third world neighbors, it is not the case that most do; nor is it the case that socialists are above being exploitative and heartless. Unfortunately the neo-Marxist idea imprinted on too many minds intimates that you can't have more of anything than your neighbor without diminishing that neighbor; there's hardly a more untenable or unjust idea. I mean, there are people who probably aver that your high IQ indicates that you've made someone dumber along the way. But I digress.
Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...
You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.
(Has anyone ever argued that there is a need for hunger; even sinful greed? Thinking and grammar, they aren't hard to do...)
I am a dreamer, and here's my dream: That all universities and colleges immediately tear down their exploitative walls, bludgeoning their parasitic policies toward the less fortunate into ploughshares, so that each of us may live as one. Imagine not only no borders; imagine no distinctions! Down with the intellectual imperialism of the Ivy League, oppressing the men and women pressed into service––the janitors, housekeepers, groundskeepers, security guards, cafeteria workers––who could never afford the academic products the university employers produce, produced from the very flesh-and-blood capital of the proletariat who are rendered too dumb, too ill-bred, to freely enjoy the intellectual delights all men and women deserve. Let us stop the exploitation, the bourgeois tyranny against the common man! Let us rise up, with history as our God, and tear down all walls that separate each person from his or her rightful destiny! How dare the the mighty intellectual capitalists from academy to news press divide humanity with their medieval ideas of requirements and abilities! Down with state universities and their quaint yet antiquated provincialism! Down with the private school or business that requires that anyone meet some racist, xenophobic, Eurocentric, aristocratic criteria! Lest we forget, let us remember that the idea of the university is essentially problematic! Down with the university!
Imagine all the earth's places, indiscernably one. What we'd be left with is the singular Place, with the idea of places shattered into pieces for its inherent divisiveness. Imagine everyone not only living as one, but being ONE––one featureless, cultureless, tasteless null set of equality and justice. Imagine a world with just one dining menu at just one cantina. Imagine a place where everything is of equal worth, with the ONE sharing all the monochromatic world, with nothing to kill, die, or even live for.
It isn't hard to do.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Technorati tags: Border Security, Immigration, Illegal immigration, Michael Graham
Photo: In honor of bio-diversity, I share with you a photo I took of a Turkey Vulture lifting off from a utility pole in southern New Hampshire. The image was taken with a Canon EOS-3, 300/2.8 lens, at 1/500 @ f4.
6 comments:
I'm sure you're aware that here in Canada, we have much more open immigration policies. One of the results of this is that the observation is frequently made that we don't have a distinct culture of our own. Or if we do, it is simply a merging together of myriads of other cultures. Multiculturalism costs money, and our government spends money on it.
Shouldn't that be, Imagine there ARE no countries? Good grammar isn't hard to do.
LOL
But aren't the costs of multi-ethnicism well worth paying, especially within nations that are divided culturally anyway? I don't see the point of closing our borders so that we can become more full of...ourselves.
n[ate]vw,
Long time, no hear! Welcome.
Yes, you are right. No one wants a country just full of "ourselves", as you put it. Closing the borders is not really closing the borders: everyone is welcome, and invited to join the party which is America; there are just requirements connected to that invitation. No one is suggesting that immigration become illegal. What is being suggested is that illegal immigration should carry some sort of legal penalty, being, as it is, against the law.
Anything that is deemed worthwhile is worth meeting certain requirements in order to possess. Imagine a college where everyone is not only guaranteed an A+, everyone is guaranteed to earn a degree summa cum laude. One would quickly find that no one would hold the degree or the school in high standing; and surely no one would bother going to class or attending a single lecture. In other words, if something is valuable, people respect it by meeting the requirements it demands. Just giving citizenship away to people who don't care for it, really, is to admit that citizenship is not worth much.
I am all for open borders, borders with gilded doorways and platinum welcome mats. I just expect people to have the decency to pass through the doors instead of breaking through the windows; I just require that they wipe their feet. That is not a lot to ask.
Peace,
BG
Kim,
I cannot speak for Canada, I can hardly speak for the US. I wonder if Quebec's interest in secession had to do with trying to maintain a distinct cultural identity. You would know that better than I.
My overall point is not that immigration is bad; it's illegal immigration that deserves censure. When people do not care for the rule of law in the country to which they emigrate, they do not care for that country. In essence, they are, through their abuse of the laws of the host country, imposing their own cultural values on that culture to which they have come. And when Mexicans parade American streets waving the Mexican flag in protest over the possibility that American laws will be enforced, we are not talking about honoring diversity: We are talking about a minority culture (illegal immigrants) imposing its rules on the majority.
The end result will be something akin to heat death: There will be nothing left to America that anyone values. Read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand to get a glimpse of the future of America (and Canada) should this whole thing play out the way open-border proponents hope. It is about socialism--ultimately.
Peace,
BG
I wonder if Quebec's interest in secession had to do with trying to maintain a distinct cultural identity.
Oh, I think you've likely hit the nail on the head with that one. However, they don't want to preserve their culture badly enough to accept complete independence from Canada, hence the concept of soveriegnty-association.
Mr. Gnade -
Indeed, although I have been mostly keeping up with a few of my favorite blogs, I have not had much time at all to write or react. (A few final weeks of school....)
I basically agree with your clarification. But I am still torn. As a kid I visited the Statue of Liberty, read about Ellis Island, and heard stories of my grandparents' journeys here. I got the impression that immigrants were once welcomed by the boatload, instead of shunned by the bureaucracy.
-nate
Post a Comment