Politics in Review: Daily, Weekly, Monthly, or When It Simply Gets on My Last Nerve (Part3)

Editor’s Note: See Previous (part 1) (part 2): This post is a response to a column from local paper, The Denver Post.

The barbarians are storming the gates!

The administration has contended that in the interest of national security, the borders need to be secure. Nevertheless, the results prove otherwise, and based on those results illustrates something is of more importance: access to cheap labor. Some proclaim this as “economic slavery;” that these people have no voice and no choice. Not true and not so. Those who advocate for the illegal alien and the undocumented worker are speaking for them. And for as no choice, these individuals could stay in the conditions they left behind—abject poverty, or they should stay in fight their government to correct institutional corruption and better wages (as some see it).

True enough, but that is not how human nature works. We do what is easy, even though there may be a slightly higher risk temporarily. The slightly higher risk, in the short term (like crossing a border), is outweighed by long term gains. Trying to overhaul, overthrow, Mexican and Central American institutions would require a major portion of time, at the least, and civil war, at the worst.

Moreover, for people who have little already, the risk of such a venture requires a major commitment that proves impractical.

In part, administrations of the present and past are in fault of the present conditions of immigration. This is what I mean: as mentioned earlier, free trade agreements of this hemisphere has led to the exasperation of the immigration issue. For instance, within these agreements are the inequities of farmer subsidies (see link). Put simply, US farmers yes—and all others no. Thus, creating an unequal competition in what is suppose to be a free trade and free market access agreement.

Another aspect of the free trade (especially in regards to NAFTA) has caused constitutional changes in property rights—citizens’ property rights are now subject to the whim of the state—and now this inequity in trade, in property right, in obtaining a level of subsistence became virtually improbable (see link on NAFTA). This led to greater number of crossings of illegal immigrants with the tacit approval of Mexican government.

This escalation of events (NAFTA, property rights, border crossings, tacit approval) gave the ability of Mexico to boost its economy by subversion and the corruption of the rule of law.

Furthermore, of which my point is that, the oversimplification of issues such as illegal immigration, local or otherwise, is more the result of areas of gray than simply black and white. Especially since, as fellow blogger put it, its little late to close the barn door after all the horses have been let out; in other words, we are trying to solve a problem that we help create. In this case, we left the door open, and now expect to close it.

The other aspect of the illegal immigration debate is just playing on the minutia of the moment. Is it really practical to round up 12 to 40 million immigrants (depending on who is counting), legal or otherwise, and process them out of the country? In fact, the matter may require us to “round up” all Hispanic surnames. Is that realistic? Maybe or maybe not. Do we really want to take the chance? A chance that the rounding up of persons and citizenry will not turn into a perversion of paranoia. It has happened before (see the example of Japanese internment camps). And, is this not the same ethnic cleansing that led Europe to the persecution of Jews, Christians, and Muslims?

To return to point, Louden is correct that these illegal immigrants have broken the law, but is it realistic to ship all to be at the end of the line? And moreover, how can we be assured that we have them all? In addition, are there some laws that are immoral, impractical, and/or out of date (see Martin Luther King letter (link here) from the Birmingham jail to his fellow clergyman)? Nevertheless, there is the possibility of the undocumented worker would go deeper into the shadows, if those have their way in denying access to basic human care.

Simply, enforcing the laws on the books, prosecuting the executives, not the worker, may correct a portion of the problem. And, if one wants to use deny the social service and school angle, would this not create even more of a black market underground economy? Could it possibly create more crimes? In my opinion, the rule of law would be worse. “The two Americas,” of which John Edwards speaks of, may come to full realization. Thus, increasing the disparity between socio-economic classes.

(To be continued….)