ON THE BORDER

The disaster off Louisiana and the immigration conundrum have both reinforced questions of the ubiquitous “of two minds” sort. Given the ongoing vacuum of response, are US policies and regulations and by extension the US government still relevant? Energy’s a matter for another day that will require large-scale internal dialog and titanic adjustments. Immigration requires little extreme lifestyle changes or national action outside of enforcement.
US citizens must also accept a portion of responsibility, first, by looking into the closest reflective surface. In the absence of Amerindian lineage, the image gazing back is either an immigrant or a descendant, willing or otherwise. Earlier great American migrations had the same cheap-labor roots as today’s. Similarly, your Chinese, Irish, Italian, Polish, Puerto Rican, Lithuanian, etc forebears were subject to the same sorts of slurs and attacks as this millennium’s via a mysterious mechanism, a form of cultural amnesia about one’s origins and how one’s forebears were treated by the dominant culture. Then there’s that the pawns in the current national debate are only nominally “Latino”, “Hispanic” and likely other than “Mexican,” that being a catch-all for anyone of pure native or Iberian extraction or admixture, any of whom have a stronger claim to local hemispheric geographic and ethnic origin than northern Europeans, Portugal and Spain having established a presence well before Jamestown. People whose “crimes” were committed in pursuit of a better life are now nitched as some sort of “enemy”, when one’s sights should perhaps be set a bit higher.
“Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders … our city’s economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported, The same holds true for the nation,” stated NYC’s Michael Bloomberg in 2006. Translation: Livable wages cut profits.
The immigration issue delivers to the elites lower costs plus a handy wedge to divide and weaken working poor of whatever hue. Immigrants, especially illegals, are a convenient, perennial election-day cudgel to both distract the electorate and buy them off by holding down costs/wages and concealing inflation in the same vein as cheap imports. You can’t have your yard work done in China, (or Central America) but you can have labor “insourced” as Mr. Bloomberg honestly (and perhaps carelessly) noted, thanks to eroded Federal enforcement. The market pricing of labor commodifies the only thing of value many illegals possess, their own lives. They deliver the cheap wages employers dote. Despite fervent claims to the contrary not only do immigrants often not collect that which they paid into, like Social Security, but are rebuked for availing themselves of the same necessary governmental services citizens take for granted. The results are reflected in deaths and diminished lives of immigrants and those citizens whose paychecks shrink from the pressure of an underground, captive labor force ardently interested in staying off the books.
The Fed’s abdication of their own policies has created a humanitarian crisis as well as an ugly return of the worst of States Rights. Unregulated masses of illegal workers create reactions as varied and predicable as the states themselves. No defense intended, but Arizona’s measure is simple political exploitation spawned by misdirected passion . Unfair? Sure. Counterproductive? Ask any cop. As the United States Government retreats from a responsibility that was theirs since the beginning, expect more. Sovereignty carries with it a duty to mind the borders. I lived and worked in Sweden for a while. The first detail before picking up a hammer was presenting myself to the Polis in Kinna. Mexico? Man, you don’t want to get caught in Mexico without papers.
I submit Federal enforcement could and should have a humanitarian edge. In the current under-the-radar conditions, many lefties have ignorantly allied themselves with the exploitative elites owing to the reflexive, false dichotomy of US politics. The left’s automatic and justified reaction to the “Minutemen” and other ad-hoc, amateur border guards has accidentally given aid and comfort to the elites via the widely held view that any immigration control is inhumane and Orwellian. In the jurisdictional vacuum, human life becomes exploited by smugglers and exploitative employers who could be dissuaded by rewards versus cost, with a predicable toll on all workers and their families. When citizens and leaders reject or fail to obey and enforce established laws and principles, “the rules” lapse into how one “plays” the system.
I’ve been predicting the dis-unification of the states and illegal immigration seems to be providing some of the solvent. The choices: do we remain a nation, that is, one political unit, or do we default into a hodge-podge of dis-united, conflicting geo-political entities? The first dictates that the people override convenience and greed and insist that the Feds advance a consistent policy both to obviate the black profits from the murderous trade in human flesh and by result encourage wages to climb out of the bottom-line basement. The other choice is to surrender laws and enforcement to the states, exemplified by Arizona. Amid an expanding hurley-burley of inconsistent measures, we should then be prepared for “market” reactions to determine state demographics, an unintentional aspect of the unfolding non-system illustrated with brilliant clarity not by a usual “liberal” suspect but a young Republican activist who hissed: “I will never spend a dime in Arizona.”
If the immigration matter means nothing except profit and a political “bomb” to toss around election time, let’s clear the laws from the books and begin operating from a position of honesty. From every mountaintop, let chaos reign. Either way’s better than the non-system we have now.

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “ON THE BORDER

  1. richard martin

    peter, i/ll say this once again. *immigration is as much a problem as burning the flag*, that is, it is *not a problem*. why not let everyone in ? there are some jobs that, face it, ‘americans’ will not do. you will not see former stockbrokers as migrant farmers. you will not see wall street suits waiting on you at great ‘mexican’ restaurants. this country should let *everyone* in who is not a known terrorist. and yes, i include muslims who want to come here for a better life. as a country, we can hold them as an economy, if we let them in as ‘legal’ immigrants, we can only expand our tax base. the only downside is that there will be more non-fat-white old men proportionally. immigrants ? *welcome them !*.

  2. richard martin

    and i doubt very seriously that the states will become ‘dis-unified’. we are, unfortunately, way too unified now (i say unfortunately because i really, really wanna kick texas out, and think we could sell utah to strange germans looking for more ‘living space’). if the nuts w/ guns think they can have a successful right-wing-nut civil war, i think they/re not counting the number of guns held by the u.s. government.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s