Soob

Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth

Monday, May 21, 2007

On Immigration



And how it defines the division between realism and idealism.

Off the cuff, and speaking from my ideological soul I am diametrically opposed to the Immigration Bill as engaged in cloture by the Senate. Basically said bill exonerates people who, without regard to their desperate situation, willfully ignored the laws of my country and now will enjoy a criminal clemency not afforded otherwise. Further, the desperate means which these illegals (and their future brethren) earn will likely have to be subsidized via America's welfare structure to the tune of $30 billion. I am not blind to the fact that my own hard earned dollars will be increasingly taxed to realize this essential economic "dead weight."

"Dead weight." Sounds a bit harsh, doesn't it? As an American who subsists solely on his own ability to provide for himself, who has realized any and every materialistic, educational (post high school) and professional advantage on his own I might be given some leniency in my "harsh" judgment. If there's one aspect of Randian sociology that I agree with it is the "dehumanizing" aspect of simply giving a man the means to survive. In this ideological respect I am a cold, hard and unrelenting objectivist. And so it goes that from a purely ideological perspective I would invite the illegal immigrants to grab their ball sacks and invoke revolution to their own benefit. Release my country from the parasitic grab that they entertain and focus instead on changing their own pathetic excuse for a nation. But then, they won't. The days of popular revolution are, sadly, over.

And then the realist weighs in. Much more succinct and pragmatic the realistic side of me looks at the recent Immigration Bill as the most, er, realistic response to what is a monumental issue regarding both American politics and the American identity. Realistic why? You ask.

Realistic because it tosses aside lawmaking via idealism (when looked at objectively) and instead seeks to not solve an insolvable issue but evolve or adapt to it. In short the immigration issue is simply too huge to resolve via my own ideological ideals. Concrete, concertina wire and the application of an increased martial presence along the porous border won't provide a solution. Rather it will provide a sense of vindication that, in reality, will do little to combat the issue at hand. In short, the militant approach to the issue feels good but really does little to solve the problem. Human desperation and the light at the end of the tunnel that America provides for these immigrants is simply overwhelming.

What the current bill seeks is an effective means to manage and adapt to a situation that cannot realistically be "solved." It accepts the veritable position that our nation, short of enacting a declaration of war, does not maintain sufficient resources to definitively close the massive and meandering line that serves as our southern border. Oh, and I'm not ignorant of the fact that this bill entertains the unrealistic and wholly symbolic approach of "border security" which is, in my opinion, basically an intangible "qualifier" that seeks to address the ideological aspect of most Americans (including myself) want to stem the tide.

In short, it's a smart bill that needs "tweaking" and that takes the realistic approach as opposed the idealistic and politically motivated selling point visage most congressional action these days entails. And it pisses me off to no end.

3 comments:

Steve said...

Well, we could just deny benefits to immigrants for a period of time, but no one seems to want to solve the problem that way.

Let's just do a referendum and see if they want to join the US, that seems to be the long-term trend on a per capita basis. Then we would just have that short border with Honduras!

subadei said...

It's funny Steve. I used to joke that we could invade Mexico and find only crickets because the entire populace had packed up, swam the Colorado and settled in the south west.

On a semi-serious note one can imagine something of a reverse Aztlan scenario in which the the cultural "border" separating the US and Mexico becomes so ambiguous that America slowly absorbs northern Mexico.

Dan tdaxp said...

Immigrants are risk-takers. This is the central fact in the debate that is ignored by both sides for their own reason.

The most significant risk-taking cadre is young males, so every problem and benefit you get by increasing your number of young males, you get with immigration. Lower labor costs because more folks are willing to do awful jobs. Higher crime, including murder and rape. More businesses because greater entrepreneurial spirit. More economic growth.