Everything Old Is New Again
In light of the recent immigration marches/protests/debates/etc., it’s been bothering me to no end that factual comparisons to the history of American immigration has been ignored by all parties. This Washington Post article does a great job in pointing out the striking parallels between today’s issues and those of the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Eric said,
May 8, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
disclaimer: This is to the author at the Washington Post. I love Jesse. Who doesn’t?
While I do appreciate that the article was an interesting history lesson, the author seems to have missed the point of the current debate completely. Just because something happened in the past doesn’t make it right course of (in)action today! If anything, we should learn from the past. Quotes like this sum it up quite well:
“Most of the concerns voiced today — that too many immigrants[?] seek economic advantage and fail to understand democracy, that they refuse to learn English, overcrowd homes and overwhelm public services — were heard a century ago. And there was a nub of truth to some complaints, not least that the vast influx of immigrants drove down working-class wages.”
Most of us who seek to secure our chaotic borders have no qualms with immigrants. Real immigrants. The problems they create (much smaller when following legal means of citizenship) are worth working through. Yet authors like these try to make out people like me to be a racist supremecists, trying to keep out all that is different in our own short-term self interest. After all, the ends justify the means, right? This is where he misses the point on almost every level. The truth is, we need more immigrants in this country. They do provide the backbone of this country. But nobody is complaining about those who are here legally. Those arguments of the past are not relevant to this duscussion. (except a few, I’ll get to those later) They need a more streamlined process of letting people into this country, a process which identifies, tracks, and yes, *gasp*, taxes those who come here to work and enjoy our freedoms.
While this great melting pot stands for freedom and diversity, the arrogant (is there a super-duper-bold mode?), misguided message of the rallies and marches blows my mind. Nobody has a right to come to this country. This country does not owe them anything. It is a privelige to be respected. Attempting to take the economy hostage and demand “rights” certainly shows us the mindset of these people.
The issue being debated today is about those who break the law by ignoring the sovereignty of our country. The author did a great job of comparing the problems of legal turn-of-the-century immigrants to illegal immigrants of today, yet he failed to contrast; the other half of any seventh grade English paper. While many in the media would have you believe the war-mongering, gun-toting, hairy backed, racist, big-oil-loving, Jesus-pushing Republicans have simply mis-understood these poor oppressed people in the middle east, the message is clear: (cue cliche remark) We are in a time of war. I can think of 3000 innocent people who will not get to read this today. In fact they will never get that chance. Ever. They are dead. We did not have fanatical terrorists hell-bent on our genocide 100 years ago.
Of course securing the borders alone will not stop someone from getting in who wants to harm us. I am fully aware that the 19 psychotics got in legaly (which was not controlled nearly tightly enough). But it is a crucial first step. The situation is chaotic and we need to take control. This is not where we shrug because it happened before, it is our opportunity to learn from our mistakes and fix those problems.
So the 110% relevant “time of war” is only half the story. As I said before, the author did a great job of comparing the problems of legal turn-of-the-century immigrants to illegal immigrants of today. Yes, I said problems. Not a necessary ends-to-a-means that we have to bend over and accept. The group of people being debated (and woefully confused in the media) are, in fact, criminals. What does “don’t criminalize us” mean?? Please tell me Jesse Jackson. They criminalized themselves the moment they crossed the border. Dozens of hospitals in the southwest have been forced to shut down because they can’t afford to treat illegals for free. (Which the politicians have forced them to do) These people take day-labor jobs that are not taxed, and admit they don’t take other jobs for that reason. There is chaos and a lack of funding in the schools. The schools that law-abiding citizens pay even more for because illegals get to go for free. Law-abiding immigrants are held to the same standards as the rest of us.
The author just assumes we should accept these problems, yet fails (ignores?) to recognize these people have no respect for the laws they break and the country they have entered. Times change. Forget the past and stand up for principle. We shouldn’t accept problems that can be fixed through policy and action. Yes, we should allow more foreigners to immigrate (as they are needed, it’s a right, remember? By no means are we obligated to house the population of the entire world), but until reforms allow more to easily follow the law, there is no reason not to enforce the sovereignty of our nation to promote order over chaos, and protect those of us here legally from those who wish genocide upon us.
Anonymous said,
May 12, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
Hi,
Eric, thank you for the lengthy reply as when I tried to go to the msn link, couldn’t.
We have much the same problem on a somewhat smaller scale.
Cheers,
Ray Whidden
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Swid said,
May 12, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
Non-permanent links and site searches that don’t seem to actually search sites are two great banes of the Internet. I can’t find the original article at either MSNBC or the Washington Post.