Distance and the Borderlands
George Friedman of Stratfor has analyzed the Mexican immigration issue at Junk Politics as well as I've seen it done so far.
...The argument against the Mexican migration would seem on its face to be simply a repeat of old, failed arguments against past migrations.
But Mexican migration should not be viewed in the same way as other migrations. When a Ukrainian Jew or a Sicilian or an Indian came to the United States, their arrival represented a sharp geographical event; ... Sicilians might remember Sicily, they might harbor a cultural commitment to its values and they might even have a sense of residual loyalty to Sicily or to Italy -- but Italy was thousands of miles away. The Italian government could neither control nor exploit the migrant's presence in the United States. Simply put, these immigrants did not represent a geopolitical threat; ...
This, I'm sure, is a new way of looking at the problem for many people. There's a lot more there as well.
Serious enforcement of the border would be equivalent to making current immigration more like the previous waves of immigration. Let's keep our distance. Put up the fence.
4/21/2006 10:31 PM
posted by jj mollo @ 4/21/2006 10:49:00 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
You can't seriously think that putting up an apartheid-esque wall on the southern border is a good idea, do you? I hope you are being sarcastic...
Sure I'm serious. People put up fences all the time. It would be nice if I could, but I don't claim the right to walk on other people's private property. I really think that Mexican immigrants place an undue stress on our social welfare and economic systems, just in terms of their sheer numbers. I would like to help them, but the sad fact is that they will soon be importing nothing but anarchy. We really can't handle it. The federal government makes no effort to enforce the border or enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens.
The only way to incorporate our own underclass into the economy is to give businesses no choice but to hire them at decent wages. The increasing productivity of our work force, combined with a labor shortage puts pressure on business to find solutions that help the poor. Immigrants undercut that market, which is good to a certain extent, but the numbers are just mind-boggling.
Mexico is essentially solving their own social problems on the back of our working class poor. Mexico should, by all rights, be as wealthy as we are. They aren't wealthy because IMO their policies constantly sabotage their own middle class.
Calling it apartheid pre-judges the argument. I am really in favor of immigration, but controlled immigration, from Mexico as well as elsewhere.
No we shouldn't build a fence...........we should build a wall.
Anthony, your use of the word apartheid when discussing illegal immigration in the US totally blows your credibility.
It is madness for a country to not control its borders.
Dax, I agree that the apartheid comparison is not accurate, but I don't think it's insane or morally reprehensible. The fact is that the there is a growing prejudice against Mexican immigrants. The US is turning into a two tiered system with a Spanish speaking underclass. We are getting lazy and using their cheap labor for everything, abusing them in the process. They seldom make anywhere near the minimum wage. They are very insecure here and subject to extortion because of their extra-legal status.
I am strongly in favor of NAFTA to help out the Mexican economy and I am strongly in favor of limited immigration. I'm not saying that we should practice mass exportation either. But I do think it's pretty foolish that people who get thrown out can just trot back in whenever they feel like it.
By the way. George Will used precisely this argument on the Sunday Stephanopolous show, whichever one that is. He phased it eloquently and intelligently. He's sort of a Bill Buckley with sound bites.
Post a Comment
<< Home