“Immigration is about our economy. The freest nation in the world, and the freest economy in history, depend on a free flow of people.”
Somebody stop me; I’m actually agreeing with the Governor.
“We can embrace the immigrant without endorsing illegal immigration. Granting citizenship to people who are here illegally is not just amnesty — it’s anarchy. We are a country of immigrants, yes. But we are also a nation of laws. People who want to be citizens will want to do it the right way.”
Wait a minute. Anarchy? Chaos, maybe, but not anarchy.
As common as it is to equate the two, it does a major disservice to a marginalized and unjustly maligned movement that once accomplished much in the realm of labor rights. Anarchy simply means without government, and anarchists advocate means of orderly self-organization that do not involve governments or authority.
At the least, it does not mean do what you want, when you want, how you want, regardless of the consequences. That’s chaos. If the Governor had used the word anarchy correctly, with respect for those magnificent dissenters who question a most cherished principle — the need for government — he might have been led to one of the real underlying issues of illegal immigration.
A Thought Experiment
Suppose, for theoretical kicks, there was no government. It would follow that there would be no real borders. And without borders, there obviously would be no countries. Nationalities would not be sustainable. As a result, movement would be free. People, by sheer necessity, would have to distribute themselves around in such a way to optimize the economic balance between available jobs and workers. (Borders, obviously, can create barriers between jobs and workers.)
Of course, this isn’t going to happen anytime soon, but there is a nice dream in there: An end to a history of humanity divided against itself by petty tribal loyalties. And that’s what nationalism and patriotism are at heart; infectious and petty tribal loyalties that ultimately put a segment of humanity above humanity as a whole. This isn’t an argument for a different kind of collectivism. This is to point out that instead of defining ourselves as unique individuals with a concern for humanity as a whole, we identify ourselves along strictly artificial national terms, and forget the common humanity we share with everyone else in the world.
Letting this common humanity fall by the wayside is precisely what makes the immigration debate sound so mean-spirited. Pitting Mexicans against Americans is a manifestation of the same kind of problematic thinking that has China nipping at Taiwan and Tibet, and Russia struggling with breakaway remnants of the USSR. We are too concerned with territorial integrity to be able to effectively address the problems we face.
True, illegal immigration, as it is, causes problems. When illegal immigrants partake of taxpayer funded services but don’t contribute by paying taxes themselves, they create a burden on the system.
There’s also the issue of equality before the law. As much as illegal immigrants don’t want to be treated as second-class and unequal, talks of amnesty or quasi-instant citizenship makes one wonder what sort of equality it is that sees some people miraculously granted benefits everyone else has to get by suffering through the tortuous legal immigration process.
But is it right to condemn people for wanting to make a living, for wanting to feed themselves and their families? Hardly. How can it be criminal to satisfy fundamental human needs?
This brings me back to my little thought-experiment in anarchy and taking the Governor to task for cheap rhetorical wordplay. The point isn’t that borders actually are going to disappear overnight and the immigration problem will be solved. As I wrote, that’s not going to happen — although it would certainly be nice if did. The point involves what anarchists and, surprise, everyone else aspire to, despite numerous philosophical differences: self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is the issue that underlies illegal immigration.
Unasked Questions
While guest worker visas are a good idea for allowing people to temporarily work here legally — and a good solution considering that we’re stuck with borders — it doesn’t really ask the important question. That question is: Why do people feel a need to come to the United States? To be more specific: What is it that drives some people to forego legal processes and other, more substantial, hurdles to come here to work?
If most of the country’s illegal immigrants come from Mexico, why aren’t we discussing how we can help Mexico become self-sufficient? If the poverty there is crushing, why don’t we find ways to alleviate it so people don’t have to leave their families behind and find work away from their homes? There’s a whole lot of talk about empowering people to take control of their own lives instead of being dependent on others, but there doesn’t seem to be much discussion in helping Mexico help itself.
As much as I detest nationalistic fervor, I understand that most people do not share my distaste. So I have to ask, what is the point of waving Mexican flags during protests directed towards the United States? Why isn’t the Mexican government — Mexican businesses, even — being held accountable if the quality-of-life in Mexico isn’t what its people want it to be?
The immigration debate has been shouted in the same strident, nationalistic tones for a long time. Let’s just pass a reasonable guest worker visa program and move the discussion forward to something more productive.
