So one side of the argument calls for open amnesty. The people who are here should be granted citizenship without exception. Never mind those who immigrated to this country legally and did things the right way. Never mind those who are currently waiting for citizenship. Basically, never mind those who OBEYED the law. Let's reward those who ignored our laws and our customs. Let's reward those who fail to respect the rules that we've laid down.
"Well, they're only trying to make a better life for themselves..."
Since when does this legitimize illegal behavior? I could make the same argument for drug dealers, prostitutes, pornographers, and Enron executives. But it doesn't change the fact that what they're doing is illegal and wrong.
"Our laws are not fair..."
So it's OK to break them? What gives people the right to pick and choose which laws they obey? Doesn't this amount to anarchy? And if these people can't respect our laws, borders and sovereignty, then how can they expected to be responsible with the priviledge of citizenship?
"It's all our fault..."
This is typical of the 'blame America first' crowd. Somehow the illegal behavior of 12 million people is my fault, or my senator's fault, or Bill Clinton's fault (for signing NAFTA). I don't get it. Why do these people hate America so much?
It's simple. These people have broken the law, and that should carry repurcussions. If they want citizenship, then it should come with a price. So here's my proposal:
Build a wall, a VERY big wall from Brownsville to San Diego. Pay for it by diverting money from 'pork spending' in the budget (and believe me, the money is there) and much of the labor costs can be offset by offering citizenship to any illegal immigrant who works on the wall for 6 months. That way they serve their new country and show some sense of loyalty, and we secure our border. Everyone wins.
Any thoughts?
7 comments:
Make the 'wets' build it and put em out after that...
Are you aware that the legal quota for unskilled workers is presently set at five thousand annually? It would appear the "path" to legal status is a bottleneck.
Just thought you'd like to arm yourself with some facts.
"...Bill Clinton's fault (for signing NAFTA). I don't get it. Why do these people hate America so much?"
You mean I can't blame Bush for NAFTA? But that's part of the grand "Blame Bush" strategy...Gee, I would never want to blame a Democrat.
Sarcasm aside, this is not about hating the US. I love the US and just want us to live up to our ideals. I want us to be personally responsible for our actions. If my son broke the neighbor's window playing ball, I would march him over there and have him take responsibility for that window.
And you know what, I'd do the same thing even if my neighbor had taken his window out and had it laying on the sidewalk and my son stepped on it accidentally - that is, even if my neighbor bore some responsibility for the problem in the first place.
Would doing so mean I hate my son? Far from it! It's about personal responsibility.
Why do you people reduce everything to "these people hate America!"?
None taken. But I'm a Kentucky Boy, like it or not, it's my home.
And you're correct in your earlier estimate that we just view things differently. I think the analogy to the personal level is appropriate and you don't. I think it entirely reasonable to expect neighboring countries to behave in a personally responsible manner. But then, when I put it like that, I suspect you would agree with it, right?
So, the difference is...what exactly? That you don't think us creating policy which causes harm to our neighboring country has anything to do with personal/national responsibility? Do you not think nations ought to act in responsible manner? I'm not clear where the disconnect is.
How about if I flip the circumstances?
Suppose the Yukon River, which runs through Canada into Alaska, was chosen by the Candians as a prime place to dump their wastes? After all, it would be to their benefit to get rid of the waste, right? They owe us nothing, right?
Perhaps, but to do so would not make Canada a very responsible neighbor. We would not wish for them to do so.
Do you get my point? I happen to believe that the Golden Rule is as good a measure at the national level as it is at the personal level. Do you disagree with this?
Well, good. We're in agreement, then, that nations ought to be responsible for their actions, right? I'm not really digging your differentiating between policies and agreements - agreements are a reflection of our policies - but we are at least agreeing in principle, right?
That's a great starting place.
So, just to verify - Do we agree that a nation is responsible for her actions and if a nation enters into an agreement which is harmful either to her own people or neighboring countries, that nation is responsible for setting things aright, insomuch as it is possible?
Further, can we agree that a nation's people are individually responsible for that nation's actions? If my nation has taken actions that are harmful and my leaders are not recognizing that harm and acting responsibly, then I have a duty as a moral character and a citizen to do what I can to get my nation to act responsibly?
Fair enough. We disagree. I will continue to vote for those to change policy AND agreements, you can do as you wish. I will further push to change policy/agreements with those now in power, because I don't think my duties end at the voting booth.
One place where I hope you'll reconsider is the notion that we don't owe anyone anything for being the "greatest nation on earth," as I'd hope you'd consider that those who have much are obligated more than those who have little. Those who are blessed much are obligated to those who are less fortunate. It is a common theme to nearly all religions and philosophies (except for perhaps the more cold-blooded Laissez-Faireists out there).
Further, I'd hope you'd consider the possibility that we are "great" and wealthy precisely because others are not - that our greatness has been built upon the backs of others.
As Eduardo Galeano has stated, "When underdeveloped countries are called "developing" countries, it's a way of saying they are like children -- growing, developing. And it's a lie. They are underdeveloped because more powerful countries are growing at their expense. Third World underdevelopment is a consequence of First World development, and not a stage toward it. That was the main argument of (Galeano's book) "Open Veins." The history of wealth and the history of poverty are closely intertwined."
Understood and me, too.
Post a Comment