Questions On Illegal Immigration and Border Violence
Discussion of Issues Related to the New Arizona Law, Immigrants, and Drug Cartels
Written by Bill G on April 29th, 2010 in Odd Culture.
How is illegal immigration to be solved without violating individual liberties? Is the nation-state an outdated concept in the age of globalization? Why can’t the government simply audit and penalize companies who do the actual hiring? Is the war on drugs causing the Mexican drug cartel problem?
The recent law signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, which institutes harsh measures to curb illegal immigration has caused an uproar. (View Bill Summary)
Unofficially attached to the illegal immigration issue is the issue of crime and drug violence. Mexico’s problems with the drug cartels get worse every day, and there is concern over the rise in violence in border cities as well as places like Phoenix.
A few questions to consider about this dividing issue:
- Would a better way to curb illegal immigration be to audit business owners and companies, and penalize them if they are hiring illegals?
- Is the issue of crime separate from the migration issue or are they linked?
- Is the projected 11 million illegal immigrants in the US a big deal? What if that number increased? Would any number be a big deal?
- With our high unemployment, would Americans now be willing to do jobs they previously wouldn’t, and have they been trying?
- Isn’t the Republican rebuke that this is a crime issue, not a racial issue, being intellectually dishonest? After all, what are the chances of an English speaking caucasian or African-American being harrassed over their citizen status simply because they don’t have their drivers license? Is that being realistic? Since we are dealing with Hispanic immigration, isn’t racial profiling built into the bill, even though race isn’t mentioned?
- How popular are movements like La Raza and MEChA? Is there a desire among these groups to “reconquer” Aztlan or is that just Michelle-Malkin, “North American Union” conspiracy theorizing?
More questions to consider:
- Could the legalization/decriminalization of drugs in the United States deal a huge blow to the drug cartels, and if so, why isn’t it being done?
- Would it even be a problem if the US government wasn’t constantly moving towards a welfare state? Diminishing the welfare state means that US citizens concerned about where their tax money goes could feel better knowing it’s less likely that the system will be supporting non-citizens. A related issue – to the idea that big government is causing this mess – concerns the drug war. Read this post by Anthony Gregory.
Raimondo correctly points out to progressives that a European social welfare system typically entails a “Your papers, please” immigration policy, and he is properly opposed to both. But a loss of civil liberties is inherent in any comprehensive immigration control policy, as Europe also demonstrates.
- Does individual liberty trump nationalism? Should people be allowed to hire whoever they wish in a free market economy? Has our embracement of globalization opened up a box that cannot be closed?
I find this last question interesting, myself. If free flow of people across borders should be allowed, or at least – not be stopped by measures such as racial profiling, National ID cards, wall-building, military-protected borders, or harsh penalities for businesses who hire illegals – then has this, in effect, made the concept of the nation-state obsolete?
We’re in a catch-22 here. If civil liberties and individual rights are the most important issues, then there should be no racial profiling. There should be no oppressive wall or armed border guards, and definitely no National ID card, because that leads to a police state. But, somebody once said that a country which doesn’t protect its borders is not a country.
But if globalization is the future – if, sometime down the road, there is no “United States”, what law will there be? What will become of the Bill of Rights? Who will you go to if somebody violates your rights? What recourse will you have?
People smarter than me have commented:
“This is america. We want to simultaneously benefit from illegal immigrant labor to keep our costs down, but we also don’t want illegals to take our jerbs. Your solution [penalizing those who hire illegals] actually fixes the problem. Bad idea. We need the threat of illegal immigrants, gay marriage, and prayer in school to keep uneducated people focused on something while we make billions off of their ignorance.”
“It’s not just the small companies that get away with avoiding surprise inspections. Anyone that watched Food Inc. saw the bit on Smithfield’s meat plant and the standing deal with local immigration officials that the company has. The company turns over a handful of illegals periodically to avoid getting raided so they can continue employing illegals that they bus in from south o’ the border.”
Here’s my plan for border security – snipers with 50 cals at 1 mile intervals, and signs that say “stop or you will be shot and killed”. Problem solved.
Ask yourself this: if we’re not defending our borders, what the hell ARE we defending?
CrankyOldGuy: Wouldn’t you start feeling kinda locked in, too, as a consequence? And, you kinda have to wonder… what the hell are some of these people running from? Has the situation gotten that bad down in Mexico that families (with babies) are crossing deserts and rivers to get away from it? And, how is this country complacent in that?
I’m brown, and I’m American, and I shouldn’t have to carry a passport in my own country to prove who I am, but if I want to see the Grand Canyon, I might have to. And if I were white, the subject would be much less likely to come up. So, therefore, we’re treating two Americans different, one white (you? I wouldn’t want to assume, tho…) and me, a mulatto born in the most American place in the world, Washington, D.C. All because I look a little Mexican-y, and wanted to see the Grand Canyon.