Does anyone know how to get in touch with God? He/She/It is being impersonated and someone needs to break the news. It's an illegal offense, you know, and (the United States of) America is as guilty as O.J. Simpson's gloves.
It all started with an unwelcome takeover in 1492, when Columbus discovered America and displaced all the Native Americans. Got that? *Native* Americans...that means that everyone who came after was not native, simple as that. Then, as I understand it (and I was never a history buff), more people kept moving in. The first settlers arrived at Jamestown in 1607 and the thirteen colonies were soon established. So, to summarize what we've learned so far: America was founded by immigrants.
Now, here we are, more than 400 years later, and we, Americans, are discriminating against other immigrants who want to have the same opportunities that "we" have. What right do "we" have to play God and decide who should be entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? How did this "we" become a "we," anyway? Who constitutes part of the "we"? And the "others"? If roles were reversed, would the others discriminate against "us" Americans? When you think about it, the term "American" has come to connote the idea of coming from the United States of America. But what about Central Americans? And South Americans? Why is it that they are Central Americans and South Americans but don't get to reap the benefits of being an American? It's not like we, members of the United States, are *the* Americans. We are merely *some* Americans.
So when people make the often-several-week perilous journey to cross the border illegally in search of a better life, what right does border patrol and everyone else have to say that they aren't welcome here, that they have to go back from where they came? What if the Native Americans had said that to Columbus? Or if the Jamestown settlers were deported for just getting off the boat and saying that that land was their land? Then, where would we be? Probably scattered around the world in places whose residents choose to emigrate to the U.S. Probably trying to decide how to best help our families and whether it would be worth it to trek to the U.S. and cross the border illegally, knowing full well that one must choose between providing a better life for his family and staying with his family, never able to successfully do both.When faced with such a decision, what would you choose? Would you sacrifice seeing your family and friends again so that you might be able to create and maintain a lifelong window to various opportunities? Perhaps when thinking about, commenting on, and judging those who have made that decision -- in true Sophie's Choice fashion -- "we Americans" should be more accepting of the "others," who arguably constitute "otherness" based on the simple fact that they were not born on United States soil.
If you think about it, even "our" national anthem is a contradiction. In the multi-verse "The Star-Spangled Banner," each verse ends with "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave." Well, freedom connotes that every individual has the right and power to authoritatively make decisions for oneself. That doesn't seem to be the case with immigrants to the U.S. And the home of the brave? Why is the label "the brave" restricted to people who enjoy the freedoms that were won hundreds of years ago by other people? It seems that the "real braves" are those who actually fight for what they believe in, especially those who know full well that that their beliefs do not conform to popular consensus.
Besides analyzing the Star-Spangled Banner in this way, maybe the Declaration of Independence needs another look. It explicitly states that, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The word unalienable (a variant of "inalienable") has been explained in the following context: "In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative" (according to Wikipedia). Wouldn't that mean, then, that everyone -- regardless of their customs or beliefs -- is entitled to those rights? Even those who fall under the term "aliens"? It's kind of curious, actually, how those who illegally come from outside the U.S. are deemed "aliens" and that, in our very own Declaration of *Independence* we assert particular rights as being unalienable! But really,ever since 1492, hasn't our country been made up of aliens? Maybe our whole collective "intro-American" perspective has just perpetuated itself all because of a silly case of semantics...
"I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together" ... but why has no one realized that we're all just walruses?
9 comments:
Great post, Mis. ... Nice how you summarized 400+ years of history in one paragraph! ... I wonder if you would be willing to pose any counter-arguments to what you have written. ... And, oh yes -- what about Canadians?
I'm thinking of counter-arguments like:
-What would happen if we had a completely open-door policy?
-Would that lead to chaos?
-Where would people live?
-How would we be able to feed them?
-Provide medical assistance? (considering, for example, that tens of millions of US citizens do not have medical coverage) ...
-Virtually all other countries have immigration limitations (need for visas, inability of foreigners to get working papers -- as you experienced in Barcelona, etc.). Why should the U.S. be different?
-Are there some common reasons that countries have immigration policies?
-Etc.
Just some things to think about (which is the purpose of a blog, right?)
Those counter arguments are definitely worth considering and I hope other people choose to weigh in as well. To answer your questions, let's see....
*A completely open-door policy probably wouldn't be the best idea because, as you suggest, that might lead to chaos. Plus, having no set standards or criteria which must be met prior to entry would probably bring down the country as a whole in terms of quality of resident. For example, according to the CIA, as of 2003, the literacy rate of people over the age of 15 in the U.S. was 99%. If a whole slew of people decided to emigrate from Guinea, however, then those representatives of a country that had a 29.5% literacy rate would lower the U.S.'s standards of achieving excellence. Of course, that is not to say that people should not be admitted to the U.S. if they are illiterate, but there has to be evidence that the immigrants are dedicated to the same principles on which this country was founded and continues to thrive.
*Where would people live? Considering the fact that in many places, there are dozens of people under one roof (if they are even so lucky to have one), then people shouldn't be denied the opportunity to emigrate just because there isn't an apparent answer to this issue.
*How would we be able to feed them? Medical assistance? As of now, since many immigrants are unregistered, they make money and do not have to pay taxes. Granting legal status to these people would, therefore, require them to pay taxes to the U.S. government, thereby increasing the amount of money collected in taxes that could be redistributed among the population in arenas like food and medical assistance. With more people coming from outside the country, they might also bring with them techniques for farming or cultivating products that could benefit the (North) American people. Surely, there must be a way to accommodate many of the needs that would arise, even if the system would likely never be perfect.
*I do understand why there are limitations when it comes to issuing visas and I whole-heartedly support the idea of imposing certain limitations. However, I do not think that people should be outright denied the opportunity to prove themselves. For example, if I could prove that I could support myself and that I had specific professional goals to achieve while living in Barcelona, I do not believe I should be denied the chance (even if it is only for a few months) to prove myself. If, after those few months I have not achieved anything, then it is my own fault that I cannot stay. But, to be denied the chance from the outset is unfair. Perhaps the U.S. could adopt some policy in admitting foreigners into the country, provided that they can prove their good intentions with moving to the country. In response to those who will undoubtedly comment on (or think about commenting on) how easy it would be for terrorists to enter the U.S., my response would be that there are good and bad people everywhere and careful screenings of people's motivations could help prevent more of the bad from entering the country. As we have seen before, though, people with terrorist connections sometimes come from within our own country, so foreigner status does not have to be the most important factor in evaluating who is fit to enter the U.S. Would having a trial period help provide people the opportunity to reap the benefits of living and working in the U.S.? If, after the trial period ends, they are not as successful as they should have been in meeting their outlined goals, do you think they would all disappear and stay illegally? Or maybe they could apply for another few months?
Just a few more things to consider...
Whoa - you have definitely provided a lot to mull over here. But one point immediately jumps to mind: Certainly one of the reasons you could not get working papers in Barcelona was that they didn't want to give a paying job to a foreigner at the expense of one of their own (either a Spaniard or a citizen of an EU country). Do you think that's an appropriate policy?
I hate to answer a question with a question, but if those jobs are vacant and someone who is qualified (or willing to learn) comes along and wants it, then what difference does it make where that person is from?
taxes? ... giving money to someone with roots in the country? ... or to someone who has family there/is likely to remain? ... are you saying that one's existing residence/citizenship shouldn't count at all?
well, when you put it that way, no, i guess it shouldn't really count. i mean, we're *all* immigrants (walruses), really. maybe it's like saying, "what's the difference between someone born in boston and someone born in los angeles? should one necessarily get more access/opportunities than the other?"
I am so proud to have had the honor of being your teacher....long ago....now you teach us. Missy, your writing is exceptionally persuasive as your reasoning makes us "feel" your logic. Who couldn't agree with you? Keep writing as you are the leader of the braves. -NP (R)
So let me see if I've got this right. You would like all countries to have open borders. Let's pursue this proposition to its logical conclusion.
With open borders, presumably all or most people would want to come to the U.S. Once they did, the weight of their presence would cause North America to rotate to the bottom of the earth. Then all the people would fall off. Are you sure that's what you want??
Post a Comment