Maybe the U.S. really does need to put bars around its borders, because we're all guilty of committing a crime, and in one way or another, we are all at fault.
It's called a "crime against humanity." According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, these crimes "are particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion."
Now let's consider the concept against the backdrop of immigrants and the U.S. policies in place (or lack thereof). Specifically, let's look at those 11-12 million PEOPLE who do not have that highly coveted particular document, be it a visa, green card, or U.S. birth certificate -- all of which, let's face it, come from trees, anyway...and, really, to whom do the trees belong? Nature! If we live by the laws of nature, then why must we act so unnaturally?
So let's take a closer look. Part of a widespread or systemic practice? Check. Persecution? Check. Part of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government? Check.
We must remember that, before we are members of any political, racial, religious, national, or any other group, we are all members of humankind -- or, if you want to be *really* technical, the human race. (In layman's terms, we all belong to the same race!) That means that someone who commits a crime against another person is also essentially committing that same crime against himself. Everyone else is also responsible. Why, you ask? Because we let it happen.
Take Kitty Genovese: a 28-year-old woman who was attacked, sexually assaulted, and murdered on her way home from work at 3am on March 13, 1964. That sequence of events is already tragic. But there were numerous people who heard her screams and her pleas for help and did not do anything. A New York Times article, published a few weeks later, reported that there were 38 witnesses, though there is some debate as to how many of those actually saw or were aware of the entire incident. So, even though only Winston Moseley was the one wielding a knife, those bystanders -- no matter how many or how few there were -- had the power to save her life. And they didn't. Forty years later, her name had become "synonymous with public apathy," as expressed in a segment on National Public Radio which commemorated her death.It has been said that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." (The quote is often attributed to Edmunde Burke, though it seems he never articulated the phrase as succinctly as that. He did, however, write in Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents (1770) that, "when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Still, it is less important who was the first to phrase that statement in that way; the point is the truth behind it.) What I want to know is, why don't more people live by that belief?
Two decades before Kitty Genovese's death, the world was engaged in World War II. Zeroing in on the Holocaust (a word of Greek origin, meaning "sacrifice by fire"), Jews experienced extreme persecution and genocide. Those who were able to get out of the targeted areas were forced to find a way to do so, as they could no longer live peacefully in their desired communities. Those who could not escape found themselves on death marches or being deported on trains that led to concentration camps or death camps. These cattle cars held anywhere from 50-150 passengers, and, "at times, the floor had a layer of quick lime which burned the feet of the human cargo. There was no water. There was no food. There was no toilet, no ventilation. Some boxcars had up to 150 people stuffed into them. It did not matter if it was summer, winter, boiling hot or freezing cold. And an average transport took about four and a half days." Six million Jews perished during the Holocaust. And not one person in the world did enough to stop it from happening.
Now, here we are, in 2011 -- about 70 years since the Holocaust and almost 50 since the attack on Kitty Genovese. And where are we? In May 2011 (two months ago), X-ray equipment led Mexican authorities to the discovery of 512 people (see above) crammed into two tractor-trailers heading for the U.S. Who are we, as fellow members of the human race, to deny our teammates the right to a better life? Why should we treat inhumanely and/or kick out the people who risk their lives to be better and to do better? Who are *we* to be so elitist? After all, more than 500 years ago, pre-Christopher Columbus, *we* were the ones who kicked the Native Americans off of their land so it could be ours. Brings a whole new meaning to "This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land," I can tell you that much.I suppose I simply cannot understand how one human can decide the fate of another. Isn't everyone the same? Shouldn't we all be trying to help each other? That may sound like an after-school special kind of message, but if it's the right thing to do, then who cares? There is no neutrality in this world -- there are the people who act, and there are the people who don't, and everyone is responsible. How can we let immigrants (who are, lest we forget, people just like us) willfully endanger themselves on a daily basis in conditions reminiscent of the Holocaust, just so they have the chance at a better life? The conditions are eerily similar to those cattle cars of the 1930s and 40s, and well over half a century has passed since then. What can we say we have actually achieved in that time?
I do acknowledge that there are and need to be border laws, for the sake of homeland security and all of that. At the same time, however, people need to recognize that helping the countries that are producing our immigrants will have a trickle-down effect. By going to the source and establishing partnerships to help those countries prosper will in turn spark less of a desire for those residents to willfully separate their families in search of a better life. Those who leave their families to create a better life in the US would likely not leave their own communities if they could experience those better opportunities from their own home. Wouldn't it, then, be in everyone's best interests to work to improve the quality of life in those other countries? After all, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
Let's take a look at some facts that spell out a little more clearly the situation in which we (as a nation and as members of the human race) have found ourselves.
According to a 2007 article in The New York Times, if the U.S.wanted to round up all 11-12 million immigrants in the country without proper documentation and deport them, it would cost $94 billion. NINETY-FOUR BILLION DOLLARS! What we could do with $94 billion! What would the effect be if that sum were spent on education, rather than on punishment? If the U.S. is willing to (senselessly) deport all of those people who risked their lives just for the chance to *try* to make a better life for themselves and for their families, what does that say about our country's priorities (other than that we are elitists who kicked out the Native Americans in order to claim the land as our own)?. The immigrants aren't coming to kick anyone off of the land; they just want to contribute to its preservation in order to help others.If 11-12 million people are deported, wouldn't that just perpetuate a cycle of resentment and animosity, toward a country that claims to be a "land of opportunity" and the "land of the free and home of the brave"? We need to break out of this cycle to move forward rather than to allow history to repeat itself. It's clear that what has been done in the past hasn't solved anything, so let's try something new. I mean, what brave act did U.S.-born citizens risk their lives to do in order to earn the right to live/work here?
In order to become a teacher, one must become certified. But becoming certified once does not guarantee a teacher's status as "certified" forever. Every few years (the actual number varies from state to state), a teacher must complete a certain number of professional development hours in order to maintain certification. That makes sense -- it ensures that teachers are adapting to the changing times. Why don't the same kinds of rules apply to U.S. citizenship?...Say, that every few years, one must complete some community service or project that contributes to the well-being of the country. If you don't do your job as a teacher and maintain your certification, you might get put on probation and then lose your teaching license. If you don't do your job as a citizen, maybe the same rules should apply (put on probation and then deported). I do realize that this citizenship business is much more extreme than a teaching license, but maybe it could be deported for a year, just to experience first-hand how hard it is to adapt to life in a new country. Perhaps this exercise would teach American citizens how to be more proactive citizens, rather than mere bystanders.
I don't wish to suggest that this whole "land of opportunity" thing centers on immigration. Here are a few other examples. Click on any of the below links for more eye-opening information than is listed here.
WATER: Almost one billion people do not have access to clean water.
SHOES: 40% of the world's population doesn't have shoes. (Though I don't mean to endorse this next site, I do really like this video that they have on it and encourage everyone to check it out, as it's very well done.)
Rather than spending our time, money, and efforts fighting in wars, why don't we work to promote peace and opportunity for all? Immigration is not the CAUSE of a broken system; it's one of the effects. It's not the problem itself; it's a SYMPTOM. So, why don't we work to fix the system so everyone *worldwide* (that is, our teammates, our brothers and sisters in the human race) has equal access to education, clean water, shoes, etc...basic necessities of life! Only then will the U.S. as a country truly embody the idea that it doesn't matter upon what soil one was born.
In 1776, the United States of America became an independent country upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson. The opening of the second paragraph of the document 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..." Almost 200 years later, in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, within which he said (starting at about 12:25) that, "I still have a dream. It is a dream that is deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream, that one day, this nation will rise up, and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.'"
It has been almost 50 years since MLK, Jr., gave that speech. The U.S. now has an African-American president, Barack Obama, and we have made important strides in many areas. In this particular moment, the government has seemingly reached an impasse when it comes to the trillions of dollars of debt facing our nation. Wouldn't it be great if we had 11-12 million educated sets of ideas for how to proceed, along with 11-12 million pairs of hands to actually execute that plan, rather than be 94 billion MORE dollars in debt?
