Ahead of President Obama’s speech on immigration, I thought I’d do a quick posting about it…
There is no compelling argument for any immigration restrictions, as far as I can tell. Full amnesty should be granted to every “illegal” in the United States, which is an absurd classification, anyhow. And all immigration restrictions, barriers to entry into the United States and otherwise, should be done away with. It’s the right thing to do morally, socially, and economically. Fully open the borders.
To that, then, I’ve gone back and forth on the use of executive power to do it. I worry about the overreach of the executive, but at the same time, immigration laws are immoral and ought to be done away with. Therefore, it follows that Obama shouldn’t have to enforce unjust laws. And it would seem his actions are in, any event, legal.
Going through with this, Obama will, I suppose, be making amends for his record deportation numbers.
As for the Republicans, I take their concerns over the “shredding of the Constitution” with a grain of salt, as their record doesn’t indicate any concern for the Constitution on other issues. Moreover, much of their base is riled up by xenophobia, economic ignorance and an outright lack of empathy. They’re on the wrong side of this issue.
The New York Times and others say this action would help some 40% of the “illegals” in the United States. Let’s get to 100%.
Milam's Musings 
A couple of problems with the dissolution of immigration laws.
First, if the country accepts ten million immigrants in a year (I don’t know what the number would be, but if immigration laws are abandoned I’m sure we’ll see a giant deluge of immigration), our social welfare programs will collapse. Immigrants have been historically, and still are, dirt poor, uneducated. and largely unskilled (especially in such a technologically advanced society as ours). Our social welfare programs will be forced to provide them with food stamps and medicaid, and the rest of our social infrastructure, especially education, will see a tremendous rise in costs as schools see dramatic increases in enrollment without comparable increases in funding (the dirt-poorest of us pay scarce taxes).
Population growth fuels economic growth, but only if the system doesn’t collapse first.
On a more philosophical level, societies should be thought of in the same terms we use to think about people. Societies have the same examples of ego (foreign influence), id (domestic growth), superego (society keeping itself in check), desires, catharses (brewing discontent), indignation, growth stages (child through maturity), etc etc, and if this paradigm can be considered valid then we need to take into account a balance of inward and outward influence. If a person is overwhelmed by outside influences (domination, abuse, being used as a means to an end, for example), that person succumbs in a number of ways. If we dissolve our borders and immigration controls, our society becomes literally penetrated by millions upon millions. If such controls over outside influences are abolished, we’ll also begin to see a grave increase in the influence foreign corporations and foreign nationals have on our society.
LikeLike