Immigration
The bottom line is simple. Except for the indiginous Indians that roamed this land, everyone of us is the descendant of an immigrant whether they came here voluntarily or not.
So what is the big deal about hoards of immigrants streaming across the borders to take advantage of the job opportunities--or to take advantage of our extraordinarily generous welfare system--to birth their children in free hospitals with free doctors -- guarantee citizenship for their new born children in the greatest nation in history for nearly the last two millenia?
Up until last September 11, 2001 we flat-out did not care about the border problems facing Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. We looked the other way. We talked about how great it would be to have a domestic (someone to clean our house CHEAP), and someone who would not talk or rat us out for paying them below scale because we either did not pay them the minimum wage or we refused to pay their social security or anything else that normal employers pay for everybody else.
Let's face it, some of us had it made. If we had a business that could employ cheap labor, allow us to not provide extras like health care or dental, and a reasonable assurance of no government interference, we loved it. What a bonanza. Growers in the southwest, oil companies, and manufacturers alike, all enjoyed the luxury, if you will, of the enormous amount of cheap labor that was, and still is, available to them.
A whole industry emerged in people smuggling. Entire familes would flood across the border and quickly melt into the barrios of San Diego, Los Angeles, Laredo, Tuscon, and every town in New Mexico from Los Cruces to Alburquerque to Lovington. So much so that a burgeoning minority in the public school systems can't and won't speak English forcing the educators to gravitate to the highly paid skill set of bi-lingual teachers. As a result of the wave of illegal immigrants a culture of "Spanglish" has grown up and the most popular food in the southwest is not pizza, it's tacos and tortillas.
Politicians and news commentators alike have climbed on the band wagon in such numbers to "do something" about the influx that one has to wonder - where were they before September 11, 2001? If the problem is so critical now, it had to be then. Yet, today's "oh woe is me folks" were nowhere to be found. If they claim they did not know about the problem of a stampede of illegal immigrants, they should have. California in a public referendum voted years ago to not give out welfare, drivers licenses and other state goodies to illegal undocumented border crossers. In other words, "lets not make it worth the illegal immigrants while to lie, steal and cheat their way across the wide expanse of borders that beckon to be crossed when no one is looking.
Where is the ethical dilemma other than the obvious of crossing the border without proper documentation? Has any harm really been done? Who is suffering? And, if not, who may potentially suffer? This is the ethics test. Some would point to the drug traffic. Sorry, that ethical abomination has always gone on and will continue to do so until there stops being a market for dope and dope smugglers in the USA. Well then, one might ask, how about the terrorists streaming across the border? Actually the last bunch of terrorists that we know of that all died on September 11, 2005, and the live ones captured afterwards, all got here legally. They attended our schools, had drivers licenses, legitimate passports and visas. It seems that terrorists do prefer to hop on in the good ole' USA legally. What is it that ethically does us harm?
It's a money thing; the welfare draw, the free medical, healthcare, and unemployment insurance checks. This is where the harm is being perpetrated. And it is being perpetrated on each and every one of us. Californians tried unsuccessfully to do something about it. However, the courts smacked them down. The court presumed that being a humanitarian outweighed the illegality of being here without permission even though it was a troublesome burden to those US citizens who legally belonged here and were paying for the those who had no such right.
The overriding ethical dilemma is whether or not a generous court can override the will of the people to permit illegal immigrants to use and abuse, at will, our generousity and desire to do good. It is a certainty the judges came down on the side of assuring it was our moral obligation to do so and to take care of others even though the courts had no authority to award money denied in a public referendum by the majority of the people. So the dilemma comes down to these two issues.
- First, do we have an obligation to be the caretakers of any one person, family, man woman or child who crosses our border, illegal or not? Consider that we only have an obligation to do no harm. We have no such obligation to do good. By turning our back on illegal aliens who want to immigrate here for whatever reason, we can and should deny them the access on purely ethical grounds. By entering our country illegally, we may in fact be subjecting each and every one of them to direct harm in the way of exploitation and mistreatment.
- Secondly, do we have a moral obligation to force those of us who do not agree to pay for and underwrite a government system that gives our money away without a democratically approved vote? (the California case). Clearly, no agency in government has the right to give, expropriate or use government assets for the benefit of one group over another when the will of the people clearly says no. To do otherwise, in fact, actually brings great harm to a large unsuspecting segment of our society to the exlcusive benefit of another that neither possesses or is entitled to determine the final outcome.
Next up:
Education
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home