Oh, it's a deep partisan divide; I get it. I also got a Facebook message with a video of carefully-selected quotes from prominent Democrat politicians on the need for secure borders and immigration control, with a note to "share it far and wide."
Right. Because that's totally persuasive, in much the same way that Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on the primacy of labor over capital (look it up) would convert Republicans to Marxism.
It's a partisan fight. I'd like to tell you the issues matter, that past positions matter -- but they don't. Party A has chosen a position, Party B opposes it. And vice versa. If one side drinks Coke, the other side clamors for Pepsi -- or maybe 7Up, because it's more opposite.
Personally, I am all for open borders, along with a complete lack of tax-funded, government run social services for everybody. Work or starve, and if you think there's a need for free hospitals or old-age insurance (etc.), you get together with a few thousand friends and roll your own.
Those things aren't going to happen. Conversely, I can see a strong border being touted as a humanitarian thing, keeping people from trying to cross in dangerous, desolate spots. But in order for that to work, tourists, immigrants and refugees would have to be processed in a timely manner at the official border crossings, necessitating a huge increase in Federal workers. You'd think the Democrats would be in favor of that -- quicker processing, more government jobs -- especially in light of their comments on the plight of workers affected by the current government shutdown and you'd think Republicans would be happy to work with them to get a big, serious wall, but remember paragraph three: it's a partisan fight. It's not really about borders, walls, immigrants or refugees. It's about picking a side.
There's also a lot of vested interest in an off-the-books labor force, not covered by minimum-wage laws and afraid to complain about unsafe conditions. The people who hire them are just about the only ones who benefit from the present situation and they stand the most to lose no matter which of the two sides wins.
I wonder just how much influence they wield?
Update
3 days ago
3 comments:
I have multiple bullet holes in various roofs thanks to living within gunshot range of the Texas Mexico border. A wall will not stop that but combine it with deportation within 48 hours and ending birthright citizenship-would go a long ways to stabilizing Mexico. Yes there is that much money involved and yes the plata o plomo never went away in Mexico.
The truth is that human trafficking has been for many centuries a big money making enterprise. It is worse now that certain american hating ideologies are using our own decency in a perverse Cloward Piven scheme to destroy us. And don't get me started on greed from the Chamber of Commerce human trafficking branch known as the GOPe.
So build it and enforce the laws on the books, but don't call it a stunt when people on both sides of the border are paying a heavy price for the greed pigheadness and plain stupidity of both American and Mexican leaders for at the last 50 years.
"Because that's totally persuasive, in much the same way that Abraham Lincoln's thoughts on the primacy of labor over capital (look it up) would convert Republicans to Marxism." what do you mean? Assuming you are familiar with the '48ers and Red Republicans.
One piece of the puzzle is making it easier for seasonal workers to enter, leave, and return legally. Knowing they could go home and return without a hassle would remove some of the incentive to stay.
People from across the border want to come work here. People here want to hire them. Why is it so hard to figure out how to make that happen efficiently?
As for “the wall”: From all I’ve read from various CBP sources, there are places where physical barriers are effective and make sense. There are also places where physical barriers are ineffective and wasteful. Why is that so hard to understand?
Aaaarrgghh.
Post a Comment