I was listening to the radio this afternoon on my way home, and the topic was illegal immigration. Here in Southern California, this is an issue that hits particularly close to home, and people have strong opinions.
My opinion doesn’t happen to be related to this post, though you might be able to guess what it is. 
Regardless, there was a caller who accused the host of being a “hater” because he supports groups like Protest Warrior. Upon inquiry, it was evident that Protest Warrior is a hating group because they show up at various liberal protests, and protest their protest.
That’s hate.
Furthermore, it was clear (according to the caller) that the host was a “hater” because he disapproved of illegal immigration, and criticizes President Bush for not acting to address the issue. Again, on inquiry, it became clear that the caller believed that Americans had “stolen this land to begin with,” that the idea of borders was something “American bigots had just made up,” and that there was absolutely no grounds for an immigration policy to begin with.
Sadly, the host did – in my opinion – a piss-poor job of arguing with this guy, and the conversation ended with an insinuation that the caller’s misperceptions could be attributed to his having attended public school (cop out).
We can’t spend time fighting wars of centuries ago, or second-guessing the actions of our predecessors. That’s all done, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it.
What we CAN do is acknowledge the challenges associated with living in today’s world, and address them to our best ability. Nation states (countries, etc.) have been around for an awful long time now…in fact, Mexico would be considered a nation state. They’ve got an immigration policy, even if it’s nothing more than writing. The U.S. is a nation state, with its own immigration policy (that happens to be only slightly more than writing).
If you enter this country illegally, you’ve broken the laws of the United States. Similarly, if you were to patron a brothel in Mexico, you’d be breaking Mexican law. Neither of these laws have been particularly well enforced in the past, but it doesn’t change the fact that they’re laws enacted by the people of the respective nations.
We’ve ALL agreed that having independent nations, with the ability to create laws independently of one another, is perfectly fine. To my knowledge, there isn’t a whole hell of a lot inhabited land out there that’s without a country (please, no Gaza Strip references here)…and that’s for a REASON.
To suggest that U.S. immigration laws are moot because the land was “stolen” from previous inhabitants is asinine. In today’s society, every foreign-born person is given the opportunity to apply for American citizenship/legality. Those of you who choose to circumvent the system should be held accountable – just as American citizens should be held accountable for visiting Tijuana brothels.
Of course, that’d be logically applying the idea to both sides…and we try not to do that. 
Wow, thanks for a somewhat postive post. My entire blog at http://proudamericans.blogspot.com is concerning illegal immigration. I can give you millions of reasons that Bush or whoever needs to do something here. Please people, wake up. There is more at stake here than just a few illegal immigrants. Did you know that 15% of the prison population is now made up of illegal immigrants? Did you know that same 15% costs me and you, the American taxpayers, one billion dollars last year? That is 1 billion ladies and gentlemen. That is a one with 9 zeroes behind it. Yep, what had our borders been closed? What if half of these violent crimals had been turned around at the border?
“To suggest that U.S. immigration laws are moot because the land was “stolen” from previous
inhabitants is asinine.”
Assuming you’re correct about the shortcoming of this argument (and I tend to think you are), is an argument that “the law is the law,” which is what your point boils down to, any more profoundly correct in terms of crafting the proper immigration policy for the US?
Clearly it’s not. It’s simply an appeal to the very authority being questioned.
No, I’ve clearly not drawn the two points together very well. What I was intending to compare was the irony involved in the argument.
It’s not okay for the U.S. to have immigration laws, but it’s okay for other countries to do so (or to have laws in general)? We accept that sovereign nations of today are able to create their own laws, but suddenly, there are those who disagree with that idea when it comes to immigration.
Your point is well-received; simply stating that “it’s the law” is not necessarily justification for the law. But if you’re able to recognize that in our republic all citizens contribute to the collective well-being of other citizens, then you can see the need for an immigration policy that affords immigrants the “opportunity” to contribute to that base. That’s where the law part of it comes in. Immigration law is intended to control the flow of new people into the counry, not eliminate it…
..and it would seem that just about every country in the world today has some semblance of an immigration policy.
To suggest that such a law is inappropriate because of the derivation of the country’s borders would lead one to conclude that ALL laws could be suspect…but only this one was mentioned by the caller.
The right wing that has taken over the Republicans will never do anything meaningful to stop illegal immigration because too many of their rich contributors depend on the cheap labor from exploiting these desperate people.
As long as corrupt people like Bush are in charge, nothing will ever get done to stop illegal immigration.