I posted this in the Exiles of the New York Times forum, which was set up to accommodate posters to the many forums the New York Times hosted until this spring. One of the amnestyite posters is named weezo, who voiced the reflexive opposition to a universal ID common among left and right wing partisans. He said any ID card would just be copied, so it was useless to try.
-------------------------------------
weezo, your certainties are outdated. Unless you've figured out a way to rearrange the pattern of veins inside your hand. Check out Fujitsu's non-contact palm ID system. And that's not the only biometric system that can't be faked using any existing methods. That's the whole reason for biometric ID. Just because ID cards were faked historically doesn't prove anything about the future. If past proved future there'd be no stock market. And if someone, someday figures out a way to fake it, it'll be a long time before that becomes widespread, and we'll be evolving our own means of taking out the fakes. Nothing stands still.
And the argument about everyone coming from illegals is simply an emotional statement. Every country on Earth has a sovereign right to decide who gets to cross its borders, and for how long, and what reason. I travel internationally every year, and I know this from personal experience. There isn't a country on Earth that's OK with illegal immigration. Heck, you should see how Mexican law and Mexican legal authorities treat illegal aliens. They're denied access to all social services, just for a start.
Mexico has a moral obligation to look after Mexicans. America has a moral obligation to look after Americans. Mexico does not have a moral obligation to look after Americans who are in Mexico illegally--and vice versa--other than adhering to international standards for dealing with people guilty of criminal trespass. I fail to see how any of this is difficult to comprehend.
If we choose to extend ourselves to certain foreigners for humanitarian or strategic reasons, that's our prerogative. But there's no principle you can propose for admitting foreigners that puts Mexicans ahead of everyone else. Want to know who we actually owe something to? It's the TWO MILLION Iraqi refugees--comprising most of its middle class and nearly all its Christians--due to The Decider's little adventure. If we admit anyone for humanitarian reasons, it should be them.
Or if you want to make it on the basis of suffering, we'd start with the starving citizens of Niger, which ranks at the very bottom--#177--of the United Nation's "suffering index." Mexico only ranks 53rd on that list.
And if you want to make it on the basis of people who we're simpatico with, who already appreciate American society...well, I can vouch for the Balinese. They love us. And they're great people. Family oriented, hard workers, tolerant.
And the Balinese don't boo innocent American young women for the crime of being American, as the Mexican upper crust audience did to the American entry in the Miss Universe contest a few days ago--and not just a few boos, and not just a little. Talk about having no class.
Nor do the Balinese chant "Osama, Osama" at futbol games with American teams. Why should I want to let people come here from a country that treats Americans this way? This shows a hostility towards more than the tool in the White House. It shows hostility towards America in toto. Remember when some Palestinians danced in the streets on 9/11, handing out sweets to neighbors? I have no intention of welcoming anyone like that to our country.
As for family reunification, I certainly encourage anyone who want to have his whole village around him to stay in his village. My spouse and I stay in California partly because we have family here. And we certainly have an obligation not to tear apart the families of Americans unless there's a good reason. But what's tearing apart Mexican families and depopulating Mexican villages is Mexico's callous, greedy, government. Want family reunification? Demonstrate in front of your nearest Mexican consulate. Demand fundamental reforms in Mexico's government.
Remember, every single illegal alien is a citizen of some country--some country that owes that person the privileges and responsibilities of citizenship, unlike us. If you think we're responsible for everyone everywhere--for letting anyone come here who wants to--the consequence of that policy would be the world's poor coming here until here is no different from where they came from. And we'll have a billion+ population like China and India.
The only other principles you could invoke for letting Mexicans in ahead of everyone else would be if you're Catholic and want your church to dominate American life like it does in Latin American countries; or if you're a racialist who puts Mexicans ahead of others, just because you think Mexicans are the bestest people on Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment