It is proving increasingly difficult to find the adequate research compiling time to complete my last post on 9/11 theories, but it is on the way slowly but surely. In the meantime, though, allow me to briefly switch gears to share some considerations I have had recently about the illegal immigration “issue” here in the U.S.

I have been fairly silent on the issue since it has become a more mainstream topic over the last couple years. This is due in part to not having a fully formed opinion and also to just being repelled by the extreme rhetoric which surrounds most circles of the debate.

[Note: I do not wish here to provide (nor have I) any solutions or specific notions for how immigration should be handled. Nor do I wish to attempt to justify illegal immigration in any way. I merely wish to pose some questions and question/challenge some of the arguments and assumptions which surround the debate.]

I think I was first introduced to an intense opposition view of the issue in a Patrick Buchanan book I read almost 3 years ago. For the record, I still think Buchanan can be worth reading at times for some estute historical perspectives on political issues, but now, particularly where immigration is concerned, I see some of his intense (and I think unfortunate) “Amerocentric” (as in the United States sense), if not xenophobic, tendencies much more clearly. At the time, though, I pretty much bought his argument. First, I was somewhat stirred up by his doomsday statistics arguing current immigration levels (illegal or not) would not be sustainable over time. And then I naturally fell into mild frustration that our government seemed to not care enough to do anything about the rampant illegal immigration taking place. It was very easy at first to look at this issue in black and white without personalizing it. Only once the illegal immigration issue started receiving much national attention a couple years ago did I begin to broadly rethink the issue, question some of my own assumptions and even question nationalism and national sovereignty in general.

Anti-Illegal Immigration or Anti-Multiculturalism?

With said illegal immigration issue – as with many popular political issues – there seems to be a couple different levels of intensity for essentially saying the same thing. On the most extreme side, there are people (like Buchanan) saying what we have with this illegal immigration is actually an “invasion” and it is made worse by the fact that these so-called “invaders” do not want to “assimilate” or learn the language, but rather transplant their own culture here. On the softer side, if you will, there are people who are sure to constantly clarify that, “We are not anti-immigration, just anti-illegal immigration. We are completely for legal immigration.”

Of course this all sounds well and good. They seem to just be concerned for the rule of law right? Well, a little problem arises when you realize that, all too often, many of the exact same concerns of the extreme “invasion” crowd surface among the “only anti-illegal immigration” crowd. There is often the same anger over the lack of assimilation; the same concern over the huge influx of immigrants in recent years, etc. Those concerns ultimately do not depend upon the illegality of the immigration at all. If all these illegals were somehow able to easily come here legally those realities likely would not change. The anger would probably not change either. Thus we rarely hear anyone seriously discussing how to make becoming a U.S. citizen less laborious. These points are generally avoided thus avoiding the deeper debate over what many seem to really want; which is not really to encourage legal immigration of all who want to come but rather to force assimilation and immigration control. If we boil these arguments down then there seems to be a buried Amerocentric xenophobic attitude present mixed with nationalist pride over power and sovereignty which always demands acknowledgement of our authority and way of life.

The Great Invasion?

When it comes to concerns over the influx, or so-called “invasion”, of illegal immigration coming from the south, I am compelled to make the comparison most seem loath to make. I must ask if this influx could possibly ever be more detrimental to the people of this continent today than the giant influx of European immigrants was to the Native Americans who then inhabitated this land? That “great migration” (or “invasion” if I may make the logical comparison), was ultimately fully devastating to the Native Americans. It is interesting how few people would dare make or entertain such a comparison. It begs the question, was all of that “Manifest Destiny” stuff seen as ok then (and still today) simply because the Native Americans were in clusters, didn’t own property as Europeans did, or have “national sovereignty”? But now that the land is ours no one else can dare do anything unless we say so? Unless they acknowledge our supreme authority?

Perhaps, though, some are worried a similar fate to that of the Native Americans might eventually befall Americans today. I think the European immigration had some significant differences though. For one thing, it was a complete clash of cultures in every aspect. The Europeans and Native Americans had completely different ideas in all socioeconomic spheres; in short, totally different worldviews. The early English settlers were mostly interested in owning some land to improve their own economic situations or cashing in on some wealthy resources (not very unlike most people’s goals today). For the most part, these ideas were simply foreign to the Natives. All I can say of this is that today, regardless of how assimilated one is, most people in this country are operating under a largely accepted economic framework shooting for similar goals of economic betterment and financial independence; nothing near the cultural clash of the past which led to much violence on both sides, and ultimately displacement, death and genocide of the native peoples.

The Blind Spots

To conclude this post, I have a somewhat related working theory. Please stick with me as I try to flesh it out. It seems to me people, by and large, tend to be happy with economic/political/social systems as long as they are beneficial to them in some way. They will then either shrug off or ignore the negative consequences as minor or unrelated or they will isolate negative aspects as things which can be changed alone. When history is written these things tend to be looked at (if seriously acknowledged at all) as merely “blind spots” of an otherwise well-intentioned people. For example, today most people enjoy the conditions produced by corporate globalism, but there’s just that little unfortunate bother of companies outsourcing jobs and exporting production. To put it another way, people enjoy the benefits they receive from the free flow of corporate capital, but can’t fully make the connection when that system produces the conditions for downsizing/exporting jobs and even furthers and facilitates the “unwanted” free flow of people in a similar way. They can’t understand why there government won’t prevent those things and defend the people’s interests or why corporations do those things as if, otherwise, the government and corporations are really looking after our interests. I would argue, however, the entire system – whether it benefits us or hurts us – isn’t set up to serve our interests anyway. Instead it is set up to serve the bottom line. So to fight these things without fighting the system is to fight a losing battle.

Likewise, let’s consider things like the history of slavery or the “displacement” (to put it nicely) of Native Americans in this country. These, as I said before, are often treated as missteps or “blind spots” of our forefathers which we have now “corrected.” But can one really celebrate this country and its history or celebrate Columbus Day or “Manifest Destiny” and the westward expansion, etc. while trying to isolate those things as unfortunate blunders as if they weren’t an integral part of the whole process? Like it or not, the U.S. would not be what it is today without those unfortunate events and the larger forces/conditions which helped create them; a fact I feel most of us are in denial towards. We generally look back and think “that was tragic but at least we know better now.”

Do we really know better now? I’m not so sure we do.