Immigration Debate about Group Warfare
Joseph McHugh
April 30, 2006
Who must sacrifice for the group? And what group must be sacrificed? These are not terribly palatable questions, but these are the terms of the current immigration debate.
But must anyone sacrifice? And what about the individual?s rights? Those ought to be the terms of the debate.
The left is split over immigration, but only in specific focus. Some are in favor of looser immigration because they see immigrants as another victim group who must be sacrificed for. As Ted Kennedy said this is ?the new Civil rights issue.? The left is not concerned about any possible deleterious effect on the U.S economy or U.S citizens, not because they don?t see a possibility of that, but, rather, because in essence they don?t care about Americans. They see America as white and ?privileged? and in need of sacrificing to unfortunate others. American citizens are in an envious position, therefore morally suspect, and must sacrifice for the needy, especially needing to give out more welfare benefits.
Others on the left see immigration as a problem only because they are angry at the low wages that businesses offer. They see immigration as a form of exploitation. Thus, to these leftists, too, America is an evil country, so evil in fact that it is better for immigrants to stay out of America and starve to death in their own countries rather than come here and be ?exploited.? Individual immigrants must be sacrificed to the left?s intrinsic notions of ?fairness,? and what they arbitrarily declare to be a ?proper? wage, and, above all the hard earned profits of businesses must be sacrificed to need.
In parallel to these, are still others on the left, specifically union leaders, who simply are crude protectionists, who want one group to sacrifice for their group at the point of a gun. They want the government to forcibly keep out competition. Microsoft was brought up on charges for a hell of a lot less. They never called for the actual physical detention of their competitors!
The right is split, with the nationalist wing trotting out a laundry list of objections to allowing illegal immigrants to clean up their status and stay here. But their arguments all boil down to either a superstitious awe of the law, or brute nativism. To them the law is the law, and ought be followed regardless of the wisdom and justice of the law itself, which they never seem to get around to thinking about. And besides, they assert, America belongs to our group. We need to protect ourselves from ?them? no matter what individuals constitute the ?them,? good or bad. They claim (without evidence) that illegals are taking too many government benefits. If that?s the case they should be fighting the government, not the people who take advantage of our stupidity. If someone leaves their own hard earned money on the table for all to take, is it the fault of those who take it, or the foolish people who leave the cash on the table? Too, the nationalists focus all their fire on Mexican illegals, while ignoring other groups such as illegal Irish immigrants who populate such cities as Boston and New York. Such color-coding makes one suspicious. Racism is the ugliest form of group worship.
Others on the right advocate immigration because it?s good for their constituency, business. Such people see the world in essentially leftist terms as a war between rival groups. This wing just happens to advocate sacrificing for the business group over the worker?s group, alleging an advantage to business.
A wise philosopher recently posed the question, if I invite an individual on my property to work, what concern is it of other parties not involved in this private transaction? If the person isn?t a health risk to the population or a criminal (and such people can be screened out) why should another party come in and be allowed to abrogate the arrangement by force? Only the philosophy that the group is more important than the individual can account for such thinking. Only the belief that the individual must sacrifice for the state or society or the group motivates all thinking on immigration today.
Unless or until this country returns to the notion that the individual is superior to the group, we will never resolve the immigration debate.
Sacrifice, who needs it?
But must anyone sacrifice? And what about the individual?s rights? Those ought to be the terms of the debate.
The left is split over immigration, but only in specific focus. Some are in favor of looser immigration because they see immigrants as another victim group who must be sacrificed for. As Ted Kennedy said this is ?the new Civil rights issue.? The left is not concerned about any possible deleterious effect on the U.S economy or U.S citizens, not because they don?t see a possibility of that, but, rather, because in essence they don?t care about Americans. They see America as white and ?privileged? and in need of sacrificing to unfortunate others. American citizens are in an envious position, therefore morally suspect, and must sacrifice for the needy, especially needing to give out more welfare benefits.
Others on the left see immigration as a problem only because they are angry at the low wages that businesses offer. They see immigration as a form of exploitation. Thus, to these leftists, too, America is an evil country, so evil in fact that it is better for immigrants to stay out of America and starve to death in their own countries rather than come here and be ?exploited.? Individual immigrants must be sacrificed to the left?s intrinsic notions of ?fairness,? and what they arbitrarily declare to be a ?proper? wage, and, above all the hard earned profits of businesses must be sacrificed to need.
In parallel to these, are still others on the left, specifically union leaders, who simply are crude protectionists, who want one group to sacrifice for their group at the point of a gun. They want the government to forcibly keep out competition. Microsoft was brought up on charges for a hell of a lot less. They never called for the actual physical detention of their competitors!
The right is split, with the nationalist wing trotting out a laundry list of objections to allowing illegal immigrants to clean up their status and stay here. But their arguments all boil down to either a superstitious awe of the law, or brute nativism. To them the law is the law, and ought be followed regardless of the wisdom and justice of the law itself, which they never seem to get around to thinking about. And besides, they assert, America belongs to our group. We need to protect ourselves from ?them? no matter what individuals constitute the ?them,? good or bad. They claim (without evidence) that illegals are taking too many government benefits. If that?s the case they should be fighting the government, not the people who take advantage of our stupidity. If someone leaves their own hard earned money on the table for all to take, is it the fault of those who take it, or the foolish people who leave the cash on the table? Too, the nationalists focus all their fire on Mexican illegals, while ignoring other groups such as illegal Irish immigrants who populate such cities as Boston and New York. Such color-coding makes one suspicious. Racism is the ugliest form of group worship.
Others on the right advocate immigration because it?s good for their constituency, business. Such people see the world in essentially leftist terms as a war between rival groups. This wing just happens to advocate sacrificing for the business group over the worker?s group, alleging an advantage to business.
A wise philosopher recently posed the question, if I invite an individual on my property to work, what concern is it of other parties not involved in this private transaction? If the person isn?t a health risk to the population or a criminal (and such people can be screened out) why should another party come in and be allowed to abrogate the arrangement by force? Only the philosophy that the group is more important than the individual can account for such thinking. Only the belief that the individual must sacrifice for the state or society or the group motivates all thinking on immigration today.
Unless or until this country returns to the notion that the individual is superior to the group, we will never resolve the immigration debate.
Sacrifice, who needs it?
Print
Email
