Immigration and Liberal Taboos: A Response by btibbs
Close
Hover over top left image to zoom.
Click anywhere to exit.
Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise.
Description
The following is a response from Edward Abbey's essay, Immigration and Liberal Taboos. A copy of Edward Abbey's essay can be found here.
Having wealth is not the only reason to be generous, and, while such troubles should not be ignored, having problems of our own does not mean we cannot help others with their dilemmas. The immigrants going into the U.S. do not have to earn or deserve our respect but are entitled to it by birthright. We as a people have a duty to help those in need, regardless of the situations in which this need arise, not out of pity or out of desire for a stronger work force but out of acknowledgement of them as human beings. Edward Abbey is wrong in saying that if we must “meddle” we should give them weapons so that they can go kill their enemies; if love was a word that should only be applied to friends then it is a worthless word indeed, because all too often the line is blurred between those who are “allies” and those who are “enemies.” He calls this a “constructive” way, but chooses to give as a method of construction one of the most stereotypically destructive inventions in the history of mankind. He is further incorrect by saying that we should not meddle with other countries and peoples at all. Isolationism, in this classification of the word, is a selfish and cruel alternative. Those who would be turned away would be refused any offer of generosity from one of the most prosperous countries in the world. This is not a kind and compassionate alternative, nor is it a smart one… the message of turning away thousands under the explanation that they should “start their own revolutions” might not catch on fast in the political world. One alternative to Abbey’s “solution” would be for the government to exercise more control over the situation. The borders would be more carefully protected from illegal immigrants and the government would crack down on those who employ these illegal aliens for ridiculously small amounts of money as well as on those who come to be citizens by finding loopholes in the system. For example, in the beginning of Edward Abbey’s essay, he described a mother having a baby in a U.S. hospital and moving to the U.S. with the child, who would then be an American citizen--this situation could be easily absolved: the baby would indeed be a U.S. citizen by law, but the mother and the rest of the family would not be allowed to be U.S. citizens without passing the same test as all the other immigrants. The government should consider, on the other hand, loosening the criteria for becoming a U.S. citizen; the vast majority of American citizens couldn‘t pass that test the first try. Perhaps a metaphor is necessary for proper description of how the policy should be handled. Imagine for a moment that you have a four-year-old child who wants to go skateboarding. Because you love the child, you are afraid of the bumps and bruises he may get from falling on the hard pavement, but at the same time you want to prepare him for adulthood and allow him to learn from his mistakes. Therefore, you let him go skateboarding, and, as you predicted, he comes home with a few “boo-boos.” Treating the wounds, you listen to him tell you how he tripped over a bump in the road he didn’t see, and how the next day he’ll be more careful not to hit it. This is how parenthood works, and this is how our policy of immigration should be handled. Loving the immigrants as fellow human beings does not mean we should mollycoddle them by allowing them to live here and do whatever they wish. They are not benefited in the long run from this treatment and all the while they pollute our country with the very problems they were fleeing from in the first place, whereas disallowing illegal aliens to enter the country keeps the U.S. in better condition for those who sincerely earn their citizenry. Out of all of God’s creations, we human beings are the only ones that premeditatedly kill others of our own species. The history of humankind is one of brutality and bloodshed, full to the brim with treacheries and tragedies of all kinds. Perhaps indeed all humans have goodness in them, as is a liberal belief, and yet humans are very obviously flawed, which is part of the foundation for conservatism. Both point of views are quite accurate and, therefore, the solution to the problem of immigrants coming into the U.S. lies not with focusing only on one standpoint or the other; rather, it lies with the treating of those in need with respect and honor, and that, perhaps, is what they need the most.
Please join me at MyWiki, a compilation of human creativity, found here.
Having wealth is not the only reason to be generous, and, while such troubles should not be ignored, having problems of our own does not mean we cannot help others with their dilemmas. The immigrants going into the U.S. do not have to earn or deserve our respect but are entitled to it by birthright. We as a people have a duty to help those in need, regardless of the situations in which this need arise, not out of pity or out of desire for a stronger work force but out of acknowledgement of them as human beings. Edward Abbey is wrong in saying that if we must “meddle” we should give them weapons so that they can go kill their enemies; if love was a word that should only be applied to friends then it is a worthless word indeed, because all too often the line is blurred between those who are “allies” and those who are “enemies.” He calls this a “constructive” way, but chooses to give as a method of construction one of the most stereotypically destructive inventions in the history of mankind. He is further incorrect by saying that we should not meddle with other countries and peoples at all. Isolationism, in this classification of the word, is a selfish and cruel alternative. Those who would be turned away would be refused any offer of generosity from one of the most prosperous countries in the world. This is not a kind and compassionate alternative, nor is it a smart one… the message of turning away thousands under the explanation that they should “start their own revolutions” might not catch on fast in the political world. One alternative to Abbey’s “solution” would be for the government to exercise more control over the situation. The borders would be more carefully protected from illegal immigrants and the government would crack down on those who employ these illegal aliens for ridiculously small amounts of money as well as on those who come to be citizens by finding loopholes in the system. For example, in the beginning of Edward Abbey’s essay, he described a mother having a baby in a U.S. hospital and moving to the U.S. with the child, who would then be an American citizen--this situation could be easily absolved: the baby would indeed be a U.S. citizen by law, but the mother and the rest of the family would not be allowed to be U.S. citizens without passing the same test as all the other immigrants. The government should consider, on the other hand, loosening the criteria for becoming a U.S. citizen; the vast majority of American citizens couldn‘t pass that test the first try. Perhaps a metaphor is necessary for proper description of how the policy should be handled. Imagine for a moment that you have a four-year-old child who wants to go skateboarding. Because you love the child, you are afraid of the bumps and bruises he may get from falling on the hard pavement, but at the same time you want to prepare him for adulthood and allow him to learn from his mistakes. Therefore, you let him go skateboarding, and, as you predicted, he comes home with a few “boo-boos.” Treating the wounds, you listen to him tell you how he tripped over a bump in the road he didn’t see, and how the next day he’ll be more careful not to hit it. This is how parenthood works, and this is how our policy of immigration should be handled. Loving the immigrants as fellow human beings does not mean we should mollycoddle them by allowing them to live here and do whatever they wish. They are not benefited in the long run from this treatment and all the while they pollute our country with the very problems they were fleeing from in the first place, whereas disallowing illegal aliens to enter the country keeps the U.S. in better condition for those who sincerely earn their citizenry. Out of all of God’s creations, we human beings are the only ones that premeditatedly kill others of our own species. The history of humankind is one of brutality and bloodshed, full to the brim with treacheries and tragedies of all kinds. Perhaps indeed all humans have goodness in them, as is a liberal belief, and yet humans are very obviously flawed, which is part of the foundation for conservatism. Both point of views are quite accurate and, therefore, the solution to the problem of immigrants coming into the U.S. lies not with focusing only on one standpoint or the other; rather, it lies with the treating of those in need with respect and honor, and that, perhaps, is what they need the most.
Please join me at MyWiki, a compilation of human creativity, found here.
Comments (3)
Hopalong
"...we human beings are the only ones that premeditatedly kill others of our own species...", a serious inaccuracy, showing no acquantance with the subject at all. For onechimpanzees. Toon on, Bambi, toon on.
netsia
"....the solution to the problem of immigrants coming into the U.S. lies not with focusing only on one standpoint or the other; rather, it lies with the treating of those in need with respect and honor...." too bad the wasicu did not feel the same about my ancestors....Indians helped the first settlers....in return, the whites decided they would kill the 'heathens'....too bad that the whites didn't just stay away.
weesel
The respect and honor thing cuts both ways. Someone coming in from Bazookastan will enrich the US in some fashion, but they should not expect that the people in the US have to welcome all aspects of Bazookastani culture. In Bazookastan it may be legal and a religious obligation to kill sickly children. Over here, it's murder. Bazookastani immigrants need to understand this before they get here. "Useful idiots" over here also need to understand this... or move to Bazookastan.