What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
SPECIAL REPORT: How Iraq is Being
Destroyed
"A
weak Iraq suits many." Three years after the US attack,
Iraq is breaking apart. Eyewitness report from Patrick Cockburn
in Irbil. One of the great
left journalists of his time, he was on the front lines in Korea
and Vietnam. Chris Reed on Wilfred Burchett, the man who made
Murdoch foam at the mouth.Katrina
washes whitest. Bill Quigley in New Orleans reports tales of
lunacy and hope. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember,
we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch. Please
support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
Every time I hear the words, "We
are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws",
I am reminded of just how far along the road to idiocy we have
traveled. That statement is as asinine a truism as ever left
a politician's lips, almost akin to telling someone that just
because they are wearing their shirt doesn't mean they should
forget their pants. But, given our recent proclivity in tolerating
official pap, this fresh accretion to the daily public discourse
should occasion no surprise. In any case, enough emotion and
vested interest are seeped into the immigration debate that one
needs to make an effort to rescue the basic issues, which are,
in fact, quite straightforward.
That the US is a nation of
immigrants is largely true, but not in the sense the argument
is usually deployed. After all, the US is hardly unique for being
peopled by men and women from other lands: the Sri Lankan Tamils
came from South India, the majority Sinhalese themselves came
from northern India. England was settled by people from what
are now Germany and France. In America itself, the native Americans
came from Asia. South East Asia is full of people of Chinese
descent. Arabs, Afghans, Persians, Greeks, all settled in India
over the centuries.
This simplistic formula, wielded
often as a clinching argument for not worrying overly about immigration,
ignores the difference between immigration and migration.
We have to remember that 'Immigration', as different from 'migration',
presupposes a process, and a set of laws. The days when you could
migrate anywhere as you pleased are long gone. Once there are
international boundaries, you can only migrate within your own
borders.
This difference is what nation
states are all about. It is the law that prescribes procedures
according to which people may enter, stay, gain citizenship,
etc. So, to say it correctly, we are a nation of immigrants
because we are a nation of laws. The laws under gird,
and are thus more basic than, immigration. We can have a country
without immigration, but not one without laws. And while it does
happen that a person or two might unintentionally stray across
a border every now and then, no one seriously argues that 12
million people were vagrants who absentmindedly found themselves
on the other side of the border one morning.
There are three ways in which
one can be inside a country legally -- as a guest, as an immigrant,
or as a citizen. In all these cases the country (supposedly)
knows you are there. Anyone who is in the country by some other
means is by definition illegal (technically, at least). Whether
the person is hard-working or lazy, thrifty or profligate, has
family values or not, none of this is germane (Graham Greene
was not allowed into this country, for heaven's sake, forbidden
by some law!).
When the law is weak, argue
the facts, when the facts are weak, argue the law, as every young attorney is told.
The law being unambiguous (you cannot work in the USA without
an authorization), the opponents of immigration reform seek refuge
in that oldest of American pablum's -- pragmatism. We have to
recognize the fact that 12 million people are here illegally,
they say in awe. And they contribute to the economy, they are
vital to so many industries, they add, reverently. This is like
telling a traffic cop that he should ignore your driving without
a license because you are on your way to an important meeting.
America was known for its uniform respect for the law, but this
is one more casualty of our decline.
But all of us are complicit,
my friend protests, confessing frankly that he had never asked
the guy who painted his home if his two helpers were, er, legal.
Let us say we are. Well? I was once told that the pizza business
in some states was controlled entirely by the mafia. Since I
like pizza, should I now oppose the FBI going after the mafia?
How far does this ridiculous line of argument go?
It is a tedious task. So was
tackling the depression, or fighting the cold war, all daunting
enterprises. So are activities like elections, courtroom trials
and preserving the rights of the accused. Do we jettison these
too? If the number of 12 million seems staggering, do remember
that we have over 100 million automobile drivers in this country,
all of whom are issued driving licenses, and conform to a traffic
system whose logistical sophistication is the envy of the world.
Let us not underestimate ourselves, nor overstate the problem.
What is needed is political awareness, and a will to sovereignty.
For, have no doubt, a country
that cannot enforce its borders is a country no longer. A blind
acquiescence of the concept of immigration anytime, anywhere,
without suitable forethought, is a far more pernicious threat
than the downing of the World Trade Center. Illegal migration
is a direct challenge to a nation's sovereignty, pure and simple.
To throw epithets like racist, fascist, heartless, etc. at all
those who hold this view, is no different than President Bush
(representing the mother of all illegal squatting -- the vagrant
in the White House) condemning those who protest his warrant
less wiretapping felony as soft on terrorism. One cannot in good
faith support the enforcement of some laws and not others, especially
if one is doing so in the noble cause of reducing the cost of
one's consumer instincts.
These basic premises should
be form the basis upon which other considerations of pragmatism,
personal stories, and compassion, may apply. To confuse the main
issues of sovereignty and the rule of law with any subsidiary
logic would be an act of imbecility as monumental as the many
others we've committed in the past quarter century.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.