Remember when immigration was not only wanted but needed. The Mayflower arrived in Plymouth Harbor in 1620, after first stopping near today’s Provincetown. According to oral tradition, Plymouth Rock was the site where William Bradford and other Pilgrims first set foot on land. Back then immigration seemed like a right, today it’s looked upon as an infringement of our rights. This aversion to people immigrating is a brand new phenomenon that has taken place in the last 50 years or so. Prior to that, we used to have a big ol’ welcome mat. To reaffirm this thought, ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency was formed in 2003, just 15 years ago, most likely in response to the Twin Tour attacks. While ICE was mainly used to search for criminal elements they are now being used indiscriminately.
Do we remember why those pilgrims immigrated in the first place and why we had a revolutionary war? It was because of a monarchy that was seen as tyrannical and didn’t offer the right to progress. Now we have other people that live in the same conditions as what was going on in England, France, Germany and other countries around the world that were led by the brute force of a monarchy. They come from countries that are either dictatorships, i.e. Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea etc., or countries that are overrun (present tense because it’s currently happening) with corruption, violence and crime. These people that are immigrating are trying to escape what the pilgrims were trying to escape those many years ago. To turn a blind eye to their problems is to deny our own past. It is my feeling that these countries, that are so close to our borders, present a threat to our national security. We want to build walls, they’re not going to work by the way, which is like giving a tylenol to cancer, rather then to address the situation with full on chemotherapy. I don’t blame anyone for immigrating, legally or illegally, since there isn’t any new lands to discover or migrate to. Being the biggest, best and strongest super power, we should be a lot more proactive in our approach in solving these matters. Now we have people that say that are country is degrading due to immigration, I wonder if that’s what the Native Americans thought, and call for ICE to both be abolished by one side and to work overtime by the other, another example of a country divided by issues that seem well within the realm of compromise.
I don’t disagree with their use, ICE, and it’s the U.S. Attorney General’s discretion as how they are to be used. You can’t complain about them being used when what they are doing falls within the guidance of the law. By that, I mean, they aren’t out there and just trying to focus on one group of people, in contradiction to current laws and case law i.e. Armstrong v United States, they’re out there enforcing the law no matter who you are. It used to be that they prioritized their case load, that doesn’t seem to be the directive these days, with that, I do disagree. It’s like telling a cop to handle what’s in front of them no matter what else is going on i.e., going after the person that jaywalked that is right in front of him/her instead of responding to a violent act in progress. The reason we prioritize is so we can get the people that will actually do harm instead of the people that jaywalked. The same goes for immigration, in my opinion. You want the people that pose a greater threat and then when they are taken care of, then you go after the people that are contributing to a civil society, if needed, you know, in your own sweet time. I believe in enforcing the law, but I believe that you have to prioritize.
Final thought on the matter is that, as a society, we can’t think about how the problem affects us, personally, but about fixing the problem itself and maybe why it exists.
Dedicated to my onesy……