Immigration 2

Response to question by [youngrox] :


As serious as plans, yo. Laws aren't "real". There is nothing good about law itself. Law only exists to protect people and society. I think is a pretty accurate summation of the general poltical philosophy under which this state was developed. That said, I would ask your question right back at you: "Why do you think that immigration into the US (or any other country) should be controlled by the state?" The typical answer is given in a mode that says that whatever benefit or lack thereof there might be from living on that or the other side of a national boundary should be given/denied/granted-on-limited-basis to people mostly on account of place of birth, and then this is flexible based on other things like race and class. How does this protect people? Given that there IS such a benefit/lack dynamic associated with a border that people are trying to get across, (why no one seems to care about canadians entering the country), it would stand to reason that a law designed to keep some people on one side of the line is not designed to protect all people, rather only SOME people. And that "SOME" is determined by place of birth, then class, then race. So why should a state seek to decide who can come in and who can leave? Because it has racist, classist, and generally elitist ideas about who can and cannot obtain certain protections of "rights granted by god" (a little contradictory, eh?). If the argument was about social welfare, the law would be about fixing our social welfare system, not about figuring out who we can justify ourselves in denying that welfare (notice Clinton didn't do anything different with his welfare reform other than finding ways to take it away from people, either.)

When I say fascism, its not about nazis, or WWII, or the enemy of communism. (the etymology of the word is actually kind of cool, did you know it is related to "faggot"?). Its about certain means of personal ideological control being applied to society to ensure the continuation of certain societal trends of elitism and subsequent oppression.

While I personally tend to be fairly anti-state (which is really anti-bureaucracy) I have no personal problem with people deciding that they want to live in or under a state. But if they use that state to oppress people in a fascist way, then that is bad, and should (and will) be fought. This has nothing to do with who gets to own a car, this is about people getting to live where they want. You can build a wall, you can imprison people, you can make mandatory paperwork for people to own things or earn money, or you can just let a hurricane knock certain people's houses down and then refuse to let them rebuild them, it all ammounts to the say thing, which is using your power to maintain your power at the expense of others.

I'm not being radical, I'm not trying to be extreme, I'm just pointing out how the system works when "what is actually happening" seems to be fairly far out of the scope of most people's interest.