vern humphrey:
They came in the 17th and 18th Century for the same reasons.
Good point. They did. And many of them were as unruly as their contemporary counterparts are now accused of being – or actually are, as the case may be.
vern humphrey:
Most of America was “conquered” by slow infiltration of ordinary civilians.
90% of the original inhabitants were “conquered” by disease.
As for slow infiltration: we in Canada – some of us anyway – are aware that some folks who had paid for passage to the New World were barred from entering Canada when the ships finally docked here. Those hopeful but doomed human souls died on the boats in plain view of a wide wide country. (And we won’t mention what fair green isle those unfortunate folks were from, will we? But I will mention how slow an infiltration that was for
some ordinary civilians.)
Make a long story short: I have yet to see a point of view which explains the status of First Nations in the Americas before , during, and after the War of Independence vis a vis border crossing. While everything else you have said on the subject of ‘illegal migration’ makes perfect sense to me, it leaves out
a) the status of First Nations vis a vis border crossing; and
b) the status of First Nations before there was even a border to cross and has that status changed and if so on what basis?
The tripping point for some very reasonable and otherwise responsible arguments to tighten up on the border is: the status of the First Nations.
Today I had to re-examine an unconscious Canadian reflex in my own thinking. Perhaps it is time for some Americans to look at a somewhat anachronistic isolationism which persists in your interpretation of contemporary American conservatism.
Is the WOT an isolationist policy? What happens if you concede the WOT?
We have been talking about perimeter control replacing border control now for years.
We have been talking about a free-trade zone (similar to the EU) in the Americas now for years.
Chavez (say hello to his leel frenz) has been losing no time while we are yakking as if there is no tomorrow.
Certainly one risk of the present ineffective border control policy is that folks like Adnan el-Shukrijumah and his American Hiroshima leel frenz have been crossing that border with impugnity while the First Nations little guys get nailed.
El-Shukri of course has Bin Laden’s billions behind him and the little guys have zip behind them.
Are we being suckered? Um… yes.
Are we at risk? Of course. What I am suggesting is that in some ways the risk of
incurring harm is very much greater than anyone has so far suggested in these threads. Very much greater. Because we have not really discussed American Hiroshima, have we?
And in some ways the risk of
causing harm is also very much greater. Because we have not yet discussed the status of the First Nations, have we?
Somewhere inbetween these two polarities lie the legitimate concerns yall have articulated about the cost – social and economic – of not closing the border more effectively.
Legitimate concerns which must be
balanced with the other two concerns I have brought forward.
The question is:
how is that balance to be struck? Staying stuck on closing the border isn’t working. It doesn’t even correspond imho to current American foreign policy.
You yourself say that we have a responsibility to review our policies to see if they can actually be implemented. If we don’t then we are stuck with ‘good intentions’ as to a moral outcome alongside an actual outcome whose morality is on very shaky ground.
