The Education Wonks
Boarder control proves difficult for myriad reasons. Fundamentally, open boarders is the next progression in market liberalism: free flow of money, free flow of trade, and (now) free flow of labor. Free labor, however, impedes on a nations sovereignty, i.e. boarders are essential to define a nation-state. Does America, the epitome of free market ideas, say "no" to free flow of labor or should we shut our doors in an isolationist move? Hard to say.
Considering this too: remittances by migrants-- both legal and illegal--tend to be far more effective than aid from large agencies. Less corruption; money quickly gets put into the hands of the needy. In a sense, migrants act as decentralized micro-finance organizations. Put another way, because "outsiders" can work in our country, we are making a better life not just for the one who is within our country, but also for his or her family back in his or her native country. Does the hegemonic America the Great have a moral responsibility to help other poor nations, poor global citizens?
Touch call, I know. Even harder when you live close to the boarders. I think the issues are more complex than simply putting up a wall or fence.
Those who don't want a fence are basically arguing for open borders--at least to open borders on our side. A true open border policy would allow Americans to cross over to the South and start businesses, find work, buy property, and enroll their children in their schools, etc.
A wall or fence would allow a more controlled movement of people, not a cessation. It's very difficult to make tough decisions that will ultimately hurt a group of people only here to find a better way of life. It's much easier to do nothing and hope everything will work out. It's especially easy to argue for no wall when one lives far from the areas where resources are the most stressed.
"In spite of all the rhetoric and other pronouncements from the Central Government in Washington,..."
We all know that Washington has no interest at all in stemming the flow of immigrants.
MTheads: "A true open border policy would allow Americans to cross over to the South and start businesses, find work, buy property, and enroll their children in their schools, etc."
Does anybody really think that anybody here wants to go there? Several years ago, there was a "retirement community" - a community of several dozen homes, built in Baja California. After some years, the government of Mexico decided that the property was Mexico's, and gave the community 24 houes to pack up and go home. That had nothing to do with "open borders".
Mexico has no qualms about tightly controlling their southern border. Search for ("plan sur" mexico).
Will asks "Put another way, because "outsiders" can work in our country, we are making a better life not just for the one who is within our country, but also for his or her family back in his or her native country. Does the hegemonic America the Great have a moral responsibility to help other poor nations, poor global citizens?"
So why should it fall on us to solve Mexico's social problems? Mexico should be doing that. They have a wealthy upper class. One of the richest men in the world is Carlos Slim Helu. The best way we can help poorer countries is not by sending them tons of fish, but by teaching them how to fish.
In their own waters.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
