Once upon a time an oil leak sprung up in the Gulf of Mexico. Ever so gradually, the oil approached the Gulf coast of the Unites States. Eventually, it began to reach its shores.
As the oil approached the country, the federal government promised the nation that it would assist those who would be affected financially by this crisis. Gradually, industries, cities, and entire regions were impacted. Fisheries lost fish to the pollution, droves of dead seagulls were found on the nation's shores, tourism plummeted, fishermen lost work, restaurants couldn't get fresh seafood, grocery store prices rose.
In good form, the government kept its promise. It did its best to reimburse losses to impacted people, it subsidized gulf businesses with suffering margins, and it offered counseling to individuals and families who were emotionally impacted by the problem.
One day, a concerned citizen said to his neighbor, "You know, this oil spill is really wreaking havoc on our lives. I wonder why nobody has done anything to stop it? Shouldn't we stop this spill rather than just sit and try to clean up the mess?" The neighbor agreed. So the two went to their mayor. The mayor thought they were on to something, so he approached the governor, who in turn spoke with a senator. Eventually the question arrived at the desk of the president.
"What an atrocity!" he declared, "We must do something about this!" He gave a compelling speech and soon congress passed a law which declared oil spill cleanup, mitigation, and elimination to be a federal priority. He even created a new federal bureau that was responsible for this endeavor. New jobs were created, and men were stationed at the coast to respond to influxes of oil. The public was overjoyed. Finally, something would be done to stop the mess. Scholars and renowned think tanks thought of brilliant ways to stop the leak.
Days, then weeks, then months passed. However, no real action was taken. Crews were in fact helping to stop some of the mess closer to the shore, but the leaks continued.
Eventually, the governor of one of the states most affected by this disaster took action. He gathered some men who looked at all the brilliant plans that these think tanks and scholars had concocted, selected what seemed to be the best course of response and took action. They announced to the public their plan to take a boat out to the source of the spill and install a containment dome around it. They were sure that they were to be regarded as heroes.
Oddly, outrage ensued. "How dare they!" some cried, "Oil does us so much good. It powers our cars and planes, it fuels our industries! What a crime to try to eliminate oil!" Others argued that since there was already a federal law in place that the governor was wrong for taking action. "That's a federal responsibility. Doesn't he know his place? That's a crime against our constitution!" they shouted.
Eventually the issue was brought before the courts. They decided that oil spill cleanup, mitigation, and elimination was indeed a federal responsibility. The containment dome was dismantled, the governor's commission disbanded. "Justice has been served," the pundits declared.
The oil spill continued, cleanup crews continued to do there best to cope with the disaster, but the mess remained, and the poor seagulls continued to die.
One day, a concerned citizen said to his neighbor, "You know, this oil spill is really wreaking havoc on our lives. I wonder why nobody has done anything to stop it? Shouldn't we stop this spill rather than just sit and try to clean up the mess?"
"That's seditious," whispered his neighbor, "I'm sure the government is doing all it can."
"You're right. Forget I asked."
You Might Also Enjoy
-
-
America’s Jenga Tower of Power9 hours ago
-
So you want a suppressor?9 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
8 comments:
I love it. While I hate the idea of a federal bureau to take care of oil spills, I catch the real drift of what yer talkin' about and think it is a great parable!
Now before this turns into a shouting match I want to make some things clear:
1. There is valid a constitutional issue regarding the jurisdiction of the control of our borders.
2. I am in no way predicting the outcome of the current debate concerning illegal immigration and Arizona's passage of SB1070.
3. I acknowledge that a satire comparing an oil spill to the illegal immigration problem is a tremendous oversimplification.
That said, you know you're jealous you didn't write this first. <>
I now welcome your comments.
BTW, Eric. You commented while I was typing my first comment, so don't think it was directed at you individually.
I liked your analogy a lot. As imperfect as the new AZ law may be, it's actually trying to get something done, as opposed to the federal government which has only marginally tried to clean up the mess, with little consideration of the source of the mess.
Nice job.
I know that I'm taking your parable way too far, but here goes.
As we've seen though, domes break. Containment is prone to failure. Eventually someone will have to go to the source of the leak and try to fix the problem instead of just building more walls that for sure will work this time, or more checkpoints that return the oil to its source just so it can spread again. Our neighbors have financial and social issues that are causing these leaks. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think more walls and more aggressive deportation measures are just attacking the effects of the problem and doing nothing to discover and resolve the cause. In the long run, it will just burn federal/state money reacting and the problem will continue.
We definitely have to help the situation south of our border, but I honestly have little confidence in that endeavor. The government and police force are too corrupt. If there is one thing that I have learned in my experiences, it is that Nation Building does not work. Mexico has to solve its own problems. We can assist where appropriate, but imposing our idea of a solution on another nation is not at all a solution. And even if we were successful in assisting Mexico, it would take decades.
In the mean time, we do need to build a complete, functional "containment dome". No complete perimeter protection has actually ever been established or constructed. Patrols can be avoided, virtual fences don't work effectively. A complete physical barrier does need to be constructed. However we must acknowledge that no barrier is impervious.
I believe that the more effective solution would be to eliminate the incentives for coming here illegally. Employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants need to be punished. Existing immigration laws need to be better enforced. And finally, and I know I'll likely catch flack for saying it, we seriously need to look at the criterion for becoming a citizen. I am specifically referring to so called "anchor babies". Currently, a child born in the US is automatically granted citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of its parents. Once a family of illegals has an anchor baby, they have the legal grounds to stay via the "family reunification" provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
It is my personal belief that a baby born in the US should be granted the immigration status that is closest to the status of "citizen" belonging to its parent(s). For example, if a legal immigrant has a baby, then the child should be considered a legal immigrant as well. If a naturalized citizen has a child, then the child is a citizen. If an illegal immigrant has a baby in the US, then the baby should not be automatically granted citizenship.
Anchor babies not only give an illegal alien family grounds to stay in the US, but it qualifies the family for welfare programs through the citizen child.
What I am getting at is that if we take away the reasons for coming here illegally, then the flow of illegals will self-reduce.
I'm feeling argumentative tonight. I think I do agree with you on most points. 4096 character limit, so you get two posts :P
I agree a larger portion of the responsibility should rest on the employer. But that's a sticking point, too. How can you prove that an employer knowingly hired an illegal? I know we have systems like e-Verify, but as far as I can tell that just compares the person against Social Security and immigration records. Very easy to work around for any company providing temporary labor who can acquire a list of names and SSNs. It would cost a great deal of money to attempt to prove that an employer knowingly hired an illegal immigrant when the worker provided papers. There will almost always be a reasonable doubt unless the employer is just stupid.
So what does that do to law-abiding citizens? If I were an employer who had just interviewed two similar employees and one was red flagged due to multiple uses of the SSN, why would I want the hassle? A large number of legal citizens will be constantly forced to prove their identity if their personal information is ever compromised.
Even by checking up on their employees - the IRS tracks these discrepancies of payroll SSNs, but can take no legal action and instead assigns a Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to the person, and lets them know that's the number they should file their taxes under in the future. So that could be a starting point if we're putting responsibility on the employer - make sure all employees are on payroll tax, and find the ones that look fishy. But if all employees are listed, that means all private enterprise needs to be listed. No more temporary undocumented labor from friends and family, no more ebay selling without registering it as a business in case it's a front for a sweatshop, no more crafting and cake decorating and other undocumented jobs. We would all need to be registered, documented and taxed for every penny we bring in through business enterprise if the responsibility is going to rest on the employer, because many of us are self-employed to some degree. And if an on again-off again home repair business is registered into the system, they can easily run through a list of SSNs to find which ones are good before providing them to the latest vanload of immigrants, and dutifully report that they hired none of these workers.
If we attempt to verify identity beyond SSN, however, Do you think the American public as a whole would accept the extra hassle and processing fees for every job application if we start attempting to verify identities before hiring? It would be enormously unpopular, and I don't believe it would ever pass. People generally don't want to be hassled, even if it is for their own good. I don't know how we can really prove identity without significant cost in each individual case.
I agree with your comments on Mexican politics, but I think immigration will happen as long as there are problems there - or Guatemala, or Brazil, or one of the nations in eastern Europe, or all the other countries that these illegal immigrants are coming from. Far more then we can handle, and I'm not a fan of us trying to build little Americas either in countries that don't have a middle class. There's nothing we can do about these problems for the reasons you mentioned. But I just don't see how building walls, deportation, or even holding employers responsible will solve the problem. They might make a minor temporary improvement, but I believe they would still be easy to work around unless they're part of a greater plan of prevention and not just attempting to put some putty on a gushing leak in the dam. Singling out people based on dialect or appearance is currently illegal in half the states in the US (Arizona is not one, of course), so that will be a tough one to pass on a national level if you believe that's the way to go. I don't - either make us all carry our papers or make none of us carry them. Don't apply the rule to just one race of people (or only exempt one race from the rule, as the case may be).
Do you have any idea how much money it costs to deport someone? When Cami and I went to Portugal, we were sitting next to three border agents and their deportee. Four cross-Atlantic plane tickets, three full time agents' wages, per-diem costs, etc. etc. I have no clue of the average cost of each immigrant per year (and I don't believe the conservative think tanks that assume every one is either on welfare or in jail and not paying a penny in payroll taxes or sales tax), but I would be surprised if it exceeded the $5-10k we were looking at that for that single deportation. And they'll probably be back within a year or so anyway, just to be caught again and shipped out.
I just think we need to start dealing with the problem instead of just reacting to it. Restructuring our citizenship rules would be a good start. Holding people and companies responsible would also be a good action, even with enforcement problems. But just building walls and deporting aggressively is pouring money into the problem, but doing nothing to solve it.
Post a Comment