Friedman – Illegal Immigration – PT 1
‘Bad laws undermine morality in general.’ Quite a closing statement and it can be taken as a paradox to most of the content of this speech.
Illegal immigration, Mexicans crossing into the US to ‘do jobs that residents are not willing to do’, for less money than residents would take, without health care costs, without human rights considerations: this is good for the US. Good for its’ economy, good for the individual (companies or persons) exploiting the situation.
Good for the illegal immigrants? They have the opportunity of work, of an income; of slavery and destruction of their bodies and health? Because their birthright gives them no rights? They shit out in the postcode lottery.
Legal immigration, such as myself in Switzerland. It’s not good for the economy. (OK, a major accident later), Unable to work as yet and costing the country a relatively large amount in contrast with my contribution. Who can blame them for kicking me out?
But let us go back to the situation that ‘profits’ the country.
It is socially acceptable if companies and/or individuals profit from others efforts. In the same way that the workforce of our ‘educated’ world is organised following the industrial revolution. A few organise and the majority work. For a common goal? A greater good? In order to survive and make the best of a situation, do the best for themselves and their immediate families. Sure some manage to do more.
What if the described situation existed, where all immigration is legal. A free right to roam. Wherever you lay your hat you have right to ‘an equal share of the honey pot’.
Would some do a lot for their share whilst others do nothing? Maybe. Would society govern itself by finding and forcing best ‘can do, will do’ situations for all?
Our societal structure is relatively young. But 600 years later we are still ‘serving’ the same few. WE have not become a more collective society, we are further estranged and isolated from our families. WE are further encouraged to justify, anything and everything.
Our future, as individuals and collective groups, family, extended family, societies, cultures, human beings – is and always has been dependant on OUR interpretation of the situation. OUR acceptance or rejection of all that we are presented or confronted by. And so, the rules change. Development requires this, the pace of development is in itself a question that takes this, already multi-faceted, topic to yet another level.
At what level are we involved? On what level do YOU or I feel involved?
When will we become WE, or WE become we?