SOLVING THE IMMIGRATION ISSUE

Our country has struggled with the issue of immigration for decades.  Despite repeated efforts in congress no meaningful change has occurred.  The reasons for this are clear.  Globalization brought the United States into world competition with cheaper labor markets.  Allowing migration of low cost labor from central America provided a way to lower labor costs in the US.  This was not new,  migrant labor had been used for agriculture in the Western states since the turn of the 20th century,  but farm worker unionization in the 60s made much of the in country labor more expensive.  Business and agri-business owners (mostly Republicans) need cheap labor to control costs especially in unskilled jobs.  This labor force must not be able to vote or it will have political power, unionize and defeat it cost controls.  Those immigrants who can vote, tend to vote Democratic in expectation that their wage demands will be supported by a "labor friendly" party.  Republicans want cheap labor that can't vote.  They are always opposed to a "route to citizenship" because it means a route to voting.


Democrats want immigrants that can vote and that support them, but the workers cannot take jobs away from established Democratic voters, and must not reduce the level of wage and job protections that Democrats have championed over the years.  Democrats want immigrant voters who don't compete with their non-immigrant voters for jobs.  Democrats want a "route to citizenship" and voting,  but don't have a way to prevent these citizens from competing with "old economy" voters,  who are shifting Republican as a result.

In simplified form,  both parties want two classes of citizens:  cheap workers who can't vote,  and voters who can't work at competing jobs.  No wonder there is no solution for there is no intersection of these two groups!  Blue collar workers have shifted Republican on the promise that immigrant labor will be restricted and tariffs will protect American jobs.   This is a totally traditionally Democratic position now being proposed and implemented by Republicans!  And Democrats are supporting free trade to improve trade and citizenship for immigrants to get more voters.  Crazy!  You can't make this stuff up.

The US was built with slave and indentured servant labor.  A two class society with non-voting laborers and voting citizens would return US to this model.  It is the model of Rome and all civilizations that expand by exploiting part of their citizens in second class status.  This violates a real democracy,  but the US was not a "real democracy" until the 13th and 14th amendments after the civil war,  and may not be one yet. (Women certainly question this with the right to vote (19th amendment in 1920),  but a full rights amendment never granted.)

So there are two clear paths to solving the immigration issue:
1) tighten control of illegal immigration,  and allow all legal immigrants seeking opportunity or protection to enter the country and have a reasonable path to citizenship.
2) create a two tiered society in which immigrant labor is allowed to enter under limited controlled status to work but never given full citizenship.

Neither party supports either of these solutions!  Both argue for vague platitudes to avoid the undesirable impact of a real solution.

LEADERS AND LOVE

This quote is from Krishnamurti, a talk at Poona India 9/21/1958.(available on the Krishnamurti site):

...I say that a leader, a follower, a virtuous man does not know love. I say that to you. You who are leaders, you who are followers, who are struggling to be virtuous, I say you do not know love. Do not argue with me for a moment; do not say, `Prove it to me'. I will reason with you, show you, but first, please listen to what I have to say, without being defensive, aggressive, approving or denying. I say that a leader, a follower, or a man who is trying to be virtuous, such an individual does not know what love is... a leader who says, I know the way, I know all about life, I have experienced the ultimate Reality, I have the goods, obviously is very concerned about himself and his visions and about transmitting his visions to the poor listener; a leader wants to lead people to something which he thinks is right. So the leader, whether it is the political, the social, the religious leader or whether it is your wife or husband, such a one has no love. He may talk about love, he may offer to show you the way of love, he may do all the things that love is supposed to do, but the actual feeling of love is not there, - because he is a leader. If there is love you cease to be a leader, for love exercises no authority. And the same applies to the follower. The moment you follow, you are accepting authority, are you not? - the authority which gives you security, a safe corner in heaven or a safe corner in this world. When you follow, seeking security for yourself, your family, your race, your nation, that following indicates that you want to be safe, and a man who seeks safety knows no quality of love...

Given the recent US experience with leadership this observation takes on a significant meaning.  When the people are afraid, they want someone to take away the fear,  to reassure them.  In this context,  the people become passive and accepting.  They are used but not loved,  not respected as independent.  Only where discontent and challenge are allowed to express themselves and acknowledge the fear and confusion does freedom exist.  And only then can there be love.