{51} Why I’m a socialist (or, answers for A.K.)
Over on FB a friend of a friend asked me some honest questions about why I am a socialist and my opinions about some current issues. It’s been a thoughtful and polite discussion but my reply would not be (is not) short so they gave me permission to move the topic here. The questions in question:
How do you feel about the refugees coming into our country undocumented and with nothing be known about their background? How do we fix people coming into our country illegally without building a wall? How do we make sure these refugees aren’t terrorists? Just curious to know your opinions.
I understand that the idea of “keep them OUT!” is an appealing one. I don’t want strangers who might threaten me in my home, for instance. I keep my doors locked, despite the fact that I live directly across the street from the police headquarters in my city. But my fears don’t keep me trapped inside the house all day when I need to buy groceries or go to work, or stop me from letting a neighbor in if they ask me for some rice (which has happened). In the end, we always have to weigh the cost of doing one thing vs. the other. I don’t want to suggest that I don’t care about national security or jobs for citizens, but the “this is my home” analogy only goes so far, because the USA is not a house. We are all living here together across a vast continent, sharing a complicated economy, supporting and supported by a very large government with many intricate and long term relationships with other countries. We can’t just “lock the door” and expect to survive, so we have to weigh the costs and risks of the security policies we put in place.
I’m sure you are looking for answers like “improve background checks on refugees” and such, and I’m not opposed to that kind of thing, they are sensible precautions, but those answers are akin to putting a bandaid over a broken bone. It might look helpful but it’s not fixing the problem(s).
Before I continue, I think there needs to be a clear division between undocumented immigrants and refugees vs. terrorists. Timothy McVeigh was a born US citizen; the terrorists of 9/11 were here legally, as were the Boston Bombers. Could a refugee or immigrant, legal or not, be a terrorist? Sure. But the two issues do not overlap quite as much as people think they do, and I’m going to address them separately.
As a socialist, I understand that the resources and security of our country are primary concerns for our government, and undocumented immigrants affect both. However, I tend to look at it holistically — that is, why are Mexicans crossing the border? Is it easier to build a wall (which will be hella expensive and no, Mexico will not pay for it) that requires 24/7 live monitoring forever after, or to help fix whatever economic/social issues in Mexico that are making them flee?
Bottom line is that money is going to be spent either way; believing a wall will be cheaper and easier in the long run is a fantasy. The border as it stands is ridiculously expensive to maintain ($12 billion/yr already) and “more bigger more money” does not guarantee better. But what if we solved the problems resulting in people fleeing Mexico? What if they didn’t want to cross that border at all? Well, that would actually be the cheaper and easier solution, in the long run.
So my opinion on how to do that is ending the drug war (violence and corruption are major reasons a lot of Mexicans are fleeing the country) and doing more to share economic success with our neighbors. We can’t escape the global economy (the TPP is a real thing no matter anyone’s opinion about it) so embrace it. There are a lot of caveats to that of course (I’m anti-imperialism/colonialism, natch) but you get where I’m going with this: without solving the root causes of a problem, it will just continue, and probably get worse.
While I do not wish to cast stones (too hard), I think this solution is often put aside because of racism against brown people that makes folk say “Mexicans are poor and dirty and violent and deserve what they get” which neither solves the problem of violence and poverty in Mexico nor protects our country from the results of violence and poverty in Mexico. To be perfectly frank, racism is and always has been an “easy out” for people who don’t want to deal with morally, ethically, and (yes) economically complicated situations (honestly that’s true across the board for classism, sexism, homophobia, etc. What is “the poor deserve their lot in life” if not a way to dismiss criticism of the social and economic systems that propagate poverty? But I digress…).
Of course, “helping” is complicated. It’s not an easy-sounding fix like “build a wall.” It requires treating Mexico like a nation worthy of respect and its peoples deserving of our highest regard, as opposed to an economic dumping ground with internal politics we ignore. We’ve spent nearly two centuries trying to “influence” the politics of central and south America like it’s a game of RISK, and that needs to stop. We cannot bully Mexico into being “white like us” any more than we can build a wall and expect it to keep desperate people out (or in, for that matter). It’s renovation vs. duct tape.
Of course the Middle East is even way way wayyyy more complicated, and ties into a long history that is quite literally biblical in nature. Petroleum, Israel, Islam, colonialism, wars, etc. etc. etc. But again, I want the root cause: why are we meddling in the Middle East to the point that people want to blow us up? Well, sure, Islamic zealots, okay, but they are really a small % of Muslims and mostly they are fighting each other — like it or not, we are just an inconvenience for the murderous lunatics, mostly good for PR and hazing n00bs. Letting that incredibly small special interest group make this into a religious war is a huge mistake and plays into their plans, not our interests.
Keep to the basics: we’re there because of the mounds of $$$ surrounding gas and oil production, and our complete dependence on the product. Take those elements out of the picture, and we would be nothing more than part of a UN Peacekeeping Force in countries no one can find on a map. But how to take them out of the picture? By redirecting our reliance on gas and petroleum to sustainable energy. It is an issue of national security, but it’s not treated as such because of corporate lobbyists who represent conglomerations that make billions of dollars off our national dependence on petroleum.
The question is pushed out by those special interests as “how do we make ourselves secure after we’ve secured the oil?” when it should be “how do we extract ourselves from relying on an imported resource, the acquiring of which adversely affects national security?”
We will still rely on petroleum a lot for the foreseeable future, but we can significantly reduce that reliance and get our collective asses out of other countries where our very presence makes people want to blow us up.
Again, the point must be made: a LOT of money will be spent either way. We either sink it into our military and national security, or sink it into developing alternative energy sources. Can we do both? Yes, to a point. But it’s less about the actual dollars and more about the PRIORITIES we have as a nation. As long as the out-of-control international conglomerates have a say in the matter, as opposed to our actual best national interests, then the status quo of terrorism will continue. No amount of security checkpoints will change that.
To sum up: people come here because they want what we have (jobs, a better economy, no war zones, etc.) or because they want to hurt us. The best, most efficient way to change that is to stop letting corporations and lobbyists drive our international policy. I want my government working for the best interests of ALL its citizens, not just corporations. And that means the best interest of the homeless person and the working poor as much as the best interest of entrepreneurs and business leaders, and that’s why I’m a socialist.
If you’ve noticed, I’ve kept the subject of “jobs for Americans” out of this discussion, despite the fact that it is part and parcel of the problems we are discussing — refugees and immigrants come here for “better economic opportunities” (read: jobs) and unemployment is already an issue even with them. But again: what’s the bigger picture?
Manufacturing as we know it is over; it’s becoming more and more automated, so it’s not a leading sector of employment as it used to be and will continue to shrink. This is true of a lot of industries and even professional positions like lawyers and nurses as well as low-end jobs like janitors and taxi drivers are not exempt. It’s possible that within the decade meat will be “produced” in labs and the animal husbandry/butchery industries will collapse. Other industries will arise (sustainable energy sources like solar and wind-capture need people working the equipment, for instance) but will they produce ENOUGH jobs? Very likely not.
That is, of course, an entirely separate discussion but I pose the nature of the problem here to illustrate the fact that “keeping jobs for Americans” is a fallacy from the get-go and has zero to do with immigration reform or terrorism.
