Immigrants, Borders,
Entitlement and other messes
What is "Immigration
Reform?"
I have written a number of
times in other pages, about the question: 'Who is a legitimate immigrant?'
mostly in the context of gentrification. Now that Mr. Drumpf
and company will attempt to 'clamp down' on the namesake matter, whatever the
matter is, I thought I'd better try to straighten my opinion about it, assuming
I can define the issue.
If the son of Peter Muth did not become a citizen at birth, as far as I know he
did in the Carolinas around 1800, and I, some 5 or 6 generations later would
conceivably be an alien in this amerika. My ancestor
that apparently swam the drink from Germany was an immigrant, possibly having
his name modified at Ellis Island, and went on to create a family of amerikan citizens, including myself. There's some other
lore about my father's side embracing a similar journey from England; so I am
myself, an anglo-saxon son of immigrants.
If one wants to forget that
other peoples, clans that whitey meant to exterminate and trace-erase and
despite immense brutality failed to finish, lived upon the continent for
dramatically longer than the duration of this nation state 'amerika,'
then for one I may have no words, kind or otherwise. But if we care to
recognize this fact, in this era where facts may be more gaseous than ever, I
fail to see how every whitey in amerika is not an
immigrant or the son of one; we ask who is a native?
One might think this
goal-post sunk well into its pier, but alas, apparently it can move. One might
also ask why it matters, what rights a native be entitled to. This door we
approach then is called ownership, and the dog guard its bone. A 'native amerikan' as the son of an Asian immigrant from 9500 B.C.
could be considered a native? Or is he still the remote son of an immigrant? So
you see, who has graduated from immigrant to native? According to the Right,
it's 'whoever we say has, mostly us.'
Though a relatively recent
development, becoming a 'citizen' of this new nation state, via study of the
actions of George Washington, the development of the cotton gin, eating apple
pie at a baseball game and testing one's new knowledge to become one, is
thought to bring one various privileges, first among them perhaps the right to
live on the continent, then vote for one buffoon or another, work for a citizen
scrubbing his toilet or pull yourself up by your bootstraps. In other words,
one can transition to legitimate person by a process, devised and gate-kept by
rather random and installed predecessors, who apparently govern and enforce
such matters. So have we thereby stumbled into yet another 'who gets to decide'
conundrum?
Those toward the xenophobe
camp have opinions - people who appear to be Anglo-Saxon are acceptable, and
then perhaps if they can demonstrate skill to properly assimilate, your Irish,
your Italians, your Jews, and then later, maybe, just maybe, your light-skinned
africans, Latinos, etc., if your math skills
desirable, your asians; this is all rather obvious. I
just reiterate to record the absurdity of 'nativism,' yet the peak of hypocrisy
is the before mentioned 'white foot upon the rich and frozen Jamestown soil,'
merely some 400 years ago, which last I checked was a small percentage of
12,000 years. And yet then we hear the accompanying pronouncement that a real amerikan landed thus and then.
Part of my quest here is to
demonstrate that at the heart of this current moment is pure selfishness and if
we find, as we might expect, that this is easily admitted as the motivation and
that this naked xenophobia carries no apologies, then wow... ...is this merely
something I want not to face? My face is already so close to buried in the sand
that my eyelids have instinctively closed. But I feel some obligation to steady
forward.
When the Centrists have
announced their willingness to visit 'immigration' reform, as a calmer endeavor
in response to the selfish xenophobe ranting about police states and border
closures, they may speak of a process by which people can apply to immigrate to
the 'United' States. What is needed they may say, is a straight forward form (by
which they now mean app), with accompanying fees, waiting periods, bureau
visits, interviews and general bureaucratic malaise involving head scratching
with the inevitable square peg applicants. Such dreams provoke skepticism born
of DMV experience, and this has not the shield to raise to the brandished sword
of selfishness. And additionally, it hinges upon the fiction of human
transcendence which would be required to avoid fatal contingency. In other
words, such a system will likely not work, be horribly inefficient or
expensive, despite the costs associated with indefinite detention and the mess
of the actions of desperate shadow people. When the traveler scans the border
crossing he faces a choice: To plead and pay the cost of this process whose far
side exit is remote and unverifiable or turn to the ancient thug, the smuggler
who may know where there be a hole in the fence, may show it to you, though you
pay in advance.
So therein, if there be guard
posts, standing shoulder to shoulder, as peripheral fence around the entire
country, and at any given stretch of this barrier, a person arrives to say:
"Hello, I wish to move to the United States." What be the guard's
response (other than: 'It's cold and boring in this outpost, my salary low.')
But be him fleshy or silicon, the border agent must respond, I guess, and with
what options in the pop-up menu under: "Immigration Request" ? I
suppose such a system would need be easier to navigate than climbing a fence or
risk the withdrawal of the applicants, at least until nightfall ... ...a tall
order or a taller high-voltage electric fence.
But to the choices:
1) Sorry, our country is
full.
2) Please fill out this
questionnaire, demonstrating your mathematics and computer science skills.
3) Please pick your skin
color from the following tone example swatches.
4) Please write an essay
under 500 words, in clear white english, describing
the depth of your Judeo-Christian adherences, sighting specific examples from
the King James bible.
5) You get the idea...
Again, "who
decides?"
Of course, the acceptable
immigrant works through the system of 'invitation' letter, rather than
shivering huddles at the desert crossings. The institutions of higher learning
or the tech worker recruitment departments can provide lubrication to the
penetration, perhaps with less intimidating liaisons, though the middlemen's
hands out stretched be similar though less leathery than that of the smuggler.
If you do exemplary work in your trial period, perhaps you are lucky enough,
your CV padded properly for a Goog corp cubicle. And what will be new or troubling about this,
the touted 'meritocracy' incarnate.
There's nothing new about
gatekeepers and arbitrary judgments. The Nazis standing beside the cattle cars
arriving at Auschwitz, arranged two cues, a finger-wand between them, and had
presumably Germanic criteria. But did the officers merely take brief look at
each immediately doomed or delayed doom-nation sub-human and employ his
fate-wand with only vague feelings of 'more or lesser' distaste, or possibly
grant the lesser gaunt individual a few more weeks of life, to provide
acceptable slave labor for the Reich?
Once, when I found myself
required to visit the "Taiwanese Economic and Cultural Organization"
for the purposes of obtaining a visa to visit Taiwan for more than 2 weeks. I
was directed to a 'supervising' stocky and humorless man, in proper suited
western attire, who proceeded to walk around the bullet-proof glass to look me
'up and down;' I, an Anglo-Saxon in amerika, albeit
in a leather motorcycle jacket and three-day stubble. "Why do you want to
go to Taiwan?" he announced. I did not appear to be a desirable visitor.
Imagine if I had stated: "I wish to move there." I may then have been
reunited with my knowledge that I should work more on my clothes and demeanor.
So at this juncture, we may
want to spend a moment with the general wishes of a nation. Many may want to
announce: "What is wrong with a nation attempting to control the style and
attributes of its population?" Putting aside for the moment such grand and
seemingly contradictory notions as 'A land of Freedom" and "Bring us
your poor, destitute, etc.," do we have a problem with 'setting up shop'
as a land filled with a presumably dominant type, with some sort of conformed
'standard' person as its reference for acceptable look, demeanor, style and
attribute, one thought not to offend, and ban the 'others?' This sounds
terrible and not so 'compassionate' as the Right masquerade prefers to think of
itself. And we do need entertainment, apparently, so we must have clowns - but
black-face garb worked well for centuries, and it didn't require a black
person. But Louie Armstrong has come out of the bag already.
This may cut close to the
tumor: The Xenophobes feel they have right to dictate who is an acceptable
person, of course. One can also somehow maintain straight face while admitting
or denying that rules can be stretched here when it benefits them; a brain
drain is perfectly acceptable because the Asians can be discreet and remain
confined to the laboratory, their contributions affect dramatically the profit
of the corporations and their shareholders. When the 'other' can be loud and
obnoxious in the traditional white way, they are thought to have properly
assimilated and can join in the revery outside the research facility; we may
hear the whispering, that the jokes should stay 'tasteful,' lest you find
yourself back in the kitchen at Peking Delights. I had the pleasure of talking
with a Taiwanese man who came to Firestone Ohio in 1968, to somehow contribute
to the development of automotive safety glass. He held a plaque describing this
honor, and the $2000 bonus was used justly somehow, perhaps to cover his
property taxes for a moment. I assume he took his citizenship test, knew that
Thomas Jefferson was a man and everything worked out for the best; a
mild-mannered man, I doubt he caused any trouble.
It seems that I often
conclude that the Right just cannot bring its collective to resist its
perceived self-interests. Should I require balance in my judgment here? All
men, in the image of dogs or as associates of dogs upon this spinning rock in
space, can only lightly touch upon self-compromise, mostly with the reciprocal
section of reciprocal altruism a priori, the enforcer loitering in the lobby.
In other words, do I practice what I preach? Could I squander my white
privilege, as nominal as it might be, deliberately playing second fiddle to a
less fortunate traveler from elsewhere? The Right would call me a fool; in
retrospect I would come to discover them correct they would say - concentrating
wealth is the only route to self-preservation, for the hoards are coming for
any crumbs and more.
I wonder occasionally about
donating family land to the descendants of 'native' peoples, peoples who don't
care to be called descendants, for one thereby dismisses their current vibrant
status as people, and native people, no thought of living as ghosts be
tolerable for it is too difficult to live (solely) as victims. I bring this
here just to point out that I actually don't know if I could really give up so
much value, so many greenbacks inscribed with the logos of the nation. But here
I go again making calculations regarding notions of 'enough,' so visited in
other forums. Do I deprive myself or my son value that neither of us can 'take
with' us to the other side? Does the dog give up the bone should he have a few
others?
So these recent paragraphs
seem to be supporting the Right's endless Tragician's
fatalism that have been tortured in many of my previous pages; Success is only
really achieved and maintained at the point of a bayonet, with the appropriate
legal framework and now the 'A.I.' generated corroborating video. If I there,
the deepest self-defeatist I know, cannot bring myself to sacrifice, are we not
doomed?
Where does that leave our
poor, desperate masses struggling to be free and prosperous on amerikan shores?
We've yet to speak of the
need for masses of entry-level workers. If it weren't amerika
built on the backs of enslaved Africans, then we'd want to talk of the backs of
migrant workers, all be them paid employees, a pittance at least. But the more
exploited peoples the wealthier the Anglo-Saxons be, so come one, come all!
Well, I mean, at least until we meet our quotas. And there's those jobs no amerikan would bring himself to do, removing pubic hair
from hotel bathtubs, chopping onions in dank kitchens or spreading and
breathing molten tar upon the rooftops of our many rental properties. Before
the robots and their thoroughly de-bugged firmware succeed in replacing
immigrants in these roles, even their employers on the Right surely recognize
their reliance on immigrant labor, though the statements remain: 'At $4.25,
these people are killing us with their 15 minute breaks every 4 hours.' I
suppose they distinguish between the subservient hard-working and thankful
first round immigrant, seemingly happy to scar their bones at task and the
following generations who may not assimilate properly, noticing how the
Anglo-Saxons live, determined not to work as hard as their parents, taking
turns for the resentful, a short step to thuggery.
The Right Whites like to tell
stories about the ancestors starting from the ground floor, paying their dues,
hard-working types somehow living the immigrant experience at first; the
'dream' the bleeding hearts suggest the poor and tired masses should have
access to also, and thus a well-trodden trail there without check-points or
judgement outposts for entry grant. If the amerikan
dream be carrot, what be the stick? And why create a myth carrot should there
be political valve whose hand on the lever be that of a xenophobe? Why make such
a complex incentive just to enforce the whim; why not reiterate the
unapologetic statements of Hitler? To appear to be for inclusiveness with the
tools of exclusion? Because appearances matter, they say. Better to be a Janus
- 'Big Smile, Hide Knife' as the Chinese expression outlines. Nothing but cruel
joke - to offer the dog the bone just to rap him upon the head with it when he
move forward for a closer sniff.
We can look upon this tap as
a more sophisticated valve, to be opened or closed as needed. When the grand
hotel is completed and the profits pouring in, only a skeleton crew of
gardeners and hospitality workers are required. This is business as usual, and
of the modern efficient sort. Despite the growing inequality gaps, and the
dirty work reserved for the underpaid, the Centrists want to think of this
dynamic as functional, everyone living the dream at the various tiers. One
might think this correct, and if the Right was to step back slightly from
complete and utter greed, their ledgers will show they are doing quite well; we
return thus to the problem of 'enough.' But it may be worth asking, in this,
the Right Might save themselves a lot of trouble; the sedatives of interweb 'feed' garbage and alcohol should easily provide
thorough distraction for the still troubled underclasses. Anyway, the flare-ups
tax-deductible business expenses.
So what are the line items?
a) Do we need a country?
Though it may be late to ask,
a global society reasonably continues to put this forward, as an academic exercise
anyway. It is said that xenophobia can be dissolved by relations with the
'other;' we are 'more alike than different,' hatred is grown as crystal by
dehumanization. Do statements promoting the celebration of cultural variance
ring hollow as a bandaid? I do not apologize for my personal tastes;
what neglected need be taught is what it means to impose your tastes and habits
upon those who hardly care about your schtick. But in this world, even the
criminals that constitute the advertising "industry" cannot recognize
their activities as crime.
Does transcendence require
evolutionary leaps for the human mind unwritten in the DNA? The 'country'
surrounded by walls built by hands too smalls or not, seems currently rather
entrenched, ossified, nationalism a rather stubborn and permanent stain.
Therefore transcendence from the nation-state a remote notion, apparently the
nation also be thought of as necessary and desirable. Only an unappreciative
malcontent could ponder otherwise. Hopefully, I am at least 'before my time'
herein.
b) Does a country need
borders?
A more accurate question
would be, without borders: "Would amerikans
finance and put up with the subsequent profiling and harassment, with constant
authoritarian agents asking on the streets of amerika,
to 'see their papers?' The Libertarians won't like it (nor the Leftists or the
bleeding hearts.) In other words, a harsh, expensive border is better? When
I've been asked by various state representatives to identify myself in amerika and abroad, though it be unnerving at times, I have
stood behind my passport, even a little proud to 'belong' to somewhere,
anywhere - to be somehow a legitimate person from somewhere; I am not 'nobody'
with my official looking little book. I can't speak to the thoughts of the
foreign agents reviewing my documents, whether their opinions of me were
altered in the realization that: "Oh I see, this one's an amerikan." And I've not been driving while black or
doing anything subversive, feeling myself unimpeachable. So lucky then, I
guess. Borderless countries have precedent in 'unions' though. One doesn't so
much stop in Alsace anymore; one doesn't stop driving from California to Texas,
though you might consider stopping to have your head examined. I would have
amplified pride (though pride not my strong suit) should I be carrying a
passport from 'planet earth;' my body indeed already carries a tattoo
cryptically identifying it as: "From this earth."
c) Can a country announce
that only certain types of people can live there?
Clearly conservatives care to
conserve the interests of the chosen ones; they alone possess the wagging
finger of choice. It begins with the creation of exclusive fairy tales, the
stories that pit heathens against the pious. Rampaging hyenas seeking the resources
needed for the next meal are the natural original guidance for earth creature
behavior. But then we enter the zone of higher animals, so the feelings of
insecurity dictate the notion of divinity. One might see the acceptable
behaviors difficult to discern from unacceptable ones; perhaps no description
after Dr. Suess can demonstrate more fully the arbitrary nature of the
Righteous and the Pagan, than his Sneeches and their
star-bellies or lack thereof. The anti-Abortionists provide example of the ludicrous
nature of the delineations: Why on earth or beyond would a party have an
opinion about whether the 'others' reproduce? If the baby-factories inherit the
earth, the heathens with their baby-killing, perish. And imagine the
conservative who would reject a particular pretzel arrangement of the human
form during sex, because he fears a god not approve, therefore a cock-sucker or
a corn-holer be damned and banned from citizenship or
immigration asylum seeking. In other words, how do we define the 'other,' a
sexual deviant, a Haitian who may own a doll, a 'ching-chong'
with his 'funny sing-song' tongue, anyone who talks too loud on a porch, need I
go on?
Perhaps if things had 'gone
differently' and immigrants from England and 'free' immigrants from Africa had
something of a simultaneous arrival upon the north amerikan
continent, forging something of a functional relationship. And the discreet and
stiff northern European descendent, deprived of sleep, was to stumble over to
the joyous and boisterous proverbial porch party during African celebration to
ask: "Hello friends, happy birthday an' all. I wish I could participate,
the bbq smells fantastic. But I gotta
get up at 4:30am tomorrow and d'you suppose you could tone it down a
little?" But the sub-human cannot garner respect and brutality and
enslavement doesn't build friendships; further, assimilation and conformity
does not a common humanity make.
But the raw and itchy truth
seems rather obvious yet admissions rare and media hesitant to call out the
selfishness in plain sight: Entirely too many people prefer to live among those
they deem similarly conformed. What is more obvious than the lubricated
acceptance by whitey of the 'light-skinned black' who's voice on the phone
stealthy and educated. What a bizarre requirement - 'If you talk like me, I
feel comfortable renting a room to you.' In other words, the unapologetic
continue to shrug and announce: 'So I want to live among those I like..., sure,
those I deem to be like me... ...is that a crime?'
d) If the people in a country
feel themselves too important to do menial, dangerous or tedious jobs, is it
reasonable to recruit non-citizens to do these things?
There was an early interwebs phenom (prior to the 'UBoob'
or the 'TitTot' or the advent of the thoroughly
corrosive term 'influencer,') known as "Bum Fights." In case the
reader is unaware, this was a series of videos in which people of dubious
condition, seemingly unemployable, were presumably bribed or otherwise coerced
into doing rather dangerous or disgusting things to themselves or each other.
This was apparently arranged by some punk-ass young people who presumably
thought this was amusing and profitable, and in some odd way would bring them a
degree of fame as media producers. I tell this tale, just to point out that
people are indeed willing to do things for compensation, albeit rather lowly or
invaluable. I guess this is hardly necessary to point out.
The question of importance is
whether those self-appointed chosen ones are only nominally immoral for
building and maintaining a system of underground economies, of course
minimizing the administration costs, by conceivably arranging illegal shadow
employees who can appear or disappear as needed or politely expedient. In other
words, in the context of immigration discussion, do we admit that our amerika is dependent on these economies? The Right, in
their purer moment, would call this characterization exaggerated, for what of
the 'supply and demand' of the negotiations? Despite the upper hand in wealth
of dollars and lawyers, the upper crust views the dynamic as merely a business
arrangement. Since the Right constitutes the 'smartest guys in the room,' it is
not a question of morality, there is no need to balance scholarship at a Haas
School of Business with an apprenticeship involving placing traffic cones. But
then the free-marketeers here must chime in, with the meritocrats on second
fiddle, and Huxley nearby, as conductor: 'There exists levels of intelligence
and skill, even if we all see educational playing fields be uneven. There are
no significant reasons, moral or economic, to ignore this.' So then we merely
return to 'pull on the bootstraps, supply and demand and negotiate your worth
at the bargaining table and: ‘Show us what you're made of. If you have not a
lawyer to explain the fine print, tough luck for you, go back to your country,
war-torn or not.' And we must give the designers and visionaries their just
desserts, for ‘you ditch diggers needn't worry about grand pictures, budgetary
shortfalls or take responsibility for the cut-corner scaffold collapse; you can
have your Modelo beers and sleep well at night
without those anxieties. Just keep your phone by the bedside, and if we need
those traffic cones moved in the middle of night, we might need you to take
care of it.’ Nothing is new under the sun, if not the tendency to get someone
else to do your dirty work. And if we can avoid paying workman's comp, all the
better for the bottom line - be it that line on our profit ledgers or the line
of desperate, uneducated migrants who arrive to 'start at the bottom.'
e) If citizenship, borders,
immigration and administration can be thought to be reasonable aims, what is
functional immigration reformed policy?
It appears that there are
certain realities that cannot be avoided, even in this era of 'reality is
(now?) only what one says it is.' 1) The 'United States' contains a great many
citizens, many of whom fulfill their duties, pay some taxes, contribute
something of their labor to society, make some effort to be reasonable, law
abiding members of the place. 2) Due to circumstances in history, many of which
reflect intense selfishness, brutality and exploitation, yet despite this, amerikan society may be relatively safe, is advertised as a
land of bread and honey, and is a destination for immigration by peoples from
origins far and wide. 3) Amerika has always been a Janus speaking on one face
publicly about opportunity, dreams, hard work and just desserts - while
conversely in private clubs and Board rooms about evergreen profits, and the
leveraging of the underclasses. On this 3rd line item, one might notice the
underclasses and their backs upon which amerikan
'exceptionalism' was built, over which the black stage dress is draped lest it
be exposed, were at first slaves, then pittance workers, then scabs, then
out-sourced, all designed as invisible. In other words, amerika
does appear to 'need' cheap labor. The visionaries may prefer robotics to
constant agitation and negotiations, but the monied classes have no trouble
maintaining the sophistication of their stance, their back-sliding well
lubricated, their bones to throw juicy and fragrant, their 'take it or leave
it' postures well-rehearsed and their lawyers abundant and well paid.
So therefore, we might all
see that amerika needs underclassmen, and if
patriotic whites prefer to manage rather than be managed, are far too clever
and skilled to clean toilets or bake their skin designed for the Irish fog
picking cauliflower, then our underclassmen must be imported from the lesser
parts of the globe. It is not clear to me why it seemingly impossible to admit
the social dynamics at play here, design an immigration system to provide
proper administration of migrants, control the terms under which immigrants appear
at borders and most importantly, insist that employers hire people who are
authorized to work, to be in the country, help them pay the appropriate taxes,
find them some education, help them with their homesickness, their alienations.
Forgive me for assuming, as this last list stretches out on the page, the
resistance is obvious; such preparations are no doubt viewed as unnecessary
expenses, appearing on the debit side of the profit ledger, and thereby
unacceptable. Dare I say that the wealth of amerika
is hardly diminished at the prospect of these concessions.
I also suggest that there
hardly be the necessity to sugar-coat the amerikan
immigrant experience. Could there not be reasonable regulation, processes by
which migrant workers could be managed, such to respect them with the depth
that does not drive them underground? Aside from the racism and classism that amerika cannot shed, there is of course the little gnawing
worm of 'freedom.' The talk among the entitled whites that overheard by
everyone leads to the salivating, the yearning to be 'free,' and then the
paperwork and maintenance of the legality of the immigrant population prone to
fall away, amplifying the choice to duck the radar, the underground hero's
journey; where is the incentive to follow the rules? This is like the 'choice'
of the homeless; it can be seen to be better to live 'free' on the street in a
tent than to apply to a city's homeless shelter.
And the fact is, most
immigrants are not seeking lousy jobs in the fields, to squirrel away unspent
piggybanks, so that they might return to origins to start a small business,
protected and taxed by armed gangs. They are looking to move somewhere
relatively safe, to work like all their predecessors, the Irish, Jewish,
Slavic, Chinese, Indian, etc., trying to arrange that their children have
education, futures grander than their own. Are the dues not paid? Maybe whitely
is correct in the fear of replacement; I don't work half as hard as many
immigrants do, 80 hours a week making burritos, 48 hours a week struggling with
farm machinery or thorny brush, 6 days a week grunting with greasy wrenches
under your Subaru. Do I deserve a place in amerika?
I've made little money for the monied classes, devoting my life to mocking
them. I wouldn't take job in pubic hair management, if I could avoid it. In
this I join an entire human race; there really is one.
f) Is it defensible to stand
straight-faced or otherwise and declare oneself worthy of rights in and access
to a 'country' and others not?
A person openly declaring
himself a 'white supremacist' be mostly a clown in this era. More insidious by
far is the combination of the before mentioned Janus and the 'I can have latino friends if they talk english
like me.' Yet even a 'half-black' man like Obama can be hated, apparently more
for being half-black than for being a Democrat.
Are we just collapsing at the
brutish monster of entitlement? My arguments that 'Jesus teaching' and
white-supremacy be so incongruous as to cancel, tired yet unheard; I needn't
ramble more on that thread. But if the gun be pried out only from the cold,
dead hand, the old white hand, veiny and brown-spot covered as they are;
somehow this discussion comes around to gun control, how unexpected. So what,
we just resign, that if whitey mounts soap box to declare: 'I want what I want,
every man from every place is just out of sight salivating for my position, my
tooth and nail is and must be poised to hold my ugly but upper hand in place.
And it is indeed my place, this country.' And despite the sympathetic words
mostly heard only in church rhetoric, 'I have no concerns other than my own. I
do not loose sleep worrying my territorial claims be
overstep.'
g) Is it reasonable to
require someone to prove they are in need? How does one explain in broken English
or otherwise that one is sincerely desperate or merely deserving of access to amerika and its ‘dream?’
Ultimately, we've returned to
all the major themes: Unapologetic selfishness, racism, classism, and dominance
of the tragic vision of human behavior. We cannot risk inclusive global
society, because those with and those without cannot absorb notion that one's
purse have finite capacity. Without acceptable or enforceable limit on resource
consumption, every lurker in every doorway on any side of any border will not
be satiated, and the reality or the unfounded fear of replacement or
destitution thus control us. It doesn't bid well for something the Left might
want to call progress; it smells more of limping along in contingency, cracks
filled with desperate or unlucky people, crying from the mouths of the fallen
and their bleeding-heart sympathizers, while nearby we see the nervous, partially
hidden glee from the visage of the Righteous.