On the 4th of July every year we celebrate our independence once again. While reading our declaration, it brings to question whether or not we still have the liberties, accurate representation, and fair and just laws that were hard fought to attain. It brings to mind that we may need to seek our independence once again. Not to separate ourselves from a tyrannical dictator, but to free ourselves from a government that has long since for-gotten what liberty is.
We celebrate, every year, the day we declared that our nation shall be free and independent of an empire that sought to control us without adequate representation and the fight for this freedom would take another seven bloody years to attain after this declaration.
Can I be honest? Immigration is not a pet issue of mine.
It has never ranked highly in my political awareness, I don’t tend to traffic in the latest statistics or partisan trends, and I don’t subscribe to any of the sensational viewpoints. As with so many other policy areas, the debate has been forced into two largely opposing viewpoints: those who would seemingly allow unhampered immigration and those who would crack down heavily and spend more resources attempting to wall off vast stretches of border territory.
As I write, there are several thousand non-European refugees outside Calais, all trying to enter the United Kingdom. Because they are disrupting travel across the Channel in the main holiday season, the British media has no choice but to report on their presence, and to keep reporting. Their presence is followed by the British public in part because of the disruption, but mainly, I think, because of what they visibly represent.
Britain, together with every country like Britain, is faced with an inward movement of peoples no smaller in extent than the mass-emigrations from Europe that settled North America and Australasia, and perhaps as great in its effects as the incursions from across the Rhine and Danube that transformed the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. We face a mass-immigration from the Third World that may eventually double or treble our populations, and that will, by inevitable force of numbers, make us minorities in what we have so far considered to be our homelands.
Before explaining the issue that is illegal migration of humans, is is necessary to first dispel several social stigmas:
I unequivocally reject the notion that those who believe in border control are the bigots, racists, and xenophobes they are often branded as by the media. Most are justifiably concerned that an unmitigated flow of people will change the world around them.
Undoubtedly, they are correct to believe this. Since it can take 21 years or more in order to get into the United States legally, allowing the 4.4 million people waiting to get into the United States immediately sounds like it might funnel too many families in a tube that is not large enough. These figures do not include the portion of the planetary population that does not bother to try to legally immigrate due to the prohibitively long waiting time. The goal of this article is not to dismiss these concerns – in fact, I acknowledge their validity – but to respond to them using examples from economics, history, mathematics, and ethics, in an effort to make the intensity of information match the intensity of intention for those who are concerned.
There are few words more indelibly attached to the American myth than those so eloquently put by Emma Lazarus in her 1883 sonnet, “The New Colossus,” in which she writes, “Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” These words are now immortalized in bronze for all casual New York City tourists to pore over perfunctorily as they shuffle through the Statue of Liberty museum. Yet, they are worth a closer look, not only for the poetically inclined, but for those considering the United States’ immigration policies in 2019.
In the modern era, most substantive debate on immigration (which unfortunately seems increasingly hard to come by) is centered around the skills and attributes which the ideal immigrant would posses, and how we should go about screening for these attributes. Many suggest…
As immigration issues have become a greater issue at the forefront of American politics in the past few years, I have noticed some common misconceptions and myths surrounding the whole concept of immigration, policies and positions of the various sides discussing the contentious debate. I intend to address many of these over a series of articles, however I wanted to start with looking at a history of immigration law in the United States and how we got to where we are now…
In July of 2018, I was couch crashing at a friend’s apartment in Washington D.C. He was a member of the House Freedom Caucus, and for the first time during his brief time working in the House of Representatives felt like he could truly be his authentic self. Why did he fee this way? Because two weeks earlier he had went on Facebook Live and announced he would be leaving politics permanently.
“Maybe I’ll do something drastic and become a Libertarian,” he said, puffing on a cigarette on his back porch. “Maybe I could do many things, but I’m out the door at this point.”
This was an odd conversation to be having. After years of being a failed political consultant, I had finally been making inroads within the Republican Party, only to be here listening to an elected Republican tell me he was considering jumping into the obscure third party I had spent years trying to separate myself away from.
The most effective way to pursue liberty and ensure it exists for future generations is to a good person and, by extension, a good parent and take back parental responsibilities that have been stolen by the public school system.
Of all the ways that we humans can exert power over each other, I would argue that homicide – the taking of life – is the most potent, the most irreversible. Taking life is a completely final act that cannot be undone and erases all the potential (for evil and for good) that the taken life had. Taking life causes catastrophe for those close to the victim and the perpetrator, it results in a massive crater on the fabric of communities.
I’d venture to say that the overwhelming majority of Americans, of all political and ideological persuasions, believe that killing in self-defense is morally permissible. Many probably believe that some cases of preemptive killing are justified. But very, very few believe (or at least would admit that they believe) that killing unarmed, helpless, res-trained people is a tolerable practice. Yet when it comes to the death penalty, many of us make an exception to this rule. We accept that state-sanctioned and performed revenge-based killings are not only moral, but necessary.
I think that this is an idea we should all run away from, as fast as we can…
He doesn’t have that “evil” look to him as some actors do. You can close your eyes and think of onscreen serial killers and you’ll probably see faces like Malcolm McDowell from A Clockwork Orange or perhaps Christian Bale from American Psycho. Zach Efron however, the Disney star turned silver screen heartthrob, doesn’t need that “evil” look because, just like the real-life serial killer he’s based on, its what goes on in his mind and how he manipulates those around him that makes him a truly terrifying cinematic monster…