Skip to main content

America: Land of the Free, Home of the Immigrants

While (illegal) immigration has been a hot-button issue for quite some time, the temperature was raised exponentially after President Donald Trump signed an executive order temporarily banning travel for citizens from seven Muslim-dominated countries (Iran, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan). Due to the short notice provided by Trump regarding the matter and the vague language used in the order, chaos at airports was widespread, as natives from those seven nations who possessed visas or green cards were left waiting and wondering, uncertain what their ultimate fate was going to be. This prompted protests from both inside and outside the country, not to mention over 50 lawsuits (to this point), and plummeting poll numbers to boot. Unsurprisingly, this has led to heated immigration debates, so heated, in fact, many Trump supporters are now threatening to boycott Budweiser due to their pro-immigrant-themed Super Bowl ad. Yes, as Martin Lawrence's character said in the film Bad Boys II, "This sh*t just got real."

For the record, it'd be incredibly naive for me or anyone else to say that, in 2017, immigration laws weren't necessary. On the flip-side of that equation, however, it'd also be incredibly naive for me or anyone else to say America would exist without immigration. I'd like to believe that a large majority on both sides of the political spectrum would agree to these two points. So then why is a compromise on this issue seemingly so difficult to achieve? What's the dividing line? It appears to be that between legal and illegal immigration. It seems that whenever a self-described progressive brings up the notion that we're all descendents of immigrants and it'd be hypocritical to not provide such opportunities to other immigrants, I hear at least one self-described conservative chime in with, "Our ancestors were LEGAL immigrants, not ILLEGAL! There's a difference!" or "Our ancestors came here with useful tools to help the country and had nothing but love for it, unlike the America-hating immigrants of today!" Unfortunately for these conservatives, when held up to closer scrutiny, both their arguments fail.

When it comes to the former of the two arguments, we have to take into consideration the fact that immigration laws were drastically different when most of our ancestors arrived in this country than what they are today. While it's purely speculative, there's a good chance many of our ancestors would not be classified as legal immigrants under today's laws. So the claim that our ancestors were completely different than the immigrants of today is a fairly weak argument. Domestic violence was legal during the time our ancestors arrived in this country as well, and I'd like to believe, whether legal or illegal, we would all see it as morally reprehensible.

As far as the latter of the two arguments goes, it's racially-tinged to say the least. Why do over 99% of immigrants flee their countries and enter America? Why did our ancestors flee their native lands and enter this country? To better their lives, to better their opportunities, to better their dreams. So what makes the visions of immigrants today any different than the immigrants of yesterday? Doesn't every person have the potential to contribute to and improve this country in some manner? Why do so many self-described conservatives view the immigrants of today with such skepticism and disdain while they view the immigrants of yesterday with a completely different, fully-positive lens? Fear. This is especially the case with straight white Christian males. Their privilege is their America. Earning more money than women for equal work, that's their America. Being viewed as less criminally-inclined by the justice system due to the color of their skin, that's their America. Having marital rights others don't, that's their America. Getting away with discriminatory beliefs via religion due to their specific religion, that's their America. When women fight for equal pay and respect, this bites away at their privilege. When African-Americans stand up together and try to prompt change by starting a Black Lives Matter movement, this bites away at their privilege. When gay and lesbian couples are afforded equal marriage rights, this bites away at their privilege. When laws require service to all, regardless of their religious affiliation, this bites away at their privilege. While this view is understandable, it's not in line with American values, for if some are privileged, not all can be equal.

So why must some fear difference? Why must some fear change? Two of America's biggest strengths are its liberties and its diversity. Our identity would be quashed without one or the other. We often times like to, naively or not, lay claim that this is the greatest country in the history of the world, the only place where one can achieve the so-called "American dream." But what is this alleged land of opportunity if it doesn't provide equal opportunity across all demographics? What is this land of freedom if these liberties are legally biased? Whether we want to admit it or not, America would not be the country we've grown to love without immigration, and it'd be hypocritical of us to turn a blind-eye to the immigrants of the past while prohibiting similar opportunities for the immigrants of today. If we truly want to call ourselves "the land of the free," we need to be today what we've consistently been throughout our country's history, and that's the home of the immigrants.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"