Distributed Mind

I am not an expert in the subject, but, as I understand it, around 400 years ago, the first permanent English colonies were established in what was to become the United States. Sometimes, they bought the land from the indigenous residents, though frequently for unfair prices; sometimes, they took it via military means whether punitvely or preemptively. Eventually, the larger part of the current area of the United States was acquired by such methods.

Around 150 years ago, the United States won some rather vast territory in the war with Mexico, which was considered by some (including apparently U. S. Grant) to be a war primarily about expansion.

Regardless of the legal technicalities of early American immigration, a case can certainly be made that in a greater moral sense, and even frequently in a broader legal sense, that the pattern of settlement by citizens of the colonies, and then the States, was illicit. In short: we came, we took the land.

Don't talk to me about illegal immigration; we were illegal immigrants. Lest you ever be tempted to look down on some Mexican or Central American who entered our country illegally, think of the natives we uprooted and shoved to Oklahoma. Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone, no?

And just for the record, most of my ancestors were legal immigrants, and they never took land from anyone (there was not really anyone to steal land from in turn of the century Chicago, as it happens). Not that any of that makes me a better person; but if you think that one's ancestors should determine one's status, well, I'll claim moral superiority on my side, in a self-righteous sort of way.

Oh, and isn't it ironic that all that land we got from Mexico is precisely the area we are all worried about illegal immigration today? (Although I realize many in those states are less worried about ilegal immigration than many people in the rest of the country, and to those people, I salute their patience and open-mindedness.)

If that were not argument enough, we might look at the fact that almost every person in this country has broken some law at some point in time, and we do not demand they cease to be citizens, at least in general. Now, perhaps entering the Untied States illegally is substantially worse than a moving violation, but then again, maybe it isn't that much worse. Either way, people heading north in the hopes of making some money to send to their families living in areas where poverty runs rampant - at least their motives are good. The case becomes even stronger if you believe, as many do, that the United States and its corporations is in part responsible for many of the problems in Mexico. Add to that that I for one believe that the right to movement is almost as fundamental a right as the right to free speech or protection from illegal search and seizure. Borders seem to me inherently undemocratic. Considering all of this, whether these people are right or wrong, I am willing to cut these people some slack. Are you?

Now, having said all of that, I do not claim that immigration will have no cost in the long run. It may or may not. I hope it does not, but I cannot claim that I know that or even have good reason to believe that will be the case. Indeed, given that I opened this argument by bringing up the settlement of this land by the English in the seventeetch century, it would be naive of me to ignore the kind of impact that had on the native population. Frequently - not always, but enough - when a new group of people settles an area previously occupied, the native populace develops a sever resentment of the new people, and this resentment can often last for centuries. This is true regardless of how the land was settled, though the more violent the means, the more likely and deeper the resentment. I find it quite likely that white Americans will resent hispanics for some time to come, if they do soon come to be the largest single segment of the population (of course, many of those hispanics will have come from places other than Mexico, or have lived here many years, but, how well people will be able to recognize those facts is an open question). Nor is there necessarily no reason for this resentment. Even before English settlers fought the natives, they had given them enough diseases to wipe out large populations; this was followed by years of wars, questionable dealings; and the displacement that naturally resulted from a large influx of new colonists. No Mexicans are attacking us, but there may be effects of the large influx of immigrants, legal or illegal. Not all effects though, were bad; certainly, for all of its problems, the United States was, at least at its founding, an invaluable political experiment that was to contribute indirectly to democracy in many other countries. So, the effects of such migrations are both positive and negative. They always bring change, though - but I think we have shown we can handle that here.

(This is a rather rough argument; I know it could be improved, and I am sure there are serious holes in some lines of reasoning, though I am sure they could be patched. I post this in its relatively crude state though to let you all see how I feel about the issue - not that you didn't probably know already. Some day perhaps I will return and clean it up; I would like to have a persuasive argument in favor of immigration, or at least one that would give people pause. This may not be it, but I hope it is a step in that direction.)