Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Make Us All Citizens of the World
The pursuit of "illegal aliens" has become a high government priority. Congress has made it illegal to hire an "undocumented" alien who has managed to get into the U.S. Although discrimination in other contexts is illegal, for the undocumented it is mandatory.
Impeccable logic underlies this requirement. A major reason people want to move here is our employment opportunities and higher wages. If you cannot be hired, sneaking in is much less attractive.
Mandatory employment discrimination cannot do the whole job, especially since enforcement has been sporadic and half-hearted. So auxiliary measures are needed, and a recent court decision in Arizona illustrates what some of these measures might look like.
In June, a federal jury convicted Walt Staton of littering. His "littering" consisted of leaving jugs of fresh drinkable water in an area near the Mexican border for entering aliens who might otherwise have died from dehydration (as a great many indeed have).
The 27-year-old graduate student was sentenced to 300 hours of community service, a year's probation, and banned from the National Wildlife Refuge in which he had done his evil deeds. Now he has refused to do the community service and the judge is threatening to send him to prison.
The logic behind making it a criminal act to give someone a drink of water is also impeccable. If more "illegals" die from thirst, this will make crossing into the U.S. less attractive and reduce the burden of policing the border.
It is clear what the next step needs to be: we must make it a criminal act to give or sell food to anybody who cannot document that they are a citizen or here with official government approval.
After that, I am not certain. Allowing or requiring everybody to shoot down undocumented people on the spot might, by more soft-hearted Americans, be regarded as going a little too far. But this too would be a logical response to a problem that so many people are concerned about.
I guess the real question is: once we assume that such a category of people as "illegal aliens" is a legal and moral possibility, where do we draw the line in doing something about it?
An alternative which would not require us to draw any such line would be to abandon the whole concept of an illegal alien and regard every human being on the planet as a member of the human race and a citizen of the world. Inside the United States no matter what state we were born in, we automatically acquire state citizenship merely by moving there.
Thus, I was a citizen of Michigan for 36 years despite having been born in Oregon, and my wife is a citizen of Oregon despite her birth in Connecticut. There is no reason why this system could not work at the world level, and I am sure that at some future time we will have such a system.
In the meantime we have to live with a different system, but we need to recognize just how crazy this system is and the impossible choices with which it confronts us.
Christians, for example, including fundamentalists (perhaps especially fundamentalists!), need to think about the implications of their faith here:
"For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me ...." (Matthew 25:35)
Does anybody really want to live in a world where it is illegal to give a fellow human being a drink of water?
- Posted in
106 Comments so far
Show AllFrom what I read the courts didn't try the man for giving water to the illegals. The courts tried and convicted the fella for leaving plastic jugs in the desert. If this fella was sincere he would have set up a water station and made sure his illegal buddies were all taken care of while at the same time taking care of our environment. While he's at it he may as well continue to hand my jobs, welfare, housing, healthcare and all else the illegals and their accomplice elite class are doing to breed us, the ever dwindling middle class, out. Such interesting spin Paul.
So if he set up "water stations" here is what would happen: ICE would know exactly where to find their prey. After one or two mass deportations the water stations would have no customers and people would resume dying of thirst. Get real, XGenman. The people coming from Mexico are mostly indigenous. Which means that their ancestors have been in the Western Hemisphere for over 10,000 years. So who are the real immigrants here?
ICE... prey? You make ICE sound like coyotes and these illegals who are coming into our country obtaining forged documents and stealing from us saints? It would be wonderful if ICE did indeed find them at these water stations. They could convict the coyotes, give these people food and water while shipping them back. Indigenous? Who are you kidding. Everyone here is an immigrant in one way or another starting 12,000 years ago with migration from asia. Most of those coming from mexico are decendants from Europeans with very little "indigenous" blood left (remember, we killed the indigenous with mass extinctions due to disease). I do not oppose these immigrants coming to this country. I oppose that they are doing it ILLEGALLY and ALL the consequences that come from it.
XGenman
I highly reccommend you read this article from the Texas Observer. Its quite true. Its from a couple of years ago, but its even worse now. If after reading it you can still hold that opinion, I'll be amazed.
http://www.texasobserver.org/issue.php?iid=242
XGenman -
So, if you had a wife and children in Mexico, no job and no hope of finding work there, you would stay home and watch your family starve to death, before breaking a stupid law?!!!
Most so called 'illegals' are far more noble & respectable than most flag waving Americans. They will gladly do work that most of us won't, and they'll do it for crumbs. Then they'll live on ~25% of those crumbs and send the other ~75% to their loved ones across the border.
Much of the land from Texas to California was stolen from their ancestors, but that was "legal" right?! NAFTA shut down all the small farmers & most small businessmen, making unemployment in Mexico skyrocket, while making the rich on both sides of the border richer, but that was 'legal'. Just calling such a goverment "democratic" is immoral. NAFTA is a crime against humanity, though the courts systems are far to corrupt to worry about true justice or the common crimes against humanity.
It is troubling to see someone use the word "illegally" like you do, as if it means that things that are illegal are by definition "bad", while "legal" activities (like invading, occupying sovereign nations, and killing hundreds of thousands of their citizens, including many women and children) are by definition good.
Om Shanti Om Shanti Om Shanti Om
"Without sharing there can be no justice;
without justice there can be no peace;
without peace there can be no future...
Man must change or die.
There is no other course."
Maitreya, the World Teacher
http://www.share-international.org
Know-Buddee
Thinking that illegal aliens should be welcomed and supported, given Americans jobs and protecting them before Americans is about as wrong as you can get.
"So, if you had a wife and children in Mexico, no job and no hope of finding work there, you would stay home and watch your family starve to death, before breaking a stupid law?!!!"
Of course not, but that isn't what this is about. You can't blame these poor ignorant people if they are lured across the border with promises made by business and their shills, churchs looking for more power, well meaning, but uninformed people. But we are not responsible for their welfare. We are responsible for our own citizens welfare.
Calling illegal aliens sneaking across the border "nobel" is hilarious! There is nothing noble about stealing from your neighbors. You might as well define NAFTA as "noble"
"Much of the land from Texas to California was stolen from their ancestors"
And where exactly did you think the Mexicans got this land in the first place?
More respectable than Americans whose jobs they are taking? Horsefeathers.
"They will gladly do work that most of us won't, and they'll do it for crumbs."
Thats simply a lie put out by the cheap labor advocates. What job...SPECIFICALLY... do these illegals do that Americans won't do? No generalizatioons or deflections please.
It is troubling to see someone that doesn't realize the word illegal is used because that is what it is. Illegal. And of course breaking the law is bad. You approve of criminals? Of course illegal is bad.
We certainly agree on NAFTA, it hurt both American and Mexican citizens, especially the small Mexican corn farmers. It was signed by both our governmennt and Mexico's to the detriment of both their citizens.
Strange you should mention it as I never endorsed NAFTA. Why would you associate NAFTA or any other off topic subject with me? More strange, you seem to have a lot of venom regarding my response, and yet not one of you have bragged that you have driven to Mexico, bussed these people up here while giving them basic necessities along the way, and then given your OWN jobs for these poor people. It would seem you require that I give up my job, resources, and necessities for them and yet I've seen no love from anyone else regarding giving up YOUR resources or lives for these people.
You also mention California, where I live. We have a serious problem of unemployment while at the same time our budget is busted. It's so bad in California that basic governance is breaking or broke down. Tent cities have gone up all over this state. People are being removed from their homes in record numbers with still more to come, yet these illegals stream over our borders. Our local McDonalds has an all Spanish speaking crew. The gardeners who come to my apartment complex do not speak english and wear NEW clothing (I have not worn new clothing in years as I cannot afford it). I cannot COMPETE with these people to get these jobs. These "stupid laws" you so callously reference were designed to protect you and I both, and yet they are effectively not enforced and haven’t been for years so the elite can squeeze the middle class out.
As to the rhetoric that has been shoved down my throat for years:
"They will gladly do work that most of us won't, and they'll do it for crumbs."
This is pure ignorance. There are many of us who are out of a job who would gladly take day wages just to keep a roof over our heads, and yet if we don’t look hispanic we are not considered. Where the illegals stand in the mornings to get work in my town, now we are seeing people who do not seem to be from south of the border and many more of them stand there now. You all write as if this crisis doesn't affect you and that you do not fear being kicked onto the street and competing with them to survive.
Civus, I've read the article and although it is quite heart rending, I would point you back to topic noting this was taken from said article:
"His cowboys—and this isn’t the job they signed up for—go out Fridays on litter patrol, collecting hundreds of pounds of plastic bags, jugs, backpacks, and other detritus."
I believe that'll just about cover WHY we have anti-littering laws and why this fella in the article was arrested and convicted. Had he been intelligent about the way he had left the water, like leaving them in biodegradable containers or devised some way to NOT break the laws while still helping them, he wouldn’t have been cited, no? Surely this activist can find SOME way of both obeying the law of the land AND helping those poor souls? Never mind the obvious questions about leaving water jugs in the middle of a large desert area that somehow is supposed to help people who cross in the middle of the night. They would be lucky to trip over such an ignorant gesture to utilize it.
Never have I endorsed letting these coyotes kill their victims through neglect, overexposure, dehydration, or abusing them in any way. They should be tried and convicted for murder, human trafficking, and put away if we can. However, if you endorse bringing these illegals into our country, I expect to see ya'll lay down your lives and jobs FIRST, not demanding the rest of us do so to appease your sensibilities.
I believe we have far more problems here in the states than we can handle currently and allowing these people to come here is exacerbating our problems.
XGenman
Thank you for taking the time to read it. And yes we have a terrible problemm on the border in many areas. Litter is a real problem.
But leaving those gallon jugs of water is not litter, the thought is kind, the action is to protect lives and these folks unthinkingly often bring their children, even babies with them.
There isn't really a way to do it legally and I simply cannot find it in my heart to wish for his arrest and conviction. Its not the same as advocating illegal immigration, its not helping them when they get here or employing them, its simply a humane thing to do. This is one time I'd turn a blind eye rather than see someone thats just trying to do better die. I'd cheerfully leave the coyotes, the businessman that employs them and the racist organizations that encourage them to come out there without a drop of water. They are the acum of the earth.
Peace
Civis:
I love your generosity and humanity. A compromise then! Perhaps if the judge allowed Walt Staton to do his community service on the border driving a water truck?
Peace :)
Now there's a sentence the Judge should have thought of! Agreed. Everyone is happy, thats justice.
You are too kind to me however. I'm no different than most people, but thanks in any case.
Peace indeed! :)
I read this quote not long ago; I apologise to its author for forgetting the attribution:
"You have to remember that everything done in Nazi Germany was legal and everything done by the Hungarian freedom fighters was illegal".
Cowardly, miserly, ignorant, paranoid, racist, callous... words fail me. If the rest of your dwindling middle class is of your mindset, the sooner you are gone the better.
However thanks for reminding me to send a donation to those fellas and their illegal buddies: http://www.nomoredeaths.org
Actually, the same could be said of you. By definition you are aiding and abetting criminals. Let's hope one of the illegals you sponsor doesn't rob or kill anyone; but you'll never know, will you? Are you that vindictive?
XGenman
I am absolutely opposed to allowing illegal aliens amnesty, work or legal status. They may get in line if they want to come here.
THAT is not what this is about. These poor folks are drawn across our border by lack of enforcement, business using cheap labor and their shills, even well meaning folks that don't understand what they are advocating or causing at all.
What this IS about is the desert. When these people come across and they risk everthing to obtain what many Americans do not appreciate. Coyote's abuse them and many times abandon them, or they lose their way or just miscalculated how much water they would need.
If you don't have enough water in the desert, you can dehydrate and die very quickly. This young man was just trying to help people in dire straits and possibly save their lives.
As strongly as I feel about what a disaster illegal alien labor is for everyone concerned, I would buy and fill the water bottles for him and drive him out into the desert to place them myself.
I highly reccommend you read this article from the Texas Observer. Its quite true. Its from a couple of years ago, but its even worse now. If after reading it you can still hold that opinion, I'll be amazed.
http://www.texasobserver.org/issue.php?iid=242
Coming soon to a neighborhood near you -the $hithole that is Mexico.
I don't know if this judge consider himself a Christian, but I'm sure he will, but would his Jesus allow people to die of thirst even when places where they're not supposed to be? And what comes next: shoot to kill?
every human has inherent rights...water is one...to freely traverse the planet is another...
jobs are not...
sure, you just want to come up to Canada and drink all our fresh water...damn drybacks
fortunately, a fair amount of your historically-yummy water flows through Washington state already...
thank you very much!
although we certainly do it a liberal amount of damage once it gets here...
I like to stand just north of the border and pee in it while singing "Oh Canukistan"
is that what makes it so yummy?
"every human has inherent rights...water is one"
So simple you seem to think. Is this right absolute? Sometimes you have to drill to get the water. Sometimes water has to be desalinated. Sometimes it must be purified of dangerous contaminates. All of these examples require the expenditure of labor and capital, and there is risk that there may be no success. Should our "every human" be required to somehow participate in the efforts to create the healthy water to begin with? Or can the water be simply taken by the "every human" for nothing in return? Do you think the just answer lies somewhere between? Thank you in advance.
I agree it is similar.
The point of my response was not to disagree with the premise of water as a right, but to understand what thought process is behind the one who makes the statement that it is a right. Seems to me there is an "OK, then what?" question that always looms large but often isn't acknowledged.
I predict someone will try to slam us for talking this way. :-)
simple? the idea is simple...it is called sharing...
hi, jake...
what is the opposite of beautiful?
"the idea is simple...it is called sharing"
Sharing is very nice, but you have juxtaposed this "simple idea" against the complexities of the expenses involved in producing clean water that I pointed out. It raises the question of whether some people would *share back* at all. It’s easy to imagine a situation where sharing is one way with some people. If those people are capable of sharing back but decide it’s easier not to, what then?
Someone I know likes to say “Think once again,” We think “water should be a right”. What then? “It should be shared by those who produced it with those who don’t have any.” What then?
"hi, jake..."
Hello.
our system, based on the thinking you appear to endorse, seems to be failing us miserably on virtually every front observable...I am suggesting an alternative thinking...I make no claim that my thinking is perfect, merely better than destroying everything, which appears, to me, to be what we're doing...
the need to reduce human impact on the planet includes the securing of water...there will need to be migrations for many reasons, and soon...potable water and arable land will be high on the list of those reasons...obviously, people will need to be leaving Fallujah, etc., and rather quickly, if they wish to either survive or reproduce...the planet of the apes scenario of 'forbidden zones' is becoming reality before our eyes...
sadly, most of the water we secure is not used for human consumption, at all, anyway...it used secured and sequestered for various private industries, and largely made so toxic via those processes as to be not only undrinkable by the victimized public at large, but unfit for skin contact, if not outright radioactive...I don't see how one can argue in favor of processes that promise to reduce our dwindling vital resources even further to states that are already proven to be unusable, harmful, or deadly...owning water carries responsibilities...those responsibilities are utterly ignored in our current world, to the profit of the few and the detriment of the many...
the world is not perfect now, it may not be perfect then, but change, fundamental change must occur, or current industrial and chemical trends will obviously continue to damage, not benefit...
must work now...I anticipate your argument will be one of property...what one can accomplish, afford or acquire, by whatever means, is justified by the ends...claim of exclusive right included, even to the death of others...surprise me...
"I anticipate your argument will be one of property"
"surprise me"
My "argument" would most likely be around human nature rather than directly about property. You wrote a lot above, but it's not clear to me how it relates to the central issues. They were:
Your idea of water as a "right".
My idea that there are significant expenses incurred in producing water. I would add that this is only likely to get worse in the future and you seem to agree.
Your idea of "sharing" as being an important part of the first two ideas.
My idea of thinking through past the first idea that one would have about something, i.e. that it would be nice if water was a "right". "Then what?" must then be asked.
Thanks in advance.
the idea of water as a right refers to the very existence of potable water and the nature of living things, such that all living things are inherently dependent upon potable water for survival...the right to breathable air is the same...the right to a protective atmosphere...there are certain agreements we owe one another as incarnating entities, and the most basic is to respect and preserve the fragile conditions under which life is possible...
the right is simply the right to have potable water, et al, continue to exist...
this reverses to a 'nonright', which may be where we go in the very near future: the 'nonright' to damage or deny potable water...the 'nonright' to radiate large swaths of the planet...the 'nonright' to toxify and acidify enormous patches of ocean...the 'nonright' to blow holes in the ionosphere...
destroying the planet to preserve our perverse social construct is not permissable...
who is looking out for the overall survival of our world? no one...
please address the incredible damage being done to our world under our current system, and how that damage will be relieved by said system...
"the idea of water as a right refers to the very existence of potable water and the nature of living things, such that all living things are inherently dependent upon potable water for survival"
For humans, potable water usually does not simply "exist". It must be *produced* by the labor and ingenuity of man. Further, vast tracts of land where man finds himself are without water, or have bad water.
You also don't explain why water must be a right simply because it is a need, especially given that it usually must be *produced*. All creatures must *work* to aquire those things that sustain them, that has always been and will always be the case.
"the right is simply the right to have potable water, et al, continue to exist..."
I disagree with that right, and would submit instead that we have a right to *pursue* water, along with other goods and services, including those things basic to survival. Simply declaring these things as "rights" does *nothing* towards producing and distributing these things.
*destroying the planet to preserve our perverse social construct is not permissable...*
Surely.
"please address the incredible damage being done to our world under our current system, and how that damage will be relieved by said system..."
I would first remind you that in the US there have actually been great improvements. For example, the shad stopped swimming up the Delaware every spring, but now they are back because the river has improved enough to support them again. These improvements resulted from an awareness of the problem and political pressure on those in power to implement solutions. OTOH, this is not the case in many other countries. While it is true that they often pollute as a consequence of producing certain products for us in the western world, it is also true that often their governments do not have the best interests of their citizens in mind, and that there is a lack of prosperity. Sadly, ecological cleanliness is a *luxury* for nations that are poor.
I don't see how making goods or services "rights" can address any of this.
thank you for the exchange, jake...you are a gamer...
You are welcome. I guess this means you are agreeing to disagree? :-)
of course...I rather suspected that would be the case going in, sir...it never hurts to flesh out one's thoughts, and trading posts with you is good for that...
hasta la vista
OK then. Clarification is a worthy goal if persuasion is unlikely.
I am curious as to how you see water, health care or anything like that as a "right"?
Is not a "right" something that no one can take away from you? That you are allowed, no matter the circumstance?
I can't think of any let's say "traditional" rights that involve goods or services.
Hhhuuuummmmmm.....
"Does anybody really want to live in a world where it is illegal to give a fellow human being a drink of water?"
If you gave a drink of water to someone, and they were later convicted of being a "terrorist" (whatever that is defined as, protesters maybe?), you would be committing a crime under current law.
however, you would be free to waterBOARD them...
ooooooh, that's cold, brother...very good, but very cold...
like a refreshing drink to a desert-crosser...
Just by using the word "alien", it seems that we're using the vocabulary that the dark leaders of the empire of shame want us to use. As everyone here knows, separatism is of the past. It appeals to the most ignorant and least mature of people. It's time for humanity to become civilized, to recognize and embrace our unity as world citizens. Humanity is one family, and before too much longer all of the politicians and other leaders will recognize that.
Here's some good news: According to the World Teacher, 2010 is the year of the Tiger. The year of the Tiger is always special but 2010 will be a really extraordinary year. So don't be surprised if 2010 gives progressive/politically aware people much to cheer about. Keep fighting. All will be well. Eventually.
Cheers
:-)
========
"We cannot move on if we are entrapped in structures of economic or cultural privilege. Sharing, especially in a world where most live at or below the edge of misery, is as important and relevant as disarmament; in fact, sharing the resources of the earth is inseparable from the renunciation of war and violence. On such an ethical... ground, the architecture of a new world order based on human unity will be easy to conceive and enact." (Richard Falk, Milbank Professor of International Law and Practice at Princeton University)
=============
"The day that hunger is eradicated from the earth there will be the greatest spiritual explosion the world has ever known. Humanity cannot imagine the to the world on the day of that great revolution." Federico Garcia Lorca
==============
"Without sharing there can be no justice;
without justice there can be no peace;
without peace there can be no future."
Maitreya, the World Teacher
"Citizens of the world"? Not gonna happen until the big 3 religions are gone. "Us versus Them" is built into these religions, so naturally followers act that way. And what's worse, "Us versus Them" is built into both western and eastern cultures because of the same culprit - religion.
Religion is not the culprit. It is fundamentalism, in whatever form it comes, that is the problem. People should be free to worship how they choose; so long as it does not infringe on other people's liberties.
Nope, it's religion. Even less-than-fundamentalist religious folks still exhibit us versus them. Fundamentalists may ACT on the belief more often and in bigger ways, but at the heart of the matter is religion (and really I mean the big 3, possibly Hinduism and Buddhism, though I'm not as knowledgeable about those).
You left out Islam, the epitome of your "us versus them" theory.
Nope, it's not religion. There is nothing that says nationalism has to be associated with religion.
The problem is nationalism.
"Citizens of the World?" It's not going to happen....period.
I'll post this again as it disappeared. Odd.
We are already citizens of the world. It is governments that deny this fact.
Gary
gdgoodman
There is no such thing as a citizen of the world, thats a fact. Perhaps in 3030 or 4040 it might come to pass, but frankly I doubt it it would require a change in human nature.
The further government is removed from the people it governs the more dictatorial and overbearing it gets.
Yes. I'm sure Africans Americans in the south, prior to the civil rights era, greatly appreciated their city / town / governments.
I'm sure that they hated the busybody meddling at the national level. I'm sure they were all in support of being oppressed by their great democratic city / town governments.