Through sheer happenstance (or perhaps just plain bad luck), I found myself on the University of Arizona campus last week. In case you missed it, the university allowed some people (who have much higher morals and purer motives than any of the rest of us) to erect a fence that ran the length of the UA mall.
According to the UA Center for Latin American Studies website, “The purpose of this mock border wall/fence is to interrupt the UA campus community’s freedom of movement across the mall in order to dramatize the effects of US (sic) immigration and border enforcement policies which (sic) dramatically limit access to safe transit across the US/Mexico border.”
Yeah, real subtle.
The group No Mas Muertes (No More Deaths) put up the fence, though for the life of me, I can’t imagine why the UA would let them do it. I got an e-mail from a friend who is fairly well-known in local liberal politics, and he had hit the ceiling. He has a daughter attending the UA, and he’s paying full tuition for her. He said that he called the university and said, “I’m paying nearly $10,000 a year for my daughter to go to school, and she’s late for class because you allow some (jackasses) to put up a fence to try to make some ridiculous political point?!” (He didn’t really use the term “jackasses,” but rather a slang term involving a different, but nearby, body part. But only on males.)
What bothered me most was not having to walk around the fence (Lord knows I can always use the exercise), but the fact that it’s such a crap argument. It starts off with a completely false premise and then tries to bolster itself with imaginary cinder blocks of obfuscation and unwarranted sentimentality.
You see, as an American citizen, I have the right to walk from the Bear Down Gym to the Student Union. However, neither Mexican citizens nor their U.S. counterparts have the automatic “right” to unlimited safe transit across the United States/Mexico border. Where does that idea even come from?
Now, if you’re one of those people who sincerely believe that there should be no fences, no walls and no borders, and that we should all live in a Star Trek world where people wear Under Armour-like clothing that resists wrinkles and never has sweat stains, with a one-world government centered in, of all places, San Francisco, then we have nothing else to discuss. Live long and prosper, and please realize that by the 24th century, San Francisco will probably be a part of the Aleutian Islands.
However, if you live in the real world with the rest of us, I’d really like an explanation. Or, answer this: What if, instead of Mexico on our southern border, we had North Korea or Somalia? Would you still be chanting for safe transit across the border? I don’t think so.
Let me make it clear: The time for serious immigration reform in this country is long overdue. It’s been a quarter-century since Ronald Reagan (yes, Ronald Reagan!) pushed through an amnesty bill that should have been the last word on the matter. But over the next couple of decades, whiners on the left and cheap-labor exploiters on the right combined to allow millions more people to flood over the border, creating the mess that we have now. And yes, it is a mess.
With technology being what it is today, we should be able to cut the cumbersome legal-immigration procedure down from several years to just a few months. We could become a beacon for the world, both in terms of humanitarianism and responsibility.
I wouldn’t care if every single law-abiding person in Mexico chose to live here, leaving behind a big old parking lot … with drug cartels. As long as they go through our spiffy new streamlined process, let ’em come and invigorate this place. (There would have to be a couple of exceptions, like, for example, a Typhoid Mary type who could do a whole lot of damage just through his/her presence in the country.)
However (and this is the part that some people just don’t get), I don’t understand why it’s wrong to treat people who committed an illegal act like people who committed an illegal act. What am I supposed to teach my kids or their kids or any other kid who might benefit from some guidance? That it’s OK to ignore rules and break laws as long as you have a really, really good excuse? That’s nonsense, and it’s indefensible.
Finally, congratulations on the choice of the name “No More Deaths.” That’s clever along the lines of anti-abortion people calling themselves “pro-life.” If people honestly disagree with your overreaching policy, does that mean that they’re in favor of more deaths? Or even the same number of deaths?
Maybe there are people who don’t want any more deaths in the desert, but at the same time believe that there should be rules and laws. Maybe they’d be willing to listen to your argument if you weren’t so damned pontificating and self-righteous. Or perhaps they’d just like to walk across a college campus that their taxes and tuition help pay for without having a simplistic political philosophy shoved down their throats.
This article appears in Mar 31 – Apr 6, 2011.
Wow, Danehy. Way to pick on a local humanitarian group. No puppies to kick around this week? You’ve always been good at making me laugh and contemplate the ridiculousness of local politics/ sports/ etc.. But, seriously, this one is like shooting fish in a barrel. You just lost a reader.
Sincerely,
Travis Spillers
There’s no reason on earth that free movement across our southern (or northern, or any other) border should be available. Someone should just take wirecutters and cut holes in it, just like the real one.
Tom Danehy NAILED this one! Glad to see a liberal making so much sense on such a controversial issue! Thanks, Tom.
With technology being what it is today, we should be able to cut the cumbersome legal-immigration procedure down from several years to just a few months. We could become a beacon for the world, both in terms of humanitarianism and responsibility.
=================================
If you come from a society that does not want to see provable information floating around, you discover they do not establish data bases that allow them to look up Jose’s birth date, and place, and in fact, no one knows where he was born beyond the State in Mexico where he was born. Further, with the corruption, getting that information may require the biggest bribe if the Jose has a criminal record he wants to hide, and in the end, the information from Mexico to the people checking details in the Immigration Department may arrive, or maybe not.
Soooo… how exactly do we streamline a corrupt government that wants to be paid under the table for maintaining information on the Mexican People?
But wait a second.. George Jones from the U.S. says he need ten people to lay concrete and when the Immigration Department checks HUD and discover ten people looking for jobs at the local human resources department, the folks in the U.S. should be hired first. The question should not even come up.. and the demands of the Mexican Nationals to do it their way is not helping American Workers at all. Why in the world would we do it their way?
We actually have a system that works well, and has for a very long time. But if you want preference taken into account, and Ford Motor wants this worker in Detroit today, the system doesn’t work. But we don’t have open borders, and the American People don’t want open borders: the Hispanic organizations want open borders. Further, if you remove the illegal aliens which a corrupt political system in Washington DC does NOT want very badly, the Hispanic Population falls to 9% of the population of the United States.
No thanks.
Per the immigration policies and Mexico.. I should put it this way actually. The change in the immigration system in the United States is not going to happen. But if the Mexican Government changes the way it handles the requests, it might happen. Corruption in Mexico being what it is though, I suspect it will be a long time coming.
It’s too bad the parent of the student who was late for class is unable to see the significance of the fence. Maybe his daughter should have been more desperate to attend class, climb the fence, tunnel under, cut through it, or simply do what she came to college for in the first place; learn about other cultures and world affairs.
The argument if North Korea were our neighbor instead of Mexico falls flat also. Mexico is our neighbor not our enemy. It always amazes me that the USA a country of immigrants is so intolerant to new generations of immigrants. Yes we need immigration laws, yes national security is an issue, but ingredients of fear and xenophobia determining how this country negotiates those issues with our neighbors in Mexico is not the way to solve this issue. If we put a fence at the Mexican border, why no fence at the Canadian border?
My word, Tom Danehy! As one of your most vehement critics (usually), let me express my surprise and the reaffirmation of my belief that even liberals make valuable contributions to sociaty on occasion, just as occasionally conservatives and libertarians are boneheaded.
I think the UA Conservative Union and Liberal faction should mount a joint operation to tear that damned fence down as an impediment to the right to move about freely. It bears no relationship to our border.
Thanks, Tom. Good grief; I never thought I would see the day.
The fence helped the mall grass recover right at the advent of spring.
Who wrote this hateful rhetoric, and what did you do with that whining leftist Tom Denehy?
If No More Deaths really wanted to stop deaths on the border, they should put that fence up on the border so people wouldn’t risk their lives crossing a desert and dealing with dangerous drug cartels.
I support the humanitarian work of No More Deaths and other groups who provide water and medical assistance to people in need. However, I actually live right on the Mexico/US border where 3rd and 4th generation ranchers now can’t move about safely on their own land. I can no longer hike in areas nearby because they are so inundated with trash and illegal crossers, most of whom are not going to hurt anyone, but it only takes one. We check with the forest service before planning camping trips because there are so many drug runners through the wild areas around the border and they are ruthless. I feel a lot of compassion for the poor of Mexico, desperate for something even marginally better. I feel contempt for the corrupt govt there and here. I (and no one else for that matter) don’t know what the solutions are. It is very complex. It would be good if the U of A fence made people think and really dialogue about border issues and solutions, but it seems that most students don’t even get that the irony of their complaints is exactly the point.
In contrast to “Frdmftr” I disagree that “It bears no relationship to our border.” to the contrary, it impedes people from moving around freely, which is exactly what the physical idea of a fence is. It’s frustrating isn’t it. I am not saying immigration from any source (Canada, Mexico, Europe, etc) shouldn’t be regulated. But from my pale skinned viewpoint, much of the national frustration regarding the US/Mexican border is rooted in racism. Remember, they, the Mexicans, and their indigenous predecessors inhabited the southwest USA before “we” (Eurocentric) did.
I’m going to help you out Tom. What are you suppose to teach your kids about laws and rules? You should teach them that sometimes bad laws are made; like the laws allowing slavery, SB 1070, or the ones that required black people to ride on the back of the bus or allowed businesses not to serve them. I’m sure you can find other good examples. You’re going to tell them that if they feel strongly about immoral or unfair laws and rules, you hope they have the courage to speak up and draw attention to the situation, just like the No Mas Muertes group. You’re going to point out how a symbolic protest made their point by inconveniencing a few people and got a rise out of you because you do not share their point of view. You will also note that the No Mas Muertes group requested and received permission from the university administration so their message and their medium was sanctioned by the authorities. Your kids will one day realize that you are not always right and that your view of the world as black and white is not reality. That’s the day you lose your credibility.
I normally support No More Deaths but I think this was a bad move on their part. When you boil things down to simplistic messages of symbolism that is exactly the same amount of thought most people will put into it in return. We need meaningful discussions of a complex subject not warring symbols that accomplish nothing. I repeat – accomplish nothing.
Except….
campus is hard enough to navigate and get to class on time that would only cause many to be frustrated and angry, and are not likely to positively persuaded to any viewpoint.
When I see many of these outraged comments from the left I realize how much they remind me of comments from the right. Independent thought and the ability to disagree in a reasoned manner is no longer welcome in this country.
Tom – however you really crossed the line by picking on their name and calling them self-righteous for actually working to prevent deaths, not writing about it. You sound a little self-righteous yourself – so I ask is that always a bad thing?
Bravo! Bravo!