Ending Mass Migration

The alternative to brutalization and hate-preaching: eliminate the cause of mass migrations.

An immigration hysteria has invaded our immigrant nation. It has divided American voters, boosted dangerous politics, resulted in horrible crimes, and obfuscated the true causes of our problems. Both corrupt major parties are pouring gasoline on this fire for their party bosses and secret donors to benefit.

While I don’t share the xenophobic fears of certain people, I have a piece of advice for them: If you worry about too many immigrants, don’t go criminal or inhumane. Don’t waste time on building walls, either. Eliminate the cause of mass migrations, instead.

And when you take a look at that cause, you will find that it is basically identical with the cause of all our horrendous homemade troubles here at home. It’s not immigrants who cause our truly life-rocking problems. The infamous 1% do. It’s the global jet-setting robber billionaires, many of whom are rooted in the U.S., who raid our country, our jobs, and our lives. It’s their rigged system of economic exploitation and plutocracy (money in politics), which result in way too low incomes, way too high living expenses, and no real future prospects for most of us.

Quite honestly, would your life really get significantly better if your Mexican neighbor with whom you may be competing over a terribly shabby job were arrested and sent to Mexico, if your fiancée or class mate were deported because her parents long ago immigrated without the proper papers, or if today yet another unarmed and harmless petite 20-year old Guatemalan girl were shot dead by a border guard in purported “self defense”?

Would you not benefit a lot more from a package of real country improvement: healthcare for all without ifs or buts, good job opportunities, good free education, fairer taxes, proper care and dignity in your old age, a share in our country’s economic assets paying you a monthly citizen dividend as Social Security for All providing you and all your fellow citizens with a financial safety cushion instead of all that unearned income going exclusively to the ridiculously rich to fund their excesses, just to mention a few things?

Imagine we restored or even eclipsed the old American Dream, and all of us would get to live good lives? It’s possible, I tell you. We just need to commit ourselves to it.

And once we achieved these goals, we might then have to worry about mass immigration pressure (the current one is mostly a hype). With America becoming a true paradise, lots of people from other nations with lower living standards would then be tempted to immigrate, just like for many decades lots of them have been driven out of their homelands by our country’s destructive foreign policy of supporting military coups and cruel dictatorships, raiding and bombing with our own military forces, price gouging and squeezing them economically, and preventing them from having their own New Deal such as boosted our lives back in the last century. Then we might indeed have to worry about mass immigrations. As for our current immigration pressure, in recent years more people have been leaving the U.S. for Mexico than coming from there because life is getting worse in the U.S. every year.

But why should we stop at making only our own country great (again or for the first time)? Would it not make a lot more sense to come up with all the right solutions here and then export them to the world? This would end mass migrations, save for cataclysmic natural disasters like erupting super volcanoes or huge meteorites, or continued climate change, laying waste to entire regions and lands.

Think about it. Rather than us victims of disastrous economic and political systems fighting among ourselves over scraps and crumbs using nationality, ethnicity, gender-issues, or blind party affiliation as an excuse, we could unite politically in a people’s coalition (sooner or later with a People’s Party) making use of the tools our founding fathers left us with, send the oligarchy packing, and reform our entire world into a human paradise, all in the true American way. Is that not a much more desirable goal and a much smarter thing to do?

___

Related links:

Preceding posts of this thread:

___

Dirk Droll is the publisher, main writer, and senior editor of Beanstock’s World where many of his articles found here originate.

Photo by chuttersnap on Unsplash

Comments
No. 1-8
Philip Carino
Philip Carino

Thanks for clarifying @dirkdroll, I was merely hoping you could touch on it because it seems to me that the migrants coming from south and central america are all fleeing from drug related wars and crimes. But I do understand that that's not all there is to immigration. Glad you can reply!

Dirk Droll
Dirk Droll

Editor

Our nation DID bring about the Latin American drug production and gangs. On this point I agree with FelixCulpa. There are several aspects to it, but getting into the details we would digress from the thrust of this article which is not about drugs nor asylum seekers but the cause of mass migration (asylum seekers are only a tiny part of it here in the U.S.) which is identical with the cause of our domestic socio-economic and political problems. Hence, if we eliminated this root cause we could solve both our domestic troubles and those that drive people living in various parts of the globe to pull up their stakes and migrate.

As for FelixCulpa's commentary attacks on me, they are easily explained. I dared to publish an article on good vs bad tradions in the "Conservative" section here a while back:

It apparently clashed with FelixCulpa's ideology and he has been trolling me ever since.

FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa

As you say, everyone is entitled to their opinion. As I said, in my opinion he's one of, if not the, worst writers on here. Is this not a website where we're able to voice our opinions? Stories like "the T-shirt that shook the world" which openly insults an entire demographic for the purposes of what I very loosely call "humor" are fine; but my calling a writer who fails to substantiate his arguments a "bad writer" is over the top? Certainly, if I had insulted him I could understand your edit. Regardless of what you think of my opinion, he still proceeds from one fallacy to the next using ill substantiated arguments based on "feeling", and unsupported assertions presented as fact. That has nothing to do with his quality as a human being, or the validity of his ideas. It does have to do with the quality of his writing, which is lousy. If you want to have a site that allows for productive debate, then you need to have at least a minimal understanding of how to debate well. "Because I say so" doesn't make something true, whether you're Donald Trump or Dirk Droll. There's nothing wrong with being a bad writer, it's not a value judgement on his inherent worth as a person. He's probably a sterling individual with so many shining parts he's hard to look at whenever it's less than 70% cloudy. Nevertheless, his writing is sub-par.

ThreePatriots
ThreePatriots

Editor

FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa said (edited): I won't even guess what he meant. [EDITED.] Where cartel related violence is concerned I can only give you my own interpretation. In my opinion, once Escobar was killed vertical integration ended. Various lieutenants, and sub-lieutenants ended up fighting each other for the production and means of transport. Not all of the original cadre won, and they were obliged to fight each other, and try to outbid each other, to get their drugs to market. This meant more money, and violence for the middlemen. Those that could hold a supply line effectively (the most violent) made the most money. Then Meth came on the scene. A drug that could be entirely synthesized from relatively common chemicals and was more addictive than cocaine. Middlemen who'd previously only been moving drugs were able to turn their money into labs and make their own drugs at cost. You don't need a degree from Harvard to see that this is the best play. No supply lines and local control of your own network. What's not to like? Of course it wasn't just one guy who had this idea, so we ended up with quite a few different factions fighting it out. To have labs you need to have territory, to have territory you need to be able to hold it. That means soldiers. Meth already existed in the US before Mexican gangs started making it, but because the Mexicans had their own sources and supply lines they were able to market it widely, which domestic suppliers like the Hell's Angels and bathtub labs weren't able to do. Meth was able to compete effectively with domestic meth, and foreign cocaine, for market share. This was due to both cost, and purity. Now we're to the present day. So the question remains; are we to blame, or are they to blame? For the most part I would say it's us. We're victims of our own appetites. Yes, they were willing and able to supply us with all the drugs we cared to consume, but the infrastructure for that production was funded by American dollars. We bought what they supplied, and it seems a bit hypocritical to ask someone to sell you something and then yell at them for selling it to you. It's Fillibuster's question writ large; do we blame the junkie for their problem? Or is better to just move past blame and deal with the consequences? I say that at this point we need to stop the bleeding, and then worry about who shot who once the patient is stabilized.

Play nice, @FelixCulpa . While we may disagree 110% with other writers, everyone is entitled to their own opinions. No personal attacks or insults.

Philip Carino
Philip Carino
FelixCulpa
FelixCulpa said (edited): I won't even guess what he meant. [EDITED.] Where cartel related violence is concerned I can only give you my own interpretation. In my opinion, once Escobar was killed vertical integration ended. Various lieutenants, and sub-lieutenants ended up fighting each other for the production and means of transport. Not all of the original cadre won, and they were obliged to fight each other, and try to outbid each other, to get their drugs to market. This meant more money, and violence for the middlemen. Those that could hold a supply line effectively (the most violent) made the most money. Then Meth came on the scene. A drug that could be entirely synthesized from relatively common chemicals and was more addictive than cocaine. Middlemen who'd previously only been moving drugs were able to turn their money into labs and make their own drugs at cost. You don't need a degree from Harvard to see that this is the best play. No supply lines and local control of your own network. What's not to like? Of course it wasn't just one guy who had this idea, so we ended up with quite a few different factions fighting it out. To have labs you need to have territory, to have territory you need to be able to hold it. That means soldiers. Meth already existed in the US before Mexican gangs started making it, but because the Mexicans had their own sources and supply lines they were able to market it widely, which domestic suppliers like the Hell's Angels and bathtub labs weren't able to do. Meth was able to compete effectively with domestic meth, and foreign cocaine, for market share. This was due to both cost, and purity. Now we're to the present day. So the question remains; are we to blame, or are they to blame? For the most part I would say it's us. We're victims of our own appetites. Yes, they were willing and able to supply us with all the drugs we cared to consume, but the infrastructure for that production was funded by American dollars. We bought what they supplied, and it seems a bit hypocritical to ask someone to sell you something and then yell at them for selling it to you. It's Fillibuster's question writ large; do we blame the junkie for their problem? Or is better to just move past blame and deal with the consequences? I say that at this point we need to stop the bleeding, and then worry about who shot who once the patient is stabilized.

Worst writer is your opinion, I think it's harsh and way over reacting. Dirk has good points. We have propped dictators before in South America and according to your own comment, have somehow been involved in the drug trade. But the link to mainly drugs (which is the case for most of the asylum seekers) wasn't included in his over all idea that's why I wished it be clarified (hopefully by him). We all believe in different things and that's okay. It's also very easy to tell someone that you don't agree with what they say without offending them. Just chill out man! Political Storm is meant to open and maintain discussions in a respectful manner.

Stories