As I have travelled these united states, I have noticed Americans detest technology as much, if not more than they detest Washington, D.C. One recurring theme from coast to coast is the immigration issue. People are really angry. Why?
I was an undocumented worker for several years in the late 1980s in Europe. I worked packing potatoes in Nerja, Spain, as a factory worker in Sweden, etc. I was an illegal. I am well educated, and appear white, which makes a world of difference.
Some of our anti-immigration fury is self-righteous. We don't like being complicit when others break the law. That fires something about our own law breaking. Also, people don't like to see their country trashed, their hard work, and their ancestor's hard work building this country going to waste. What to do?
There are more smart people in New Mexico, Texas, Arizona or California than there are in Washington, D.C. No contest. Moreover, the people in any of those states are much better suited to address local border concerns than someone thousands of miles away. Also, four groups of clever folks in four states will produce a plethora of ideas, compare solutions, and reinvent. Finally, local communities all over America are better suited to providing social services, if any. Localisation enables directing social services where the need is greatest.
One issue in Europe is states receiving large numbers of refugees simply pass the problem on to another state.
We are a nation of immigrants. Even the First Nations arrived here from Asia. I suspect people's dislike for immigrants is that immigrants are taxing public services without paying taxes. If so, why not let immigrants work? Moreover, why does the federal government decide who works? Let states regulate employment. If states wish to pass the labour regulation further down to the localities, great.
Since the early nineteenth century, things have not gone well for democracy. The heyday of democracy was Victorian England. Victorian England had about two million voters, less than 10% of the population. Hundreds of millions of people is not democracy. More like mass brainwashing.
One might conclude I object to universal sufferage. Perhaps. Most people don't have the time, skills and interest to adequately investigate the candidates. The problem of selective sufferage is deciding who votes.
Another difficulty of universal sufferage is the best interests of older voters often conflict with the best interests of younger voters. Retirees have more electoral clout. Yet, younger voters must live with the outcomes longer than older voters. Moreover, young people finance the economy more than retirees, now and in the future.
Voting issues, courtesy of your tax dollars being used by the clandestine disservices to spy on you, are fogged by a cold war, an arms race the federal government wages against the citizenry. Your civil rights will never be stolen with a gun. They use a briefcase. Or an iPhone.
We are approaching immigration no differently than we did a century ago. Two centuries ago, there were no passports, citizenship, etc. In 1791, the federal government did not determine our citizenship or regulate our workplaces. One solution would be to return the federal government to a role similar to the original intent of the founders. Get the federal government out of the citizenship and labour regulation industries.
Switzerland, where things run well, albeit not perfectly, is a democracy of nine million people. Forty percent are foreigners. There is no reason the federal government must decide who is American and who isn't, who can work and who can't.
Another solution would be to rob Peter (Washington, DC) to pay Paul (SillyCon Valley). Anklets to monitor high risk entrants is one potential solution. Mutiliating our bodies, inserting chips, scares me.
Mexicali, Baja California, Mexico
03 March 2023 Friday
