Blowing Smoke

A guy named Charles Blow has an article in the NYT about the immigration debate. In it he holds up a straw man opinion on the topic and says, in response, ".. .[this]..outlines the whole of the problem with conservative opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. It hearkens to ideas of nativism, racism, misogyny, elitism and inequality from which the country is moving forward, but for which some conservatives still yearn."

He then offers, for consideration of the "illegality" of the Mexican immigrants, the Tory question that arose after the American Revolution. Although opposed to the Revolution, after the eventual victory many Tories wanted to be citizens of the new country. As they opposed the nation's formation originally, many opposed their citizenship. (The Supreme Court eventually decided in favor of the Tories.) Quoting Elizabeth F. Cohen, the author of “Semi-Citizenship in Democratic Politics” and an associate professor at Syracuse University, Blow writes, "This and later decisions showed how, over time, the country exercised reason and consent to create citizenship — even allowing the original sin of fighting against the formation of the nation to be forgiven.”

So the opposition to the amnesty proposal is based in nativism, racism, misogyny, elitism, inequality

and cruel, merciless indifference. Is there possibly another point here that might be reasonable? Is is possible that the Unites States, with its aims and responsibilities to itself and the world, might want to evaluate what potential immigrants might offer the nation rather than just what the nation offers him? Is it reasonable in this dangerous world for America to evaluate its immigrants? Perhaps even recruit them?

Or is that the real point? Is the outrageous charge of "nativism, racism, misogyny, elitism, inequality

and cruel, merciless indifference" an effort to avoid the very basic question at stake here: Individual Distinction? Is there the fear in the university coffee house that some immigrants might be of more value to the state than others and that the mere discussion of such advantages undermines the social cohesion they envision? Is the real point the rarely articulated dream of a worldwide homogeneous people in borderless and stateless community, tribe-less and creed-less, led and directed, of course, by someone--not them, certainly, but someone else, perhaps from a university coffee house-- who sees "the bigger picture" and has the investigative and punitive means to enforce the new ideals?