A thought on immigration and the changing world

A recent re-flourishing of an older blog post I made has created some interesting discussion, even if I consider it a little fruitless. Exchanging ideas and getting a look at things from other perspectives can be good. Check it out, if somehow you’ve managed to miss it and for some inexpressible reason you feel like delving into immigration / refugee / Middle Eastern foreign policy debate yet again.

Hmm, didn’t think so.

Now, I intend to leave all that debate over there where it belongs, but one of the issues made me think about something.

And that issue was this: Developed or otherwise stable nations do not have an obligation (beyond a moral one, or one outlined in international treaty) to take in refugees or indeed any other immigrants.

Okay, so this is endlessly debatable depending on what angle you look at it from. However, in the US’s case it made me think about the words on the base of the Statue of Liberty[1]. I know, I know, a tired old argument but hear me out.


[1] Interestingly, since I hadn’t really read up on this, here’s some factoids: The inscription is a sonnet by Emma Lazarus, The New Colossus. Up until 1986, it was mounted inside the statue’s pedestal, but now it sits in the Statue of Liberty Museum in the base of the statue. I always had the idea that it was written in three-foot-high letters on the statue’s base – this, incidentally, despite the fact that I’ve been to the Statue of Liberty. I didn’t see the plaque. Sorry.

So, we all know the general wording. Here’s my question:

Has the world changed so much since the Statue was dedicated and these words added to her base? The population has increased dramatically, our assorted civilisations have changed, technology and culture have changed. The US is no longer (so much) a growing nation keen to find the good in change. Indeed, like Greece and Rome of old, many argue that the US is a nation in decline. I wouldn’t go that far, myself.

I was reminded sharply of the wording and intent of the infamous Second Amendment, and how it was written in the spirit of a world that no longer exists.

If that’s true, then perhaps it’s also true of the text on the Statue of Liberty? Does she now express a sentiment and a mission that is no longer something we’re capable of properly honouring? It needs to be tempered with an eye to practicality and safety?

Of course, I imagine liberals / left-wingers / fuzzy-wuzzies will rail against this idea. I get it. The very thought is inexpressibly sad to me. How could it not be? It’s an acknowledgement that the world has become a darker, more hostile, less glorious place. But just because it’s sad, doesn’t mean it’s not true (doesn’t mean it is, either – I’m just philosophising here).

The same, obviously, can be said for the way conservatives / right-wingers / rednecks rail against the idea of gun control in the US. On some level, I believe the sentiment – if not the ideology and the actual statistical and empirical data on the relative dangers posed – is comparable.

What do you think?

Huddled masses? Wretched refuse? Tempest-tost? Bueller?

About Hatboy

I’m not often driven to introspection or reflection, but the question does come up sometimes. The big question. So big, there’s just no containing it within the puny boundaries of a single set of punctuationary bookends. Who are these mysterious and unsung heroes of obscurity and shadow? What is their origin story? Do they have a prequel trilogy? What are their secret identities? What are their public identities, for that matter? What are their powers? Their abilities? Their haunted pasts and troubled futures? Their modus operandi? Where do they live anyway, and when? What do they do for a living? Do they really have these fantastical adventures, or is it a dazzlingly intellectual and overwrought metaphor? Or is it perhaps a smug and post-modern sort of metaphor? Is it a plain stupid metaphor, hedged around with thick wads of plausible deniability, a soap bubble of illusory plot dependent upon readers who don’t dare question it for fear of looking foolish? A flight of fancy, having dozed off in front of the television during an episode of something suitably spaceship-oriented? Do they have a quest, a handler, a mission statement, a department-level development objective in five stages? I am Hatboy. https://hatboy.blog/2013/12/17/metalude-who-are-creepy-and-hatboy/
This entry was posted in Hatboy's Nuggets of Crispy-Fried Wisdom and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A thought on immigration and the changing world

  1. thelinza says:

    Americans for the most part remain isolated from the people they make war against. America should accept refugees from the countries we actively fuck. It’s pretty much the same thing morally as a custody agreement, imo. It also exposes comfortable racists to other ways of life so they can understand what their racist braying has helped happen. But I’m a fuzzywuzzy leftist so I would say that, wouldn’t I.

    • stchucky says:

      Yes. Yes you would. And that’s brilliant. I obviously couldn’t agree more. I’m no student of history (that would be Mrs. Hatboy’s area), but it seems pretty obvious that growing, vibrant, vigorous civilisations take immigrants and encompass their diversity. And stagnant, declining civilisations (UK, US), isolate themselves and growl at outsiders until they die alone and unmourned.

      Actually I don’t need to know history. I just need to look at a dying animal, and recognise that As Above, So Below.

    • aaronthepatriot says:

      I fully agree, thelinza! We saw one of those racists in action in another thread, referenced here and in the latest blog post. Boy did he try to hide it though.

      I think any law or policy can be flawed or become outdated, and therefore I’m happy for any to be revisited. Second amendment, immigration policy, even first amendment. None of it is written in stone…which would be rather outdated if it were!

      I mean, that’s why we still have lawmakers. You know, to make laws.

      Nevermind they forgot who they’re supposed to serve, and serve only money now. That’s beside the point here.

  2. thelinza says:

    As far as the Statue of Liberty goes, it seems fine as is. So does the Second Amendment, but people like to skip the militia part.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s