|
Immigration
Immigration
By Punkerslut
Before civilization would know the world, there was no slavery,
there was barely any property, and the most destructive form of
war was a simple, aggressive feud. Before organized society was
born on this planet, life was simple, there was no authority, no
authority to abuse, and the land was the common property of all
living creatures. Once men organized themselves into
hierarchies, giving certain occupations, giving certain
authorities, requiring obedience, punishing dissent, then the
flame of cruelty would begin to burn in the hearts of men, as it
would end in scorching the lives of the innocent. Before mankind
decided to turn family into society, to turn villages into
cities, to turn government into empire, all of the world was the
property of all men and all creatures. When it came to movement,
there was no restrictions, no embargos. The imaginary lines we
call borders today would only be able to exist in the nightmare
of primitive man. There was no obstruction, no limitations. When
a person decided to travel south to the warmth, or north to the
temperate, or west to the ocean, or east to the forest, there
were no impositions. There were no walls. These men and women of
the primitive world never had to fear for customs checks, never
had to worry about search and seizures. There was no authority,
there was no fear. The world was owned by every man, and this
was the greatest comfort to every individual.
As society grew and civilization took root in the history of
mankind, borders would be arranged by both law and custom.
Individuals would be prohibited from travelling to certain
spots. In some cases, it was the land the individual left that
would hold them back. In others, it was the land the individual
was entering that put up walls. For a law to designate one
region from another was not enough. Fences would be erected, and
in place of these fences, soon walls would rise, and watch
towers would be created, with the aid of soldiers patrolling and
scowering. All of this would be created by the authorities of
the world, enforced by the greatest armies and the most
threatening warriors. It almost seemed as though people would be
boxed in, forced to stand in area of land and refused to go
anywhere. When we listen to our great demagogues and
rabblerousers, our most thoughtful lecturers and speakers, we
discover always a love of liberty. There is always a praise of
freedom: that a man can do what he wants, what he desires,
without obstruction from an outter source, so long as he harms
no other person. It has been this ethic, this creed, that has
been woven in the fabric of every revolution aiming to overturn
an injustice. Without this love of liberty, society would be a
dreary and thoughtless musing.
With this love of liberty, there is no doubt that we want to be
able to walk where we may, or to travel to whatever lands that
capture our heart's desire. The fact of the prehistory man, that
all of the world is the common property of mankind, this is the
ethic that we wish to uphold. When we find ourselves surrounded
with borders, threatened with punishment if we should violate
one of these borders, we feel that liberty is needed, that the
people must be allowed to have freedom. When we read the history
of the Soviet Union, we are appalled. We find that people were
not allowed to emigrate. Similarly, when we read the history of
the United States, we are also appalled. We find that people
were not allowed to immigrate. It almost seems as though a
gross, unjust restriction is necessary to any government. Why
should people be held, chained, shackled, by their governments?
It will only create a state of oppressed versus oppressor.
Why would a man, or a woman, ever desire to move about? Above
all things, there is the desire to test the limits of freedom.
We have read poetry by great individuals, who talked about the
struggle they championed for their rights. We have heard music,
with lyrics that discussed hardship and unity. We have solemnly
reread those poems in our head, quietly hummed the tune of those
songs, and have always held those authors, those poets, those
musicians, those creators and cultivators in adoration. We
wanted to test this freedom! I want to be able to climb any
mountain, as high as I can. I want to be dance in praries, sing
songs in caves, sleep on the beach, write poetry on a grassy
hill! These people, truly the best citizens of the world, who
have desired to travel to test the limits of freedom -- what do
you think would happen if they came to a "No Trespassing!" sing?
What would do you think would have happened if they came to
fence with barbed wire? Or, what if they came to a towering
wall, armed with violent guards and soldiers, who have been
taught all their life that you are a part of the criminal
element? The only humane and logical answer is this: you would
think that a great breach of justice had been committed.
We are not discussing here the right to read what you want, or
the right to think as you may, or the right to say what is
troubling your mind. This is not a matter of censorship of
opinions. It is not a matter of gun control, or abortion, or
leftist versus rightist ideology in economics. No. This is a
simple matter of freedom. Among these great freedoms, it is the
freedom to walk and go anywhere that you please, and to do so
with that admirable thought in your heart, that this world
belongs to you as much as it does to any other person. To go
forth, to that magical land that pulls your heart, with the
ideal that everything you see is the common property of mankind
and the world's animals. I must confess... I can honestly think
of no other action that is more indicative of freedom than this.
Among the desire to test the liberty of will, there are so many
other reasons. One might be attracted to the ideal of travelling
either by economic opportunity, family and friends living at a
distance, or in hopes to escape political or religious
persecution. If you were to meet a man of another country
desiring to enter yours, for the sake of living a life with his
family with a higher quality of life, would you honestly tell
him no? If he had been living in a nation where to be a child
meant to be homeless, where the crime rate and the unemployment
rate were enormous, where the constant cry for the hunger pains
echoed through the ghettos, would you say to him, that you
cannot let him into this country, and then plead with us that
you had defended justice? Perhaps he speaks another language,
perhaps his skin tone is lighter or darker, perhaps he worships
a different god. As a tolerant people, we would reject all of
these things as elements that could make us regard this man
differently. He is a human being, with passions, and desires,
and hopes, and emotions, like any of us. It would be for the
sake of justice, not any emotionalism, that we were to let him
into our nation. If our own economic policy was effective, then
it must be accepted that this man would create his own wealth,
and add to the riches of everyone else.
Think of what mankind has done in order to keep these borders
alive. There are politicians who exist right now that are bent
on making sure these borders are recognized. They want to see a
certain and unflinching duty in the guards who patrol these
borders. They want these soldiers to believe that poverty was
caused by something besides borders and Capitalism. Asside from
the soldiers, they want to see every person in another country
look to these borders and feel fear, sense pain... Our
politicians would have it so that our nation was completely
locked up from the rest of the world if their will was unchecked
power. As children are starving to death in foreign nations, as
men and women are still burned at the stake for religious
persecution, as disease infects and destroys these already
crumbling bodies of children, as the vices of mankind spread at
a rate equal to war, the first words of the politician will be,
"Innocent or guilty, just or unjust, those people cannot come in
to our country." Whether looking for the long lost touch of
their family, their lovers, their friends, or whether seeking to
escape emminent persecution for ideals, there are some cases
where a person will accept the status of "refugee" when it means
escaping.
We look to the freedom to explore ideas, thoughts, and
philosophies as perhaps one of the greatest of all freedoms. It
is the liberty that stands as the greatest guardian against
tyranny. To deny it would be to advance arguments on behalf of
every unjust government. And yet, while this right is upheld by
Civil Rights groups and active citizen meetings, the freedom to
explore the world is hindered. We find borders, lined with armed
towers and walls, circulating guards; and the man who is trying
to escape the persecution of his own land comes only to find
this. As I said earlier, the world was once the common property
of mankind. In that era, one that almost reached complete bliss,
there was never a war spawned from property conflicts, never an
argument based on borders or imaginary lines. Everything
belonged to everyone, and as this idea flowed through the minds
of these early tribesmen, they would never think for a moment
that their ancestors would forget. They did not have the vision
to imagine great towers and great walls; they never saw their
kin murdering each other, the victimizer motivated by a paycheck
and threats from superiors, the victim motivated at an honest
chance of life. The early tribesmen never saw this, their shamen
conjuring up unreliable spirits and mystical beings could not
predict anything like this.
It was called a crime by the United States government when the
Soviets put up the Berlin Wall and separated families and
friends. Many of them died trying to reach their children, their
lovers, their brethren. They were gunned down by the soldiers of
a Totalitarian regime. If it is true that the Soviet government
committed a crime in separating an entire city, then we must all
agree that the United States government is equally guilty of
committing a crime. Nay, we are more guilty! The Soviets divided
a city, we divide a continent! Whatever the amount of East
Berliners that have been shot down by their own soldiers, I
imagine that American soldiers are guilty for having shot down
ten times as many! It is a crime, and these walls, these
barriers, these borders all must come down...
www.punkerslut.com
For Life, Punkerslut
About the author:
Punkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been writing essays and poetry
on social issues which have caught his attention for several
years. His website www.punkerslut.com provides a complete list
of all of these writings. His life experience includes
homelessness, squating in New Orleans and LA, dropping out of
high school, getting expelled from college for "subversive
activities," and a myriad of other revolutionary actions.
|
