The Right to Migrate

The issue of so-called illegal immigration has produced an interesting political alignment, not quite like that produced by other important issues. The climate of fear that has been encouraged by Bush neoconservatives in order to push their agenda of Presidential dictatorial power, and offensive use of military force, and world domination has also resulted in a wave of xenophobia, seen in the Dubai Ports furor and an anti-immigration stance by a variety of confused caucasians. Normally the power-seeking Bush Republicans would jump right into the reactionary camp just as they did with the theocracy-seeking religious extremists, but it happens that many influential business interests need the 'illegal immigrants' to stay right where they are, working hard for low wages. So, we have an odd alliance between big business and a very large number of Americans with Hispanic heritage, who naturally sympathize with the immigrants, and millions of others who believe that America stands for the principles inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.

The xenophobes have little of substance on their side. Proposals to wall off the borders and to make illegal entry a felony are simply absurd. Where would we imprison these millions of newly created felons, even if we caught them? Concentration camps?

Perhaps the newly mobilized supporters of immigration will help focus on the most important human side of the controversy. The business interests are not perfect allies, because they would prefer immigration remain illegal but mostly unenforced. That way, immigrants will continue to accept low pay and keep a low profile, fearing to organize or complain.

Those who make an issue of the illegality of immigration are only playing semantic games. Any sensible person knows the difference between real crime and artificially created crime. The problem is not the immigrants. The problem is the law that declares them illegal. The law not only subjects the immigrants to needless hardship and victimization and keeps them outside the law, it makes any real border security impossible.

Business interests will no doubt resist legalization as much as felonization, since a legal immigrant could be protected by labor laws and not as easily exploited. But Americans who care about social justice and who envision our country as a liberator, not an oppressor, of mankind will make their views known and work toward opening our borders to all who come in peace to seek a better life.

BRINGING HORSES TO WATER

One of the biggest mistakes made by early Communists was making atheism part of their political philosophy, and, once they acheived power, requiring it. Though athiesm is logically correct, attempting to suppress religion was tactically a bad idea.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses", said Karl Marx. In fact, religion is used to support capitalism. It was used to excuse slavery. It has been used to promote the most murderous and dishonest Presidential administration America ever had-- that of George W. Bush. [Note: That was true when I wrote it, but the title of worst and most dishonest now belongs to defeated Donald Trump] But religion has always been used by governments in power, whatever their philosophy. It is simply reinterpreted to fit the occasion.

Not everyone buys the official interpretation. Religious groups worked to end slavery, and have fought against exploitation of the poor. The religion is incidental. How people treat their fellow humans is determined by their character.

By abolishing religion, the Communists hoped to immunize the working class against the use of it by the capitalists to pacify and propagandize them. But what they overlooked is that you can't free people by force. Each person must abandon irrational beiliefs on his or her own, through indepenent thinking and reasoning.

If you tell people they can't believe something, they will believe it in secret. If you ban a book, they will believe you're hiding something and they will be sure to find it and read it.

In order to promote and institute asystem designed to provide economic equality and justice, you need to get and maintain the support of the people. To make an issue of religion is divisive and is certain to create am opposition totally unrelated to the purpose of the political movement. The main objection to Communism in the minds of most people living outside (and probably inside) of Communist governments is the lack freedom, including religious freedom.

Why should it be necessary for a Communist government to restrict religious and intellectual freedom? If the central purpose of Communism is a fair and just economic system, should that not stand on its own merit? If it works, then it would be embraced and copied elsewhere. If it doesn't, then no amount of repression is going to change that.

Communism has failed in practice because it tried to fight two revolutions at once. The second one, aimed at 'perfecting' human thought, was entirely unnecessary, and doing it by force is impossible. That created an opposition that was far more powerful and lasting than the capitalists, It was the factor that hampered cooperation by citizens, and it was the source of popular opposition from outside, in the rest of the world.

It was unnecessary to attack religion. Although 'conservative' sects, even today, support capitalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and even war, there is nothing inherent in any major religion's basic message to justify this. In fact, religious scriptures tend to favor human brotherhood and compassion for the less fortunate.

One might think that over the years Communist leaders would have realized the mistake. Some probably did, but by then it had developed into an orthodoxy that was as rigid as any religious dogma. Unable to change, it only became more repressive and stifled freedom of thought, alienating most of its most valuable potential supporters.

I have heard little public discussion about what happened to what was formerly the main opposition to corporate imperialism. Though many were relieved at the presumed end of the Cold War, it left a power vacuum, and a philosophical vacuum as well. As flawed as Communism was in practice, it represented an idealism of theory and purpose. The struggle now seems to be between the powerful and the powerless, with neither side displaying much principled behavior.

What is needed now is not another ideology to fight over, but a cohesive concept to which people of all nations and cultures might come peaceably, without coercion. It must neither use nor try to suppress religion. It must show the way to economic justice while encouraging intellectual freedom, tolerance, and allow all nonharmful action as well.

Any ideas?