We have all heard the phrase that “history repeats itself.” The growing disgruntlement in America begs to ask that question, are we destined to repeat history? Is America divided enough to make another Civil War possible? We all hope not, but the climate in society gives little certainty to appease the question. In the five decades I have lived in this great country, I have never seen such widespread dissension among the people. What concerns me right now is, unlike the Civil War of the 1860’s; there are multiple issues that are causing the people to rise up in anger toward Government.
In the Civil War, the primary issue was the abolishment of slavery and the control of land in territories. That split the country geographically down the middle between the North (Union) and the South (Confederacy). The original seven states that seceded the Union and formed the Confederacy were South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. They were later joined by North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas.
The victory of the North in the Civil War effectively ended the slavery of Africans in the United States. At the time the war ended, ninety-five percent of the African population in this country lived in the South. After the war many began migrating to the North to establish their newly established freedom. The issue of slavery as a whole has been around since Biblical times. Even the Jews and Israelites have been slaves multiple times in history to Egypt, Rome and other nations and kingdoms. Today, open slavery continues in African nations like the Sudan and others.
Why was slavery so important to the southern states that they were willing to fight for it? The simple answer is: profitability and prosperity. The majority of slaves worked on farms and plantations in the South. This supplied cheap labor and increased productivity. The demand for labor during the expansion of this country and the shortage of available workers created a market for workers in the south. Most immigrants coming from Europe settled in the North. Thus, slave traders began shipping slaves from Africa to fulfill the labor need. The moral problem slavery creates is that no person has the right to “own” another person as property or a possession. This created not only racial segregation but class separation.
Many have argued over the years that even in slavery most of the Africans were in a better situation than if they had stayed in Africa and that many of them would not have survived in their home country. While that may be true, limiting their freedom and opportunity and their treatment as a “lesser class” of humanity is wrong. That racial tension still exists in this country almost 150 years later as a result. That issue alone is what makes the recent election of Barrack Obama as President of the United States of America a historic moment. It is also causing friction along racial lines as the disgruntled citizens who disagree with the recent and current direction of this country are being labeled as racists. That is totally unfair and unwarranted if you take a look at the issues from a logical and realistic perspective.
The election of Barrack Obama as the first African-American President was a historic event and should have been an opportunity to improve race relations in this country. Although I personally don’t care for hyphenated nationality classifications, Obama has as much right as anyone to wear that label since his father was Kenyan and his mother a white American. The media latched on to the fact that with Obama being bi-racial his Presidency could be a positive move in righting the wrongs of the previous generations and a form of reparation to the injustices of slavery. That divide has not been bridged as many expected, but it has nothing to do with race. It has more to do with policy, ideology, and fiscal philosophy.
The first major issue that stirred up opposition to the current Administration was the Health Care Debate. That has been a volatile issue of debate for decades in Washington that has always failed because of the wide gap between the parties ideals of the role and scope of Government. I am not going to get back into that debate in this series, feel free to read my previous series “Government should take a chill pill,” for my take on that issue.
https://feed.examiner.com/examiner/admin/EntryController.cfm?data=R0I5QmtTc0VIeTRxZ2dzbW82Ry9DQkQzOThsNUdwdUpxdWVGNEppMHRXZz0%3D
More recently, the passage of the recent Immigration Law in Arizona that will basically give local and state authorities in that state the right to enforce Federal law that is already on the books has stirred up more racial tension toward illegal immigrants. This is a very serious issue that needs to be dealt with because it has as much impact on this country as slavery did during the Civil War era. The issue in this case again is not about race or being against immigration. To many, it is about national security and to others it is about the enslavement of a workforce of non-citizens who are providing “cheap labor” to employers in this country.
Although many might say comparing undocumented workers to slaves is farfetched, it is really not. Why would a company rather hire “immigrant labor?” The answer is cost. If I own a business and hire a citizen not only do I have to pay them at least “minimum wage” but I also have to pay matching social security and Medicaid, unemployment and worker’s compensation insurance, and offer benefits ranging from sick days, vacation days, and in many cases offer health insurance and other fringe benefits. It is simply more profitable and cost efficient to use cheap labor. So do I hire citizens, immigrants, or outsource labor to workers in foreign countries?
When the economy was robust, society overlooked these labor issues and accepted them as a necessity to fill job vacancies. With approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and nearly 30 million unemployed or under-employed citizens, that justification is no longer valid. So the debate over amnesty is no longer warranted from the viewpoint of a shortage of available workforce.
Of course, many will tell you it never was. For Democrats it is about increasing their voter pool, ensuring their grip on power. On the other hand, if you view this issue from a logical, realistic point of view there are identifiable pros and cons. Is it realistic to actually believe that rounding up all those “illegals” and deporting them as possible? Well, it might be if we hired as many INS agents to enforce the law as we are hiring IRS agents to enforce the Health-care reform bill. If it is not possible to round them up and ship them back across the border, why not identify them and document them so we can tax them and have them contribute toward the burden they are creating to our nation? They would no longer just be consumers of resources.
Of course, the first thing that needs to be done is plugging the hole in the border and stopping the continuance of illegal immigration into this country. That issue has been dealt with in the past about as effectively as BP has dealt with the oil spill. It is one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal Government and is a matter of National Security. Maybe turning that issue over to the states is the best way to deal with it since it has direct impact on their society and they are more intimately involved in the situation. Giving them the tools and support to deal with the problem should be the first step. Seal the border first, and then we will discuss what to do with those already here.
If we turn that responsibility over to the states do we give them the ability to form their own “border patrol” or “State police?” According to the Constitution, the states already have the right to form their own “militia.” That is where we will pick up in part two of this series, States Rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment