Home / Immigration, Globalization, and Oxymorons

Immigration, Globalization, and Oxymorons

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A new AP-Ipsos poll has found that 56 percent of Americans favor offering illegal immigrants a chance to attain some sort of legal status to remain in the United States. The survey of 1,003 adults was conducted between March 28 and 30 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

A majority of both Democrats (62%) and Republicans (52%) support temporary worker status. Approximately two-thirds of Americans aged 18 to 34, as well as an equal share of college-educated Americans, have voiced the strongest support for the idea of offering illegal immigrants a chance to attain some kind of legal status.

The poll found that two-thirds of Americans believe that undocumented workers are filling jobs that most Americans don’t want. However, only 51 percent of those surveyed said they believe these workers make a contribution to society and 42 percent said that illegal immigrants are a burden.

The survey also found stark divisions with regard to how serious a crime it should be to enter the country illegally. Fifty-one percent thought it should be considered a “minor offense” and 47 percent considered it a “serious criminal offense.”

Two-thirds of Americans expressed doubt that a fence along our border with Mexico would reduce the number of illegal immigrants.

Legislation that would make it a felony to be in the U.S. without proper immigration papers has already been approved in the House. The Senate, however, is currently considering legislation that would give the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S. a chance at citizenship.

The Other “G” Word

Between the immigration and globalization controversies, there are plenty of oppugnant forces, opinions and oxymorons — some informed, some based upon propagandistic stereotypes, arbitrary provincialism and other anachronisms, and some born of a wide variety of manifestations of psychological projection — but no definitive ideas other than the usual suggestions of futile punitive measures commingled with the relentless cries of those who wish to preserve the status quo as a means of supporting capitalism — or human rights.

Republicans and conservative Democrats are sharply divided between a “law and order” mentality and strong support for business and industry. Authoritarians who oppose the idea of “rewarding” people who break the law to enter the country are taking a “get tough” stance with regard to illegal immigrants, but they are in conflict with their pragmatic capitalist bedfellows whose business interests want access to a cheap labor force of undocumented workers.

Meanwhile, those expressing the humanitarian viewpoint, as if humanitarianism and anti-capitalism are one and the same, appear to be at odds with their anti-globalization brethren who decry the very free markets that provide disadvantaged peoples with opportunities they would not otherwise find in the isolation of a compartmentalized world economy.

Whether we like it or not (and most of us do, whether we acknowledge it or not), the world is getting smaller, and there isn’t much we can do to make it as big as it once seemed because this global shrinkage was caused by our technological progress, not the resulting economics and economies and their effects upon international political relations and boundaries.

A Future Without Boundaries

Xenophobia used to be rational and even somewhat prudent in the days when journeys to faraway foreign lands were perilous and time-consuming endeavors with no guarantees of who or what travelers would find when — or more precisely, if — they reached their destinations. In those lawless and violent times, the avoidance of strangers was safe and sensible.

However, while the Industrial Revolution was ushering in the Information Age, xenophobia was cast aside in favor of curiosity, tribalism was supplanted by multi-culturalism, and superstition was displaced by logic, reason, and scientific discovery.

Now that people can quite safely circumnavigate the Earth in a matter of hours and information can travel at the speed of light, almost the entire world is literally at our feet and fingertips, making the fear of strangers from strange lands an irrational manifestation of cowardice, narrow-mindedness, and willful ignorance.

Regardless of denials and protestations, it is inevitable that this planet, Earth, will someday be one world with one people and one economy. The notion of “borders” is becoming obsolete and will someday be regarded as ridiculous as the idea of categorizing and judging people by the color of their skins.

For over a century now, rapid advancements in transportation, communications, and mass production have been quietly relegating such concepts as nationalism and isolationism to the proverbial dustbin of human history. However, humanity is not quite ready to accept that unavoidable destiny, thus this ongoing kerfuffle of paradoxical bedmates: capitalists who embrace bigotry, humanitarians who favor isolationism, and confused partisans who are being forced to think for themselves.

Powered by

About Margaret Romao Toigo

  • Paradise may lead to stagnation, but a unified Earth will not be paradise. Even when we are freed from the staggering, mindless wastefulness of warfare and international conflict, a multitude of problems will still remain to challenge the human mind and stir the individual conscience.

    Violence will not magically disappear, but we will have a better chance to reduce the harm it causes if we are not actually funding it with our tax dollars. Disease, hunger, and poverty will not magically disappear, but we may stand a chance to eliminate them if we bend our efforts to that goal and stop wasting our tax dollars on vast arsenals of mass destruction.

    Earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, and tsunamis will continue to threaten the lives of thousands or millions of people at a time. Asteroid or comet impacts may threaten to wipe out millions or billions of people at a time. We’d have a better chance to save ourselves from such threats if we begin preparing now, rather than wait until the threats fully materialize. (Now where have I heard that reasoning before? Oh yes, the current U.S. president has spoken in such terms. Does that mean he must be a communist? I certainly don’t think he is.)

    Should we ever succeed in making this planet anything resembling a paradise, we will not all sink into stagnation. There will always be those who hunger for greater challenges, and who will leave this globe behind to build new settlements on new worlds, if Earth ever becomes too comfortable to challenge the boldest and most creative minds.

    This vision of the future is something I see as inevitable, but not because of anything Marx or his followers wrote. This future strikes me as inevitable because I’ve learned it’s in human nature to eventually do the right and sensible thing, once all other alternatives have been exhausted.

  • The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made knowingly hiring illegal immigrants a crime. The law established fines and other penalties and provided a one-year amnesty program for illegal aliens who had already worked and lived in the U.S. since January 1982.

    The Immigration Act of 1990 increased the number of legal immigrants allowed into the United States every year (from 500,000 to 700,000) and created a lottery program that randomly assigned a number of visas to immigrants from countries where the United States did not often grant visas.

    The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 changed the immigration laws of the United States once again. The law provided for drastic changes to the eligibility requirements for suspension of deportation, mandatory detention for immigrants convicted of certain crimes, and a permanent bar to permanent residence for those who falsely claimed to be U.S. citizens.

    So now, here we are, 10 years later and, once again, in need of more immigration reform.

    H.R. 4437 (The Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005), which makes illegal immigration a felony, passed the House 239 to 182, but the Senate is considering legislation that would give illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship.

    And we shall see how it turns out this time…

  • Nancy

    Congress has conveniently forgotten that point, Gonzo. As has Bush, as always the whore for business & the public be damned.

  • gonzo marx

    correct me if i am mistaken here…

    but didn’t Reagan deliver Amnesty to all illegals from Mexico in ’86 on condition that any further infractions woudl be punished to the fullst extent of the law?

    yeah..that worked out about as well as supply side “voodoo economics” didn’t it

    and so it goes…


  • if we were to give currently illegal immigrants who are already living and working in the U.S. a chance at citizenship, the undocumented workers — legal or illegal aliens or citizens — game will be up for the most part.

    No. They would then join (and swell) the ranks of “lazy, no-good, unwilling-to-work” American citizens, etc. ad infinitum, thus requiring ever growing new waves of illegals.

    How long do you think we can continue approaching, at an ever accelerating pace, the population density of the Indian sub-continent, before, among other finite resource considerations, our already nearly maxed out water supply capacity reaches the critical point?

    Well, maybe there’s a built in regulator here. The water rationing that will soon become necessary, will result in luxury uses such as lawn-watering being eliminated, thereby “drying up” one important immigrant-magnet job source!

  • I think that’s the point, Nancy.

    All of this fear and wrath mongering with regard to illegal immigration — at least as it pertains to those illegal immigrants who come here looking for work — appears to be a red herring intended to distract us from the economic consequences of an underground labor force of workers that can be easily exploited by businesses that profit from cheap, undocumented, uninsured, and unregulated labor.

    One of reasons why immigration is regulated is so that we do not end up with too many people and not enough jobs to go around. However, that does not appear to be the problem now as there are 11 million jobs for those 11 million workers. Making room for them shouldn’t present an undue burden — in theory, at least.

    In actual practice, however, if we were to give currently illegal immigrants who are already living and working in the U.S. a chance at citizenship, the undocumented workers — legal or illegal aliens or citizens — game will be up for the most part.

    The controversy surrounding illegal immigrants who come here for work also distracts us from considering the jobs that are being exported to the abundant cheap labor forces overseas.

  • Nancy

    Margaret’s comment about an equally thriving subculture of legals & citizens working under the table is an excellent one: there are, indeed, a huge number of people not at all illegal who carry on untaxed business/employment. I had forgotten about that. Mea culpa.

  • Actually, troll, I think Spain changed from a dictatorship to a democracy and there was always a landowning class occupying the middle class ground between the aristocrats and the poor.

    It’s certainly true that there is a lot more self-confidence about contemporary Spain than in the formerly green and pleasant land and we are delighted to have made the change.

    As to optimism, it really comes down to making a choice in the end; that’s everybody’s personal decision and responsibility. Just like Darth Vader tried to lure his son Luke over to the dark side, for example, everybody gets to pick whether they see the light or the dark.

    Not having the comforting delusion of paradise or eternity to lean on, I prefer to enjoy my brief and fleeting time here…

  • troll

    I’ve been wondering why Christopher is so bloody optimistic…

    the only explanation that I can come up with is that he lives in a country that has seen positive revolutionary change of late

    in the last 20 years Spain has moved from an Aristocracy with no middle class to a society with an (is it the largest in Europe – ?) upwardly mobile group…such heady change must act like HG Wells’ comet on individuals


  • Well, Ruvy, if that spiel isn’t the epitomy of pessimism, I’m jiggered if I know what is!

    The other guys are just being paranoid; I for one have faith! in my species…

  • Chris, I am neither an optimist nor a pessimist on this issue, as I see an entirely different future.

    But putting my own views aside for a bit, what Nalle and Brodie seem to see is something that would occur in the “near” distant future (150 years or so).

    No matter how much technological razzmatazz you cover us with or inject us with, no matter how much stem cell therapy you use to cure epilepsy, narcolepsy, cerebral palsy or heart disease, no matter how much you retard aging and extend opportunities for aquisition of knowlewdge, no matter many nano-computers vacuum the floor and do the housework for us, we are still just highly intelligent apes who get content after a while. That is to say, after a period of peace, we are content to chew the cud – like cows.

    Or if you prefer a different analogy, think of a cat. Hungry, alert and sharp, he hunts and kills a vole, say, and after he eats he goes to sleep. Until he hungers again. This is not merely feline nature, it is canine nature, it is human nature. Ask any sales manager.

    This was the vision of H.G. Wells in “The Time Machine,” where the human race split into two 800 thousand years into the future, and this was the problem dealt with in the novel “Ballroom of the Skies”.

    At first, the changes your foresee are fantastic. But once paradise becomes “routinized”, the animal in us gets restless. It’s a survival mechanism built up over millions of years. So, assuming that the changes that you and Maregaret foresee take place, after two or three centuries or so, splits will develop in the human race, or a challenge that none of us foresee will arise. And, content and not used to the idea of striving for survival, we sill be challenged terribly. And, if the challenge arises from this planet, we may be well knocked off our perch.

    Frankly, I think this is what Nalle and Brodie feel in their gut without knowing it.

    Of course, I can (and have been) wrong before.

  • So Ruvy, you’re a short term optimist but a long term pessimist? That must be where you’re going wrong, for I see it the other way round!

    Mind you, if my ideas about humanity’s evolution are true, none of my hopes or the fears of Messrs Brodie and Nalle are going to matter at all. I’m looking forward to seeing what you make of that stuff.

  • A.G., while there is definetely an illegal immigration issue that is certainly worth discussing, that topic is not the central thesis of my article. Therefore, I see no reason to change the title.

  • Many years ago, there was a science fiction novel called “Ballroom of the Skies.” The central theme of the novel was that there was on galactic government that ran the galaxy and faced a deadly enemy from outside the galaxy.

    Over time, the homogenization of the various planets seemed to sap the energy and vitality of the various races in the galaxy and the government feared the result because of this powerful extra-galatic enemy.

    The decision was made to keep one planet entirely ignorant opf the galactic empire; to keep in turmoil and constant conflict, so that good leaders would arise and run the galaxy and prevent the weakening and debilitating effects of long term peace and contentment.

    This planet was earth. The novel was about how one man discovers this central theme and secret.

    So let’s cut to the chase here. A long term view of a one world government and homogenized culture is what people like Dave Nalle and Richard Brodie seem to fear in their gut. What would the world look and feel like in 150 years from now?

    The relatively immediate to short term benefits of peace, prosperity and unity are what make this very same vision so attractive to the author, to Victor, and to Chris. In this generation and the next people would no longer starve and klill eadh other like cockroaches, and possibly extend their life-spans, etc., etc. With a single government preventing war, the world would be a great place 50 years from now.

    All of you are right, if you consider the time frames of what you fear and advocate.

  • Margaret, I insist that you change the title of this piece. This is not an issue over immigration. Immigration is good. Everyone, but the klan, likes immigration. This is an issue about “illegal” immigration.

  • As far as punitive measures go, fining businesses that employ illegal immigrants would likely be more profitable than jailing illegal immigrants.

    There are 11 million undocumented workers working 11 million undocumented jobs. If it weren’t for the jobs, the workers would not come here to fill them — basic supply and demand.

    So it should follow that businesses will wish to avoid fines and thus will cease hiring illegal aliens.

    However, one needn’t be an illegal immigrant to take undocumented work. Working alongside the illegal undocumented workers are legal aliens as well as American citizens, all of them “off the books” and paid “under the table” without any of the protections that documented workers enjoy.

    The reason why there is a demand for illegal aliens is that the work still needs to be done and there aren’t enough legal, undocumented workers to supply the demand for cheap labor.

    Now we must decide if the problem is really about illegal immigration or undocumented work.

    It seems to me that, if these jobs exist and there are not enough citizens and/or legal aliens to fill them, we must allow more immigrants to enter the U.S. legally. And if we do that, the problem of illegal immigration will be solved.

    However, that will do nothing to stop businesses from using “very cheap, undocumented, uninsured, unregulated workers,” which is a real human rights problem that has been swept under the carpet of illegal immigration.

  • Tony


    I would sooner live in a system which allows me the chice of whether or not I “need” those mindless consumer items than live under a system thoat would decide for me what I actually need and don’t. As it is I can choose what I want and need. Noone has the right to decide that for me anymore than I have to right to make that decion for anyone else.

    I don’t work 50-60 hours a week to merely subsist on my needs alone. Life’s pleasures, however you may define them, are why we get up every morning.

  • Miss Toigo says: my assertions with regard to the inevitability of humanity’s future are based upon my study of anthropology, not politics.

    and then, incredibly, goes on to say:

    Why do some people automatically assume that “one world with one people and one economy” means tyranny, oppression, diminished economic opportunity, and cultural and/or genetic homogeneity?

    I don’t think you even realize how confused you are. You predict that there will be no “genetic homogeneity” but there will be one-world (no borders) government, immediately after asserting that your conclusions are based on anthropology, not politics!

    Attempting to debate with this is like being at the carnival trying to whack the little gopher that keeps popping up at completely unpredictable places. You should be content with enjoying your private Alice in Wonderland world, and try to avoid entertaining the unhealthy delusion that it has, or will ever have, anything to do with reality.

  • Nancy

    I wouldn’t want American spread out to every square inch of all 6 continents; I don’t consider America to be the epitomy of good government. On the contrary, I consider the US government to have degenerated to a corrupt, faux democracy run by an elite class totally vested in an oligarchic plutocracy. Or a plutocratic oligarchy, your choice.

    Most Americans are lazy, intellectually & physically. They can’t even be bothered to vote … altho the quality of the canadidates & parties offered may have a good deal to do with the increasing apathy, IMO. The kind of “freedoms” offered in America are fake freedoms of choice mainly pushed by various megacorporations like McDonalds: choice of junk food, choice of how to have your money finagled from you, choice of how to piss it away on nonessentials you don’t need & never will, all because you’ve been indoctrinated from birth (in the US of course) by TV & all other media, to be the consummate Consumer. Do I want THIS duplicated from one corner of the earth to the other: endless consumerism, driven by endless marketing & sex advertising? Hell no.

  • Mr. Brodie, my assertions with regard to the inevitability of humanity’s future are based upon my study of anthropology, not politics.

    Why do some people automatically assume that “one world with one people and one economy” means tyranny, oppression, diminished economic opportunity, and cultural and/or genetic homogeneity?

    Imagine America, spread out to where it completely covers every square inch of all six continents, and you will have a good picture — unless you’re one of those pessimistic folks who would rather rhapsodize about some proposed apocalypse, which is, of course, far more amusing and popular than entertaining any sort of optimistic notions about our destiny.

  • Nancy

    I wouldn’t want to be part of one world government, but I think that’s moot, because first we’d have to decide which one that is, and as things stand now, we cut each other’s throats over much more picayune things, so I don’t think we need to worry about world government. Unless, of course, the multinational corporations set it up, which I can see, since they pretty much control everything (including congress & other major governments) now, i.e. you have enough money, you can do what you want.

  • RedTard

    Yes, the desire to use government as a weapon to silence and control those that disagree with you is not exclusive to any one political viewpoint. It’s that part of our nature that makes me cautious about putting all our eggs in one government basket. JuJu help us if we don’t choose the right one.

  • Nancy

    Gonzo, have you noticed that no matter how hard anyone tries to emphasize that it isn’t the “immigrant” part that’s offensive & needs to be eliminated, it’s the “illegal” part, those in opposition invariably ignore that extremely important adjective & qualifier? “Immigrant” does not automatically = “illegal”, and “illegals” do not mean all immigrants. There’s a MAJOR difference between them, namely respect for the law.

  • gonzo marx

    well Red…does that count invading other countries and force feeding them “democracy” and then bitching when it doesn’t turn out the way you want?

    just curious


  • RedTard

    “this planet, Earth, will someday be one world with one people and one economy.”

    I don’t think that is an unreasonable assumption. My problem, like Mr. Brodie’s, is that most people that espouse the idea seem to want to use that government to force everyone to conform to their views. That’s putting the cart before the horse.

    People should develop common values and beliefs based around freedom first. Peace and prosperity will follow, then people should agree on a very limited government system to referee their conflicts, not to use as a weapon against those they don’t like.

    I think it’s foolish to go in reverse, create a world government and force an arbitrary belief system on everyone, cross your fingers and hope for prosperity, and then pray that you can control the moster you created.

  • gonzo marx

    interesting and well written Article, as always…

    i do have some personal difficulties with parts of the material being talked about here…

    such as..
    a) no problem with Immigrants…almost all of our Ancestors in the US were Immigrants…
    b) BIG problem with illegal immigrants…they have broken the rule of Law, shoudl be made to answer for it and NOT be rewarded for their behavior
    c)nailed perfectly that much of this is due to Big Business wanting very cheap, undocumented, uninsured, unregulated workers…this aids in keeping the market forces of Supply/Demand for Labor atrificially depressed…companies like that…the shrinking american middle class does not

    these this sit at the nut of the problem, and i only can see one solution for the near term

    fine the Businesses that hire illegal aliens the same as the FCC does for Janet Jackson’s boobies…$500,000 per incident

    this will stop the demand for illegals almost instantly and allow market forces to rebalance wage prices for Labor in a true capitalistic fashion…the tide of illegals will slow if not stop altogether since there will be no work…and folks can immigrate legally….

    just like most of our Ancestors did

    nuff said?


  • When we get to the point in time when we have a one-world government, it will likely be too small an entity to tyrannize the people or oppress individual rights.

    Ah! The “withering away of the state”. And in what manifesto have we heard THAT rhetoric before?

  • No, there isn’t much chance of us actually losing our individuality, but that doesn’t necessarily allay fears of such a fate — especially when popular culture, in its efforts to make statements about the troubles of the present, so often paints a very dark future for humanity.

    In these times when we are just beginning to appreciate the strength of our diversity, the notion of “one world” seems rather ominous because it suggests cultural homogeneity rather than cultural plurality.

    I see America and Europe’s conglomerations of cultures as microcosms of humanity’s future on Earth.

    Of course, some assimilation is inevitable in a world in which information travels at the speed of light and cultural evolution is often driven by free markets, but the same forces that cause cultural absorption also create cultural hybrids.

  • Wasn’t it Marx with his “dialectical materialism” who use to talk about how inevitable his own vision of the future was? And now we have Miss Marxaret coming along assuring us that:

    Regardless of denials and protestations, it is inevitable that this planet, Earth, will someday be one world with one people and one economy. The notion of “borders” is becoming obsolete

    Hmmm. No borders. That means no nations. Or rather just one nation, with one ruling elite exercising completely unchecked power over the population of the entire globe – a population of racial, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic clones, completely lacking in all of the wonderful diversity we now enjoy.

    Imagine China, spread out to where it completely covers every square inch of all six continents, and you will have a good picture of the boring world that this ditz likes to rhapsodize about.

  • That sounds a little pessimistic to these ears Miss Margaret, I don’t think there’s much chance of us losing our individuality.

    I am delighted to be able to move at will throughout the whole of Europe and, unfortunate language barriers aside, live and work wherever I want. Before the Union came together, I was confined to my island home and would have had a lot of difficulty just moving south as I have in search of better times and weather.

    I don’t see why a scaling up of that to a global or even interplanetary levelwould be anything other than even more pleasing to millions of people that would like to follow their own personal wandering stars.

    Welcome back by the way; you bring a lot that’s good to BC and I for one would like to see more of it. Of course, I could click on over to your own stylish blog and probably should but rarely have free time.

  • The bigots, xenophobes, isolationists and racists will always have plenty to talk about because just as our technology becomes more sophisticated, so will our prejudices — and regardless of the extent of worldwide economic unity, we will likely always fight about our various religious beliefs.

    Perhaps it is the fear of a loss of individuality that makes the idea of “a unified human community spanning the entire planet and beyond, democratically self-governing, united in prosperity and freedom” seem so bland and depressing.

    Or maybe it’s just too hard to imagine without considering the cultural influence of numerous science fiction books, films and television programs that depict bland and/or depressing visions of the future.

  • It’s the game of unwarranted assumptions. Folks like Red and Dave assume a united world would have to be an oppressed world. Yet they have no trouble imagining a United States enjoying both unity and freedom, without any oppression being required to establish and maintain its unity. Even if they don’t think that’s the way things are right now in the United States.

    Individual rights will never be secure anywhere on this planet until they are protected everywhere. That is the reality of the modern world. Mature human social evolution will involve recognizing this fact, and finally giving real protection to individual rights, rather than mere lip service. A worldwide government can and will uphold the rights of all its citizens. Today’s divided governments have repeatedly proven incapable of doing so.

    Perhaps there will always be those who find it “bland and depressing” to live in a world where peace, security, freedom, and prosperity have replaced the chaotic oppression of today’s international anarchy. This is one of the many reasons I support a vigorous program of human space settlement, so people who can’t stand the thought of a United Earth will always be free to leave if they wish.

  • RedTard, I must ask how you derived your notions, as expressed in comment #5, from the context of Victor Plenty’s comment #3?

    When we get to the point in time when we have a one-world government, it will likely be too small an entity to tyrannize the people or oppress individual rights.

    Besides, the worldwide free exchange of information and technology would make a “socialist one world nanny government” untenable, anyway.

  • TLB

    Unfortunately, in 2024, San Francisco will be turned into a massive refugee camp due to nuclear war. It’ll only be 2078 before mankind finally wakes up and decides to allow a true world government. However, things only become interesting around the time of Star Trek: TNG. They’ve even got a holodeck!

    BTW, the AP/Ipsos poll offers this question: “Would you favor or oppose allowing immigrants with jobs who are in the United States illegally to apply for legal, temporary worker status?”

    Can anyone spot the fundamental problem with that question? Yes, that’s right: because of various factors those workers would end up staying here. They would not be “temporary”. There’s a good possibility that the poll is a simple attempt to mislead.

  • RedTard

    “immature stages of human social evolution”

    I suppose those immature stages are where people still believe in individual rights. It is very common for you lefties to dream of that socialist one world nanny government.

    What is it that causes you guys to fantasize so much about absolute government power? Why do leftists always want to use the government to control those that they disagree with?

    At the best your imagined world would be one depressing step above the one depicted in the matrix (instead of all powerful machines controlling humans ‘for their own good’ one all powerful government would be), at worst the absolute power would usher in absolute corruption. When the world’s citizens are bent to one power and stripped of all means to fight back and the next Hitler or Stalin arises who will be there to save us?

  • he future is a unified human community spanning the entire planet and beyond, democratically self-governing, united in prosperity and freedom

    Why does this sound so bland and depressing?


  • The future is a unified human community spanning the entire planet and beyond, democratically self-governing, united in prosperity and freedom. No bigots or racists will prove capable of preventing this, whether they are Islamic fundamentalists who have tragically forgotten the true spiritual message of the Qur’an, or right-wing Americans who have forgotten the principles at the core of their own country’s founding documents. The only uncertainty is how long the civilized humans will wait before finally establishing this morally imperative worldwide system of governance.

    The bigots and the xenophobes will continue to talk about the same things they talk about in the smaller contexts of the nation-states and national-level governments that currently exist, Howard. Ever since the founding of the United States, there have been a few vocal bigots who wanted to see some part or another of my home nation broken away to form their own separatist territory, limited to whites, or white slaveowners, or whatever. Thus far they have all failed to break apart the United States, despite trying a variety of tactics ranging from incoherent grumbling to all-out war.

    The isolationists, and the other fossils left over from immature stages of human social evolution will continue to grumble, and some might continue to struggle using violence. They might even slow down the inevitable. But they cannot stop it.

  • Balanced, rational and prophetic, Victor. But, if we hope for

    Regardless of denials and protestations, it is inevitable that this planet, Earth, will someday be one world with one people and one economy. The notion of “borders” is becoming obsolete and will someday be regarded as ridiculous as the idea of categorizing and judging people by the color of their skins.

    Then, what will the bigots, xenophobes, isolationists and racists have to talk about?

  • Many thanks to you for writing this piece. It’s refreshing to finally see a balanced and rational discussion of globalization and what it will really mean.

    Now let’s see just how far into the comments section the calm and rational qualities of this discussion can survive.