Elite-popular divide on immigration
One interpretation of President Bush's plan to put U.S. troops on the southern border is that he is "throwing a bone to the right-wing." However, he is actually throwing a bone to the 70 percent of U.S. citizens who want troops there, right next to an enormous fence. On immigration, there does seem to be quite a divide between what most Americans think, and what the elites think - with elites meaning politicians, members of the media, etc.
Why the divide? And what are the implications of a relatively porous border on the traditional, sovereign state?
One explanation might be (at the risk of sounding like a Naderite) corporatism. Business, by most accounts, has benefited from legal and illegal immigration from the south. Memebers of government and media see a direct relationship between business success and their own survival. Joe Average, however, does not. Most Americans probably place more value in sentimentalism, idealism, traditionalism, and singing the National Anthem - in English, of course - than in assisting global business.
Another explanation might be... reality, and realistic policies. Many Americans tend to support the "deport them all" policy. While one tries to stick to value-free analysis, deporting 11 million people doesn't seem to cost-effective. Again, some prefer idealism, sentimentalism, traditionalism, etc.
Europe, similarly, has seen quite an elite-popular divide on immigration, and other sovereignty-related issues involving the European Union. Recall that in both France and the Netherlands recently, government leaders wanted to ratify the EU constitution, yet popular referenda failed. Other examples include Norway, which completed the EU accession process (initiated by the Norwegian government), only to have its citizens vote down the final referendum. There's also Greenland, which came into the EU automatically when Denmark did (it was a Danish territory), but the citizens voted their country out once it became independent.
And perhaps these are the values that nation states were founded upon, and need to exist. If they are going to the wayside in the name of global commerce, what does that suggest about the future of the state? Time will tell, and I hope to delve into this issue more.
On a somewhat related note - Hungary's effort to get into the European Union, delayed by its treatment of the Roma - we have the Quote of the Day, from someone who points out that the current EU members aren't perfect: "I don't want to single anyone out -- like France."
Why the divide? And what are the implications of a relatively porous border on the traditional, sovereign state?
One explanation might be (at the risk of sounding like a Naderite) corporatism. Business, by most accounts, has benefited from legal and illegal immigration from the south. Memebers of government and media see a direct relationship between business success and their own survival. Joe Average, however, does not. Most Americans probably place more value in sentimentalism, idealism, traditionalism, and singing the National Anthem - in English, of course - than in assisting global business.
Another explanation might be... reality, and realistic policies. Many Americans tend to support the "deport them all" policy. While one tries to stick to value-free analysis, deporting 11 million people doesn't seem to cost-effective. Again, some prefer idealism, sentimentalism, traditionalism, etc.
Europe, similarly, has seen quite an elite-popular divide on immigration, and other sovereignty-related issues involving the European Union. Recall that in both France and the Netherlands recently, government leaders wanted to ratify the EU constitution, yet popular referenda failed. Other examples include Norway, which completed the EU accession process (initiated by the Norwegian government), only to have its citizens vote down the final referendum. There's also Greenland, which came into the EU automatically when Denmark did (it was a Danish territory), but the citizens voted their country out once it became independent.
And perhaps these are the values that nation states were founded upon, and need to exist. If they are going to the wayside in the name of global commerce, what does that suggest about the future of the state? Time will tell, and I hope to delve into this issue more.
On a somewhat related note - Hungary's effort to get into the European Union, delayed by its treatment of the Roma - we have the Quote of the Day, from someone who points out that the current EU members aren't perfect: "I don't want to single anyone out -- like France."
posted by bp at
11:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home