Jason (jcreed) wrote,

I caught half of a political ad on the UC tv the other day. It was strange for one thing since it seemed like a campaign ad for the sitting president --- is he running ads just to pick his approval rating up for some reason? To be honest I can't be certain that the ad was done on behalf of Bush; I suppose it might have also been a message directed against him. Anyway, I have a question that arose from the fact the ad had something to do with reducing illegal immigration; it pointed out how unemployment was already such-and-such level, and how "foreign" workers put downward pressure on wages and such.

The question is this: what is the moral basis for denying people born in other countries the same work opportunities that people born in this country have? Why is it fair to call them "foreign" workers and say that american workers have more rights to jobs offered by american companies?

I've not understood this for a long time, and I'd honestly like to know what the argument for it is. It seems to me like the crux of the argument against sexism and racism and so on is that it's not fair to punish people for coincidences of their birth over which they had no control. Country of birth, just as much as sex and race, is nothing I chose. Why should a man be proud of being from the country he was born in when it's at least fairly often considered inappropriate to be proud of being a man, or proud of being white, or proud to have been born into a rich family?
Tags: politics
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded