favorite anthropologists, David Graeber, had a fun thought experiment in one of his books ( Link ):
"Once during the protests before the World Economic Forum, a kind of junket of tycoons, corporate flacks and politicians, networking and sharing cocktails at the Waldorf Astoria, pretended to be discussing ways to alleviate global poverty. I was invited to engage in a radio debate with one of their representatives. As it happened the task went to another activist but I did get far enough to prepare a three-point program that I think would have taken care of the problem nicely:
- an immediate amnesty on international debt (An amnesty on personal debt might not be a bad
idea either but it’s a different issue.)
- an immediate cancellation of all patents and other intellectual property rights related to technology more than one year old
- the elimination of all restrictions on global freedom of travel or residence
The rest would pretty much take care of itself. The
moment the average resident of Tanzania, or Laos, was no longer forbidden to relocate to Minneapolis or Rotterdam, the government of every rich and powerful country in the world would certainly decide nothing was more important than finding a way to make sure people in Tanzania and Laos preferred to stay there. Do you really think they couldn’t come up with something?"
He continues, "But, you will say, these demands are entirely unrealistic! True enough. But why are they unrealistic? Mainly, because those rich guys meeting in the Waldorf would never stand for any of it. This is why we say they are themselves the problem."
Some thoughts about the ongoing debate on illegal immigrants...
I have followed the ongoing debate on illegal immigration for quite a while, and I have heard all kinds of different opinions about this issue. There are those peoplen who say that the illegals that are already here should get the chance to become legal citizens. And there are the more xenophobic people who think all illegals should be deported. I have been wondering for quite a while why people would not simply immigrate legally. Today, i found the answer, by coincidence. Today, US Assistant Secretary of State Ellen Sauerbrey came to speak at my college. Mrs. Sauerbrey told us, among other things, that for a refugee in urgent danger it takes 2-3 months to go through the process of being admitted to the US. That is for a refugee in urgent danger. For other refugees, it can take up to 9 months. Now, if that applies for refugees, who are usually processed rather fast, how long do you think it takes for a legal immigrant who tries to enter the country simply in order to find a better job and make more money? What with all the security screenings that are in place since 9/11, it takes a very long time, up to 2 years to be precise.Point is, if the US shortened the legal process and made it easier for immigrants to come legally, a lot less of them would come illegally. After all, isn't this a nation of immigrants?
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
"Once during the protests before the World Economic Forum, a kind of junket of tycoons, corporate flacks and politicians, networking and sharing cocktails at the Waldorf Astoria, pretended to be discussing ways to alleviate global poverty. I was invited to engage in a radio debate with one of their representatives. As it happened the task went to another activist but I did get far enough to prepare a three-point program that I think would have taken care of the problem nicely:
- an immediate amnesty on international debt (An amnesty on personal debt might not be a bad
idea either but it’s a different issue.)
- an immediate cancellation of all patents and other intellectual property rights related to technology more than one year old
- the elimination of all restrictions on global freedom of travel or residence
The rest would pretty much take care of itself. The
moment the average resident of Tanzania, or Laos, was no longer forbidden to relocate to Minneapolis or Rotterdam, the government of every rich and powerful country in the world would certainly decide nothing was more important than finding a way to make sure people in Tanzania and Laos preferred to stay there. Do you really think they couldn’t come up with something?"
He continues, "But, you will say, these demands are entirely unrealistic! True enough. But why are they unrealistic? Mainly, because those rich guys meeting in the Waldorf would never stand for any of it. This is why we say they are themselves the problem."