The immigration debate makes me want to think, makes my head hurt, and makes me feel like apathy and malaise actually are one in the same.

[ If you're going to read this and then complain that your time's been wasted, this is your out. Stop reading and save the world some friction. ]

Having said that, I feel like the "debate" if you can call it that, is so muddled the average person comes into it with little real understanding of the issue at hand. Most interesting are the key assumptions people make which automatically create a debate about a fictitious scenario.

1) Latin immigration is no different in pattern or effect than any other influx of migration to the US, legal or otherwise, in the history of the United States. That isn't to say they are the same people, but ignoring the similarities is a tough task for reasonable people. Consider Chinese immigration in the late-1800s and early-1900s. The contribution to industry, the anecdotal examples of the hardships faced by immigrants, the xenophobic public backlash to a spike in immigration and the further dissolution of cultural purity. Accept this: our culture will change drastically at all times, should we really try and prevent something from altering our culture or simply try and affect the path and mitigate any negative effects of that process? 'Race' is another bag of tricks, but for now I'll just call shenanigans on the concept and file it with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the concept of time as we know it.

2) The majority of those wanting into this country are not American dream-seekers or workers looking to send money out of the country. Refugees, asylum-seekers and people willing to turn to human traffickers to seek a safer living environment for their families. This isn't a chance to share the stupid American dream, it's a chance to act human at every moment. How equally would you treat people if everyone on the planet woke up blind tomorrow?

3) Human smuggling and trafficking is very real, very cruel and saw a boom in demand since 1992, when the US adopted an immigration policy of "prevention through deterrence", aka "lock down the border". Just a quick cost-benefit analysis on this line of thinking, from 1992-now US spending on border enforcement rose from around $750 million annually to almost $4 billion in 2005. What kind of enforcement have we gotten for our money? Although the number of apprehensions at the border has fluctuated within a gradual range, we have right around 1.1 million apprehensions annually. This is virtually the same level of apprehension seen in 1992. The only added bang-for-buck we've seen is a sharp increase in the level of deaths of migrants at the border, both due to extreme conditions and exploitation by traffickers.

So my point is, the immigration debate is a human issue, not an economic or security issue. It greatly concerns aspects of our national security and economy, but everyone in the equation shares the common characteristic of being human. Through all of our faults, America is a nation built on progressive principles and a belief in universal rights. We've not always acted this way, we don't all act this way now, but that's never a reason not to try. Did your parents ever teach you to share? I know my parents meant to share all of my best stuff, not my hand-me-downs. I was never taught to stick up my nose.

The metaphor I think fits this is an asshole who drives around in a pimped out ride and then rolls his window down to talk shit to anyone ogling said ride. It's silly how people want to create amazing things only to deny others the right to experience the same.

“No matter what other nations may say about the United States, immigration is still the sincerest form of flattery.” - Clayton Cramer