The Swamp is powered by Vocal.
Vocal is a platform that provides storytelling tools and engaged communities for writers, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and other creators to get discovered and fund their creativity.
How does Vocal work?
Creators share their stories on Vocal’s communities. In return, creators earn money when they are tipped and when their stories are read.
How do I join Vocal?
Vocal welcomes creators of all shapes and sizes. Join for free and start creating.
To learn more about Vocal, visit our resources.Show less
Every article that I researched to use as a reference for this piece was highly partisan. The notion that a consistent centrist source exists about illegal immigration is false. In modern society, the news determines not only what is important, but what perception is held about certain policies. The left and right have been in contention about the correct course of action in regards to immigration for years. This will not be an article arguing the figures of illegal immigration, but rather the philosophical pitfall of viewing immigration through a partisan lens.
When hearing of illegal immigration, the conservative in me calls for reprimand due to its illegal nature, but my mind is not content with this assertion. I cannot help but observe the alternate side. This is where the idea of one side versus another becomes illegitimate. There is never a topic held in contention for years that can be boiled down to two sides, with no alternative scope. The ability to look at a problem critically is important, especially with something as personal as the livelihood of citizens and immigrants alike.
Illegal immigration tends to fall under the umbrella of political talking points. If there is a candidate debate, illegal immigration will typically be among the topics discussed. While not detracting from the legitimacy of the problem, it is easy to acknowledge the repetitiveness of the arguments. On one side, the left presents an emotional argument, primarily based upon the convictions of the human heart. On the other side, the right holds their claims in reason, unconcerned with the emotional facet. Not only do politicians feed into this two-sided narrative, but the news media follows suit.
The predictability and polarized resistance to one another has created a problematic stalemate. The issue does not reside in either camp, but within both. The conservative right claims to promote the economic values of the free world, but would rather deny citizenship, instead of making it easier. This is inherently contradictory. If the conservatives were chiefly concerned with the money and cost of illegal immigration, then creating an easier legalization process would be a move in the right direction. Countless new citizens, taxes, medical fees, and fears of accountability would be relinquished or greatly subdued. The market could potentially increase as a result of more money, due to a decrease in taxes previously supporting the illegal population.
The left shares just as much blame in the problem, if not more. The classic liberal narrative promoted has been that of guilt. California has voted in programs that have forced higher taxes and more responsibility upon paying citizens, and in turn, creating resentment. The liberal cities have asserted they will no longer comply with federal law enforcement. All of these actions have created resentment built on guilt. The idea that one could dislike the idea of illegal immigration, is now one of bigotry, according to the left. Sanctuary cities have forced higher taxes upon angry citizens who reside and pay their share.
There are holes and problems everywhere, but the real issue is that there are no mainstream politicians or media outlets promoting something other than these simplistic, contradictory, "solutions". A suggestion: Simplify the immigration process, while cracking down on those who knowingly avoid it. Create a process that is faster, and more efficient. Therefore, if one were to avoid the legal route, the punishment of deportation is more justifiable in the view of the left. A compromise that does not require the compromise of the values, is often efficient and less painful. The marketplace can expand, taxation can decrease, the federal agents can do their job, and families seeking a better life can find one.