Is freedom only for those who get here first? Is it something you can put first dibs on? Is our freedom only for those born in America, with rights and privileges above those born abroad?
Is freedom only for those who raise their hands the highest, by showing they are more educated, or that they are willing to work in certain industries?
Is it something that can be given to too many people? For, we say, if we open our borders, too many will come.
Is freedom only to be given to those who are economically advantaged? For we surely suggest they should not come if they are going to end up on welfare.
Who is freedom for? Is it only for the privileged? Is this a social club?
Freedom, by its nature, should firstly be for those who need it -- those who have needs. Those who have money and station and influence can use their money and station and influence to get what they want. Freedom means less to them. Rather, it is the poor, the unwanted, and oppressed who need the protections of freedom. It is for those who would be jailed on a whim, instead of for cause. It is for those who cannot buy their way out of the prisons. In other words, it is for those sent to deportation jails for no more reason than not being born here, and who have who have not the money to buy the most high-powered of attorneys, but must settle for public defenders.
If we would give freedom more meaning, we would give it to those who need it most. We would give it to those who otherwise would be tossed in jail for no more cause than not having paperwork. If we were to give freedom more meaning, we would make it free. We would not have a list of restrictions, and prices that must be paid, and things that must be done. If we were to give freedom more meaning, we would give it to all, including those from abroad. Liberty and justice for all means no less than this.
Is freedom something that cannot overcome an unfortunate starting point, and, if you are born outside of freedom, you cannot move within it?
If we reduce freedom to something that can be obtained with an education, or purchased by taking a job in a privileged industry, we reduce it something that can be bought and sold, as if to the highest bidder. I think of the slaves, when we had slave trade, and of how they were sold to the highest bidders. Is freedom to be bought and sold the same way slavery was bought and sold? What a mockery of the word!
What should we compel them to do, that they should be free? Shall we force them to speak English? Oh, we are the clever ones: We make the restrictions so difficult, they are not able to come here, then we tell them all we want them to do is to come legally. "Do this, do that," we say, and we use the art of oppression to paint over their picture of freedom.
Freedom is lessened when you put a wall around it, when you think to protect it by keeping others from having it.
Freedom, by definition, should be free. Why we, as Americans (of all people!) seek to change the definition of how it is to be obtained, I do not understand.
Freedom knows no borders, and we yet we suppose to impose borders and walls against it. We draw a line in the sand, call it a border, and say, "Enter the land of the free at your own risk, for we will strip you of those freedoms. We will toss you in jail just for being here. Take another step, and you cross into a land where all freedoms are ours and none are yours. You may suppose your rights are inalienable, but we will take them away from you. Ours is the power, and your only right is the right to return to where you came from."
No comments:
Post a Comment