Non-Coercive or Voluntary Societies

The Daily Pioneer published a report, "Fence Hits Deportation," which struck me as very funny. The fence that was meant to keep infiltrators out has now become an impediment in throwing out existing infiltrators.

When we make fences to keep others out, we lock ourselves in. On a broader note, with all this chaos around the migration from Bangladesh, it is worth going back to the basics. When people migrate from Bihar to other states and cause demographic changes, is that a problem? People would jump to point out that the problem here is economic and not one of national security, so there is no need for alarm.

I would be curious to know the profile of the infiltrators from Bangladesh. According to one report, they are poor rickshaw pullers trying to make a living. Not all that different from poor Bihari laborers trying to find a better life. Except that they have a different national identity.

In a recent discussion, my friend pointed out to me that as long as migrations don't cause economic burdens on society, they are acceptable. The Bangladeshi and Bihari migrations are therefore unacceptable. I wondered what he'd term the Indian migration to the United States. I was reminded that the US government only allows migration if it is considered beneficial to the economic interests of the nation. So does that yardstick apply to all US citizens? Are they all expected to act in the economic interests of the nation? Apparently not, going by the Chapter 11 bankruptcies and collapses that follow capture of fraud.

I am led to then wonder if the genesis of the problem is demographic modification or existing political systems? What if we didn't need to elect our representatives? Would we really care who our neighbor is, as long as the neighbor can be thought of as peaceful and honest? I am finding myself say - NO, I would not care.

Economic alarmists will jump up and down screaming about the financial consequences of uninhibited migration. Lets take a look at the United Kingdom for a moment. There was a massive drive from India to the UK until the 60s when the empire was considered a destination of choice. People migrated en masse, in search of a better life. Then, it happened. The job market got saturated. There were enough qualified people but not enough demand. Guess what, Indians don't prefer to go to the UK now. They go to the US instead. So much for the collapse theories. People don't like going to places where they are not needed or appreciated, government or no government. Now British nationals are also in the global pool, going where their services are appreciated.

We have to make an important distinction here, for the national security folks. My argument is only for peaceful, honest people. If the migrants are not peaceful or honest, then they do not have the right to be left alone. That, and that alone, should be the basis for forming our responses.

Our tendency to control everything has possibly turned us into control-freaks without realizing it. It is time we take a step back and see the human faces behind the demographics.