Marcelo's Reading and Thinking Log

Brazilian TV is showing a news story about 'coyotes', i.e., people who smuggle immigrants across the U.S. border. They are vilified because they exploit people. On the other hand, immigration is always shown in a good light on TV. So, there is a paradox there. Immigrants themselves are good, but the people who make it possible for them to immigrate are bad. If people who immigrate are good, then immigration itself is good, because good people do good things (otherwise they would be bad). But the people who make that good thing possible are bad. How come?

I suppose this has some parallels with drug consumption. Drug addicts are not bad people, but drug trafficking is bad. The parallel ends there, however, because drug addicts are supposed to be suffering from a disease, whereas immigrants are healthy people. In a way, their poverty is somewhat analogous to the drug users' disease. That's not a perfect analogy, however, because the hegemonic narrative is that countries benefit from immigration, and no one is supposed to benefit from drugs (except for the traffickers, who -- remember that? -- are bad).

So, back to the immigration problem, how do we solve that paradox? One has to be honest about it. If on the one hand coyotes are bad and exploit the immigrants, and on the other hand immigration (and immigrants) are good, the only solution would be the State filling the role of the coyotes, by sponsoring immigration. Of course, both ends of the immigration flux must reach an agreement about that. The U.S. must be OK with it, and, say, Guatemala, also must be OK with it.

I think that is the main practical difficulty. I just don't know why it is so. It is universally settled that immigration is good, and attempts to curb it are racist (just look at what is happening in France right now). If the State will not curb it, coyotes will take over, unless the State will sponsor it. Ergo, the State should be sponsoring it.

# posted by Marcelo Gilli @ 4:54 PM