A Different Approach to Immigration

Our broken immigration has gotten some much deserved attention of late. A draconian House bill was introduced, inspiring a mass popular upsurge of supporters of immigration rights. But the national debate has become dominated by oversimplification and clichee of the worst sort. Political debate can be summarized in a handful of points. The only solutions being put forth seem to be a guest worker or amnesty program, turning the border into a DMZ, or both. This is an issue which seems to inspire more ho-hum political discourse than any other save the most absurdly oversimplified issue of all: abortion. In an attempt to subvert the dominant paradigm, I am going to shed light on a less well known proposal, creating what I like to call an "Amerizone." Since NAFTA the US, Mexico, and Canada already exist in a common trade zone. What if we took this a step further? Complete free movement between the US, Mexico, and Canada. Europe has shown that such an arrangement is no longer in the realm of fantasy, and if anything, North Americans have more in common with each other than some residents of the "European State."

Effective Management?

Today I introduce a new contributor to TQA. Resident historian Max will scour the pages of history in search of events or trends which our relevant to our own time. Of course, his views may not always represent my own.

If history has anything to teach the masses of political theorists, it is that sustained growth and dominance is only suitable with proper distribution of population over vast territories. As the United States continues to employ its self-granted privileges as the global superpower, it must follow the lessons of past powers, and utilise these lessons to maintain its status of potency. Two primary examples to this objective are the British Empire, and Imperial China. The British Empire is known to have been the largest and among the most effective empires in history. This is mainly because of population distribution. The size of the isles are no larger than the state of Colorado, and yet produced an empire of enormous magnanimity. Why? Basically, it is because of luck and management. The British are extremely lucky to live on the Isles. The location has the densest cache of raw industrial materials of anywhere in the world, comparable only to Germany's Ruhr district. This bounty of resources, in combination with high population density, allowed Great Britain to manipulate and monopolise on industry early on, and get a head start on the Industrial Revolution. This makes it surprising that they were not the first European power to begin colonisation. Britain had very limited success early in the colonial era. They did not even begin to colonise until a century following Columbus, and therefore were left with comparatively small swathes of land. But, this was good for the British. Their industrial might allowed them to expand their military and seize necessary bits of land from other powers. Further still, this lack of land proved good for the British to create a densely populated North American colonial system, which created greater urban/industrial growth. The British colonies were far more advanced and populated by 1750 than all of the other European-American colonies combined. Even following the decline of colonialism, the British Commonwealth is an economic juggernaut due to the early achievements of the British Empire. China is the disaster story of Imperialism. Unlike Britain, China had great resources at their disposal, but all inland, which was not populated enough to capitalise on the boon. China had an immense population, but all located on the agrarian Eastern Seaboard, a trend that even today continues to segregate China into two different worlds. Furthermore, China's immense size made it extremely difficult to govern effectively. Although the Zhou Dynasty brought about Feudalism two thousand years before Charlemagne, it was this decentralisation of a vast territory that brought about the Warring States Period, which made the Zhou Emperor, King of a duchy the size of Connecticut. This is a trend that plagued all of the dynasties from the Shang to the Mongolian Yuan. The last two dynasties, the Ming and the Manchu Qing, did not suffer from decentralisation, only because they were propagated by the Europeans."It is speculated that had the Chinese Emperors not continually tried to spread their ideals to their neighbours (much like the U.S.), China would be just as large in sphere of influence, and hundreds of years ahead in technology. Even today, the problems of China continue. It is a rising power, but only because of the investment of globalizing industries seeing the advantages of Chinese low labour laws. Any businessman will tell you that the Chinese people are successful. The average Chinese labourer will say otherwise. If the United States of America is going to continue to impose its ideals upon the world through military support, it should consider how it was successful in the first place, and what it should do to maintain this success, as it directly relates to the activities of its predecessor, Great Britain, and its possible successor, China.