I’ve spoken previously about the need for precision in issuing statements of what one will and will not accept. Saying something is “unacceptable” does not mean what most seem to think it does. If granted the faculty of speech, I’m certain my cat would have been adamant that detaching his nuts was an unacceptable course of action. Yet here he sits sans testicles. The truth is we all come to accept things we don’t prefer, or we go to war not accepting them. And the threshold for that decision is quite a bit higher than popular usage of “unacceptable” would lead one to believe.
This came to mind again today in reading about Mexican irritation at an American immigration posture that resembles Mexico’s. Just as whites may not have solidarity and advocacy like their diverse neighbors on the inside, they may not have defended borders like those on the outside. It’s fascinating that, with “minorities” as our alleged moral exemplars, the surest path to virtue is one not taken by the virtuous.
And while that may seem counterintuitive to you, it unquestionably works well for them. That is until things start becoming unacceptable.
Luis Videgaray, the Mexican foreign minister, said on Wednesday that his government “will not accept” the US’s new, unilateral immigration proposals.
I think his government actually will accept the US’s new immigration proposals. Because how many divisions has Nieto got? Though it’s interesting that he impugns the plans by calling them unilateral. As if our immigration policy was contingent on foreign negotiations. We were only going to accept 600,000 Africans this year until Malawi vetoed the cap. And that’s less of a joke than you might imagine.
Videgaray also said the Mexican government wouldn’t hesitate to go to the UN “to defend the rights of immigrants.”
I don’t think in my entire life I’ve ever heard a rented mouthpiece express the imperative to “defend the rights of non-immigrants.” Aside from sake of political expediency, I can’t say why that would be. Unquestionably non-immigrants have rights as well. I imagine Mr. Videgaray believes Mexican non-immigrants are particularly endowed. I’d be interested to hear him articulate just what those rights of non-immigrants in his country are.
I also can’t say what premium moral value accrues to humans who move between countries over those who do not. Though apparently, by this logic, white immigrant Rhodesians were held in unusually high regard. But aside from these ancillary issues, the US faces even greater jeopardy than a UN breakout session.
We have been a great ally to fight problems with migration, narcotics,” Mexico’s economy minister, Ildefonso Guajardo, told The Globe and Mail this month. “If at some point in time things become so badly managed in the relationship, the incentives for the Mexican people to keep on cooperating in things that are at the heart of [US] national-security issues will be diminished.”
And the inevitability of diminished cooperation in not swarming our country is why we are going to build a gilded wall and put Mexicans on the south side of it.
I trust they’ll find the situation appropriately unacceptable.