Would you be okay with each state having its own immigration laws?
The issue reduces down further than that. First we have to reduce to our Founders. Most people don't understand what I'm talking about. As we like fast food, we also like fast discussions with little nutritive value. Therefore, when super American intellects like William F. Buckley and Noam Chomsky got together, for the sake of entertainment, they both started off from opposing platforms of conservative and liberal. Yet, this is a long standing sophist trick. Rather than solve endless problems by discussing issues this way, we need to instead dissolve most of the issues by reducing to what is American.
I do this by the use of a better American political spectrum. As the old political spectrum of Aristotle's golden-mean expands out in two extreme directions endlessly, I put an enthroned king on one end and a homeless prostitute on the other. The reason for this updated spectrum is to do away with any compromise, something the king and his lawyers always managed to achieve, by including "all men" into the discussion. In other words, as the king and the prostitute exist as inverses or perverses an eternity away from each other on opposite ends of the spectrum, the rest of us exist in the middle either represented by the king as part of a necessary tyranny or represented by the prostitute as part of a disadvantaged majority.
This true dichotomy, a conflict, is the true one exposing all others as false. Such false dichotomies are black versus white, old versus young, male versus female, homo versus heterosexuality, and so on. The contempt I am trying to expose here is how the false dichotomies distract the disadvantaged majority from focusing on the one true dichotomy, with this being a conflict which has been happening for all of eternity.
Okay. so in using this political spectrum as the American model regarding the discussion of immigration laws, how would allowing in workers from outside our borders effect both the king and the prostitute? I haven't started off this discussion from an established political platform. I am really working here. I am trying first to reduce to common ground which is what Socrates always attempted to do when he was establishing a whole new order for Western Civilization. According to Plato, as Socrates spent most of his time reducing to a greater quality truth by the use of his dialectical truth engine, his questioning teaching method, it was only during casual conversation with Socrates that he was able to get the great Sage to elaborate on any of his theories.
By Sage, I mean that Socrates wasn't an elite. He wasn't an official training type of teacher as he often referred to himself as a midwife philosopher to the poor (he believed the mind of a slave child could learn to improve, an extremely dangerous notion, if it was served by someone such as himself). Out of Socrates came not just an order, but a new order for Western Civilization. As he pondered a perplexing question: if every soul did indeed originate from a perfect Soul, then why would every individual's soul be born different? His best answer to this oddity was his theory called "recollection." Being as his mother served as a midwife to the poor, Socrates knew of he birthing process; so, he concluded that people are born different into the world because of the trauma they receive during that time. As each soul is born losing varying amounts of knowledge, it spends its life "recollecting" pieces of what was lost.
So, this is why one soul would develop to be an enthroned king on one end of the spectrum while the other would develop to be a homeless prostitute on the other end of it.
No more compromising. A better American way is reducing to what is American and knowing that that truth alone will dissolve most of the issues.
