As you know, Dear Readers, one of the current burning issues in this country is that of illegal immigration. This is one of those topics which inspires passionate arguments on all sides, some of which actually make sense. Usually lost in the discussion, though, is the operative adjective illegal - which, when last I looked, means contrary to law and not racist, unfair, anti-immigrant, or anything else. People who use those other adjectives to apply to those who oppose illegal immigration are, in my humble and correct opinion, stupid.
But let's talk about immigration issues somewhere else for a moment. Like Canada ... where, if you are a stripper, you will no longer be able to get a visa to enter the country to ply your trade.
Yes, according to this article in Time Magazine, Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has announced that starting in August, Canada will no longer renew visas for foreigners working as strippers. The Canadian government had already cut back on the number of new visas it had been granting to ecdysiasts, granting only 12 visas last year, although it had been continuing to renew visas which had been previously granted. Sadly though, gainfully-employed strippers will no longer have their visas automatically renewed.
The visa decision is based not on issues of morality, but on the alleged relationship between stripping and illegal human trafficking - according to the Time article, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (the "Mounties") have repeatedly expressed concern over the link between Canadian escort services, brothels and massage parlors and cases of human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
Sexual exploitation is, of course, a dreadful thing and it behooves us to take such measures as are necessary to protect persons from it. But we must also not lose sight of the impact on politics and on the economy of preventing strippers from obtaining visas ...
Were such a move to be taken here in the United States, the GOP would probably implode from the cognitive dissonance of trying to take a stand on the issue: on the one hand, it would be required to decry the impact of such a job-killingTM move on manufacturers of stripper poles, pasties, and diaphanous outfits, not to mention the severe impact on related businesses such as bars, restaurants, and the security firms which provide bouncers. On the other hand, the religious right would hysterically argue in favor of the move as a way of helping to preserve its image of public morality. The party would run screaming from the issue with smoke pouring from its ears.
Or not, as cognitive dissonance has not heretofore appeared to be an impediment to being a hardshell conservative Republican.
Anyhow ...
It occurs to me that we have an opportunity here to help boost large segments of the American economy - the manufacturing, entertainment, and garment* industries to name a few - by welcoming the strippers who are no longer being granted visas in Canada. We could really see the economy ... uh ... take off if we play this right.
Hug a stripper today. Carefully.
Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.
Bilbo
* Yes, I know that the garment part is a bit of a stretch, but work with me here, okay?
7 comments:
What an unfair law! That's strictly protectionistic to remove competition that Canadian strppers might have.
Last I've read, a thong is still a garment; and that which the stripper removes are too.
How is this reconciled with NAFTA?
Well, it's their loss! Vancouver has a lot of strip clubs. Quebec City, not somuch.
That makes one less reason to go to Canada. They have lousy beer, anyway.
It's to beep American strippers out, and drive up wages for Canadian strippers.
"... in my humble and correct opinion..."
gonna have to use this, myself
We can always dend on you to keep us up to date on what is going on ---or off in this case. And the "Mounties"? Really??????? :)
Hug a stripper? No no. You never want to touch a stripper. The escort you'll have won't be her.
Post a Comment