Monday, January 18, 2010

The System is broken, we need the federal government to step in!

Our federal government has responsibilities to the citizens of this country. The system is obviously broken and many of our family, friends and neighbors pay the price for continued inaction in the face of this crisis. The stories of those who have suffered and died because our elected officials refuse to address the problem are heart breaking. Some may want things to stay the same because they take advantage of the predicament of others to further their own personal profit or political agenda, but most of us want change. Money and power, isn't that what it always comes to?

No, I am not talking about healthcare, I am talking about securing our borders. Unlike healthcare, securing our borders is a constitutionally valid area for our federal government to be involved.

Many like to try and make this issue about workers rights, human rights, or that PC favorite called fairness. Let's take them one at a time.

Workers rights, or more accurately, illegal immigrant workers rights, make no sense since it is not legal for them to be here in the first place. The fact that they are not citizens of this country means that the right of citizens does not extend to them. Many try to claim that because they are working and we benefit from it they should be allowed to continue their illegal activities and even extended all the benefits of citizenship. Well, prostitutes work hard, so I guess it is wrong to round them up. Many drug dealers work hard to distribute their product, should we have a rally to protest how local police interfere with their efforts to support their families?

Human rights is another favorite. If you stand for deporting those who have entered the country illegally, you don't care about people. This is a ridiculous position. To claim that the many human traffickers working the borders of this country are like the underground railroad is ludicrous. The US has one of the most open immigration policies in the world, immigrants should be required to adhere to it, 100% of the time. There is no good reason, humanitarian or otherwise, why we should fail to enforce our own laws.

Fairness, whatever that means, in fact, the reason liberals love this one so much is that it means whatever they say it means. As far as I can tell it is something along the lines of, "I risked all kinds of dangers to get here, work for less doing the jobs you don't want to, all to take care of my family because I am such a good person....etc., so it is unfair to deport me." Illegal immigrants and their proponents often reject that they are illegal, claiming that because they are hard working and not pursuing other crimes, they are not illegal. Well, they may not be illegal, but their action of entering the country outside of our immigration laws is. That makes them criminals, maybe likeable, hard working criminals, but still criminals.

So why don't we fix the system and secure our borders? There are several reasons for that.

Political pressure is a big reason. You have all kinds of business owners that benefit from illegal immigrants, and they at best ignore the law, and worse encourage their representatives to make the laws less effective.

The ever increasing population of illegal immigrants, and the sympathetic legal immigrants, now work to influence immigration policy by dangling the carrot of their votes. They march in protest when communities attempt to enforce immigration law, wielding signs proclaiming "We Are Human!" (Maricopa County Arizona) or demanding workers rights.


It is an uncomfortable issue for many. The poster child for illegal immigrants is the downtrodden family trying to make a better life for themselves with hard work and sacrifice. The same thing many of us seeks for ourselves. How can we in good conscience deny them of the same thing we want for ourselves? The short answer is we aren't. Having immigration laws, and enforcing them (no matter how unpleasant) is not being mean, it is being kind. Many emotionalize the issue and demonize those who insist on a rule of law, but that doesn't help create good law.

Follow the money. The cost of enforcing immigration law is often offered as a reason why we can't do it. What a waste of money to deport people who just want to work hard doing the things most Americans don't want to do. The truth is we can't afford not to enforce them any longer.

The United Sates has always welcomed immigrants. We are characterized as the melting pot of cultures from around the world. I embrace this because I believe that all cultures have good people who can add to our great nation. We must be in control of how we accommodate those immigrants though, and if they ignore our laws in order to get here, it seems fair to assume they will ignore any other laws that may interfere with their desires.

14 comments:

  1. Excellent Post! Many illegal immigrants that are in gangs are causing mayhem in our streets. They are influencing other youth in their neighborhoods. These immigrants are illegal immigrants and should be punished for breaking the law. I am for helping people but to aid in criminal activity is dangerous and nonsensical for our country's economy and safety. We can be humanitarians by calling on the Mexican government to build up its infrastructure and our goverrnment and citizens can aid them in this effort and help them open businesses in Mexico also. Immigrants are more than welcome to come to America but the proper way-Legally.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks!

    I intensionally didn't get into the issue with gangs for two reasons. First off there are good folks and bad folks in every culture, and there are illegal immigrants from several cultures who are not prone to gangs.

    Secondly, liberals love for us to focus on gangs and illegal immigrants so they can parade hard working good people, who happen to also be illegal immigrants in front of the media to discredit our position.

    The issue is pretty simple; there are laws that allow for legal immigration and deportation for those who enter illegally or break the terms of their temporary visa. We ought to enforce our own laws (and they should be simpler - kill the lawyers!)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aren't enough visas. Give out more visas. You think people don't want to come here legally? You think that business owners are the big lobbyists against legal immigration? Are you indigenous to North America? How did your parents get here? When were the first immigration laws passed in the United States of America? What is the inscription on the Statue of Liberty?

    The biggest lobby group for less visas and tighter border control is the Mexican Cartels. Why?

    They profit in human trafficking.

    That last sentence of your comment shows a lack of understanding, "We ought to enforce our own laws (and they should be simpler - kill the lawyers!)"

    Lawyers protect individual's from corrupt government. Judges and police are part of that corrupt government. The right to legal counsel is upheld in the USA, no thanks to people like you who misguide anger away from government and towards private citizens.

    It is still a better life, here, or illegal migration would be the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I didn't say I was against more visas, maybe that would be OK if we were managing the amount issued better than we are currently.

    Statue of Liberty:

    Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
    With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
    Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
    A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
    Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
    Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
    Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
    The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
    "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
    Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
    I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

    I feel no obligation to let a Centennial gift from France dictate immigration policy for the USA.


    I didn't attempt to specify who was the biggest lobby group on the issue, just that it is complex and multiple groups interested in influencing it.

    Lawyers both protect and exploit individuals. The comment was meant to have some jest to it, not be taken literally. Over all I would say that lawyers do more harm than good IMHO. Much of that is our fault for seeking the solutions provided by a lawyers services when we could take care of it ourselves. I didn't mention removing our right for legal counsel, not sure what the whole "thanks to people like you" comment was about.

    Yes, I would agree that the poor in the US are better off than 90% of the rest of the world. Be that as it may, if they want to come to our country, they need to do it legally.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm sorry, been unhappy all day, shouldn't take it out on you.

    Tort reform needs to start with repealing certain laws and judge appointments. Appoint good judges the lawyers will respond accordingly.

    We shouldn't and wouldn't need any other laws reguarding immigration, if the ones we have were enforced. I'm very uncomfortable with the abolishment of INS and the establishment of ICE.

    ReplyDelete
  6. No problem, sorry you aren't happy today.

    I don't have any specific ideas on how best to approach tort reform, but I definately believe it needs to happen.

    "Formed in 2003 as part of the federal government's response to the 9/11 attacks, ICE's mission is to protect the security of the American people and homeland by vigilantly enforcing the nation's immigration and customs laws."

    What don't you like about ICE?

    ReplyDelete
  7. How does ICE vigilantly enforce the nation's immigration and custom laws?

    Did you read the fine print?

    They are an unconstitutional undivided government entity. Why do you suppose customs and immigration were always two seperate government entities?

    Even at the height of mafia influence.

    The entire Homeland Security Act was a massive usurpation of "powers reserved for the states and the people thereof" by the Federal Government.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is the first I have heard of ICE. I went to their website and got a quick idea of what THEY say they do, but that is it.

    I don't understand the conflict of interest of having one deptartment deal with both immigration and customs?

    What powers did HLS take from the states? I haven't invested the time to research this.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Immigration deals with foreigners. Customs deals with citizens.

    Immigration has it's own court system and is not be bound to all the rights granted to citizens. And now in customs cases you can be held without your Constitutional rights being granted. [That's the short answer. It's not exactly that way, all the time, but there are many circumstances where it is that way.]

    The acronym for the Department of Homeland Security is DHS. [Created by the Homeland Security Act] It resembles agencies like the SS and KGB. It passes regulations, that if broken are felonies. You may never know you've broken them until they serve you, because many of the regulations are 'need to know'. In the Act, it is granted rights, prohibited the Federal Government in the constitution.

    The DHS and ICE are, both, "super" agencies. With powers that far exceed the checks and balances on those powers.

    Now, I AM NOT saying agents of ICE or the DHS are bad people, in fact I think that most are exemplary. The power held in these agencies is much greater than is safely held by the Federal Government according to its founding document.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Trad

    You can't fix the problem because of the 7% rule.
    Mexicans may only get 7% of all visas and their wait is not longer than the Philipinnes.

    The bad economy is doing a better job of enforcing the laws than DHS.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Tragedy101:

    I will have to look into it more. I am not a fan of overpowered gov. agencies, especially if they make their own law. This is likely an "urgent" response to the fears of 9/11. The thing is, we expect better from our gov., the Bush admin had time to followup with agencies that have checks and balances.

    I also agree that the rank and file of those dept.s are likely good folks, glad you made the distinction. The thing is, we can't count on good folks opperating in a bad systems to best protect our liberty.

    beakerkin:

    I see the immigration problem as bigger than mexicans crossing the border. I am more concerned with how many people enter on limited visas and just stay, than long waits for visas.

    A simpler, more efficient system would help all issues. I do not suggest we over simplify things, but we have to be able to do better than this.

    Step one is to ignore all the whining PC protesters while designing a system that is fair and keeps the interest of our citizens as the highest priotity, not the plight of citizens of other countries.

    I am reading about thousands of Haitian immigrants that have been brought here after the earthquake...this makes me concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I did read the post, but instead of commenting in my typical (bothersome) manner, I'd like to ask you a question...

    I noticed that you and Einar are both members of this blog. How do I invite members onto my blog? How does it all work?

    However, I might include a relevant question as well: where in the Constitution does it mention immigration and securing the borders? I thought that this was an inherent power rather than a constitutional one. I'm not challenging you, I'm just checking.

    Good post!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Christopher!

    I can't remember how I invited Einar, it was a while back, just dig around in your blog settings.

    This answer is off the cuff, I haven't read the constitution this morning. Immigration and securing our borders would definitely fall under a national defense and, to some extent, agreements with other nations.

    Even if securing our border were not directly mentioned in the Constitution, it makes sense for at least two reasons.

    Our citizens are burdened with as unreasonable tax rate (and system) to support a bloated government that provides services not even hinted at in the Constitution (welfare, social security, WIC, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, industry regulation, subsidies, bailouts, etc.) Allowing a porous border means that many could enter our country and take advantage of many of the benefits provided by our government (at tax payer expense). In short the get something (if not everything) for nothing.

    The second reason for the Fed to secure the borders is that an enemy could send combatants in to harass and attack us with ease.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Okay, thanks. I'll do some digging around.

    And good answer, by the way.

    ReplyDelete