- And what should we do about it?
(Click for AUDIO VERSION)
To use this segment in a Radio broadcast or Podcast, send TIM a request.
First, let's state the obvious; there are two interpretations of our immigration problem. On the one hand, there are those who claim we should show compassion and allow the illegals to stay in our country. On the other, there are those families who came to America legally, took classes and tests to learn about the American system and its history, and took an oath denouncing their native countries and pledged allegiance to the United States. This group of people, which includes most Americans, believe in the rule of law and followed the rules for immigration. Interestingly, it is this group which is accused of lacking compassion. Nothing could be further from the truth, they just recognize the proper process to become a citizen, worked hard to become one and rightfully believe they have been spit in the face by illegal immigrants, with the message being, "following the rule of law is for chumps."
Those in favor of allowing illegals to stay will claim opponents are "racist." They are also offended by the expression "illegal immigrants," preferring instead the politically correct terms of "unauthorized immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant." The expression "Anchor babies," denoting children of illegal immigrants born in this country, are also treated as politically incorrect. Such verbiage is a clever subterfuge to misdirect people from thinking of them as "illegal."
So, we have people who want to observe the rule of law and those who want to craft a compromise which, inevitably, is a refutation of our existing immigration laws. As an aside, the concept of "Sanctuary Cities," whereby illegals are offered a safe haven from prosecution, is also an affront to our immigration laws.
The only two politicians who have openly endorsed a "rule of law" approach thus far is Texas Senator Ted Cruz and businessman Donald Trump. In Trump's case, he sites the precedent of "Operation Wetback" under the Eisenhower administration which led to the deportation of a couple million illegal Mexican immigrants in the 1950's. Today, it is estimated there are over 26 million illegals in the country, maybe more, making deportation seem enormous, but the costs involved are pale in comparison to the benefits they receive in this country. To illustrate, a 2010 study found illegal aliens impose more than $113 billion per year in costs on the U.S. government at all levels, and pay only $13.4 billion in taxes, creating an annual net fiscal deficit of almost $100 billion, which has to be paid by U.S. taxpayers.
Again, the "compassionates" claim such a deportation is not right; as President Obama said, "That's not who we are as Americans." Speaker of the House Paul Ryan also appears unwilling to deport illegals. Further, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush said people coming here illegally is an "Act of Love." I am not sure about love, but it certainly isn't legal. However, it appears Cruz and Trump are the only two candidates with the stomachs to make hard decisions. Everyone else wants to dodge the question and handle it like a hot potato.
Whereas America wants a "kinder and gentler" approach to handling illegal immigrants, just about every other country has tougher laws against such people, including our neighbor to the south. Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society. Illegal immigration is a felony there. If you try to enter the country under false pretenses or with false papers, there is a very strong chance you will be imprisoned for up to two years and incur a fine of three to five thousand pesos.
There are two parts to the problem; keeping illegals out, and what to do when we discover them hiding in our country, both of which the United States handles badly. If we truly believe in the rule of law, we must secure our borders. If this means a wall along our southern border, fine. In 2012, the Border Patrol caught 356,000 trying to cross illegally from the south. Obviously this does not include those who allude border agents which may be just as high, if not higher. Common sense would conclude we should use some of the $100 billion we pay out to illegals, to build such a wall, instead of allowing another generation of illegals into our country and doubling the amount of money to care for them.
To add to our problems, President Obama offered to accept thousands of Syrian refugees into our country. This hit a major stumbling block following the Paris attacks when several state governors openly objected to the immigration of what was perceived as a threat to our security. The president claimed it was "un-American" not to take in more Muslim refugees. Perhaps he considers it patriotic to allow entrance to unvetted people with a perceived inclination for terrorism. Or maybe he feels it is more important to care for these people as opposed to the 50,000 homeless American veterans who walk our streets. Somehow I believe we have our priorities wrong; instead of supporting thousands of possible security threats, we should help those who secured our freedom.
The question becomes, can we be compassionate without violating the rule of law? Certainly, but it begins with some form of legal process that identifies the illegal immigrants and checks their background. If they have any problems whatsoever, such as a criminal background, they should either be deported or jailed. A penalty of some kind should also be incurred for illegal immigration, thereby helping to pay for the benefits they have received.
Until they pay their fair share, as everyone else does, they are certainly not entitled to any benefits, nor do they have any special rights such as voting. They should only be allowed near a voting booth when they have become naturalized citizens. This should be obvious.
Whereas the president insists climate change poses an "immediate" threat to national security, I tend to believe it is our policies on immigration that is much more pressing at this time. Not only does illegal immigration provide a pathway for terrorists, but it promotes the proliferation of our drug culture, contributes to our national debt, and places a financial burden on the American taxpayer.
So, what is different between the Eisenhower years of the 1950's and today? Frankly, we've become a generation of wimps afraid to enforce the "rule of law." It appears we only follow it when it is convenient to do so. Our strong sense of political correctness causes us to be overly sensitive to other people, but who are we concerned about upsetting? People who have no regard for our "rule of law" and become parasitic to the bounty this country offers? No, we do not need a more "kinder and gentler" approach. Instead, we need something that is "fair and equitable," as prescribed by law. Therefore, we should either enforce our laws or change them.
When we become more concerned with how we will be perceived on the world stage as opposed to standing on principle, we will always have a serious problem with immigration.
Related articles:
"Securing Our Southwest Border" - Sep 25, 2013
"The Facts About: Immigration" - Aug 29, 2012
"Immigration Reform" - May 10, 2011
Keep the Faith!
Note: All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.
Tim Bryce is a writer and the Managing Director of M&JB Investment Company (M&JB) of Palm Harbor, Florida and has over 30 years of experience in the management consulting field. He can be reached at timb001@phmainstreet.com
For Tim's columns, see: timbryce.com
Like the article? TELL A FRIEND.
Copyright © 2015 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
NEXT UP: MAKE 'EM LAUGH - Come on, take a moment out of your day and laugh.
LAST TIME: THE DICHOTOMY OF OUR DRUG CULTURE - Why are we sending mixed signals to the American public?
Listen to Tim on WJTN-AM (News Talk 1240) "The Town Square" with host John Siggins (Mon, Wed, Fri, 12:30-3:00pm Eastern); WZIG-FM (104.1) in Palm Harbor,FL; and KIT-AM 1280 in Yakima, Washington "The Morning News" with hosts Dave Ettl & Lance Tormey (weekdays. 6:00-9:00am Pacific). Or tune-in to Tim's channel on YouTube.
No comments:
Post a Comment