Thinking Out Loud
1/2/12 at 08:49 PM 0 Comments

Another Way to Look at Illegal Immigration

text size A A A
The U.S.-Mexican border is a complicated combination of natural barriers, fencing, steel and concrete and desert. However, the primary barrier lies in the willingness of the American citizenry as whether to enforce the laws already on record.

Time To Think Outside of the Box!

It is clear that there is a problem with illegal immigration in America. A dilemma so volatile that even many clergymen would rather handle the matter with kid gloves instead of seeking to maintain a standard of law. With unimaginable debt and dwindling resources, America itself has come to a crossroads where one choice is to continue down the road towards total economic collapse and the other a period of austere cutbacks in spending that will radically affect us all for generations to come! As it has been said many times, "before you can start bailing out the water, you must first stop the leak!" meaning before we can effectively begin solving our economic woes, we must start with the obvious.

One of the first mistakes we consistently make is in our failure to control the language. We have allowed the opposition to create the argument, define the terms and then launch the attacks. By the time we begin to respond, we find ourselves on the defensive. We respond with their own terms and definitions without realizing that to a great extent, we have already given them immeasurable credibility. In practically every case, the liberal-left have taken the most accurate and definitive words to describe a conditions or behaviors and used a euphemism to redefine the entire argument. For example, the word "gay" has replaced the term "homosexual," which had previously replaced the term "sodomite." Homophobia has been inserted into the lexicon to create and entire form of psychological disorder to be used against those who refuse to accept that life style.

When it comes to illegal immigration, the pattern of language control is obvious. The term illegal alien has gone through several transformations, from undocumented worker to resident alien and others. It is clear that the problem can be identified and defined without any intentions of referring to ethnicity, class or racial degradation. However, when the liberals have the opportunity, they will do all that is possible to define any opposition as being racist!

In light of the illegal immigration problem, the pro-illegal immigration forces have gained a major foothold and established an impenetrable bulkhead within our own political system as well as within the national mind. Our primary mistake was to allow these forces to present this problem in the form of racial and ethnic strife instead of hegemonistic aggression. On the most part, we see the government of Mexico being very aggressive and complicit in encouraging its citizens to come to the United States, legally or illegally! While being very strict on allowing immigrants to enter the country at its southern border, it is the very opposite at its own southern border! Are these the policies of a good neighbor and ally? It is obvious that Mexico uses the United States as a social and economic "relief valve" for its own system of government. If the Mexican government were responsible to its own people, so many families would not have to be split and separated; neither would they have to come here to work and send tens of billions of dollars home.

It is time for us to "hit the reset button" and redefine the ailment. We respond to their charges of racism while we should be addressing the root causes. Question: why are people from predominantly Latin American countries striving so desperately to get into the United States? If we truly want to address and solve the problem, we must thoroughly investigate the real causations and the effects they have generated.

Another mistake in need of correction has been in our view of the illegal immigration dilemma. Possibly the most evident and compelling argument in our favor is in the fact that we have been treating symptoms stemming from a greater and more hideous cause—the Mexican culture, including its government and political processes are not supportive of a philosophy similar to what we know as the "American Dream." Does the Mexican Constitution provide opportunities for its citizenry the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What about the other nations of the South American continent? Why are so many people, who are supposedly free, live in the worse of conditions? Are we asking the right questions that will lead us to better solutions, or are we imprisoned in a narrow box that forces us to consider only the issues that are given to us by their terms?

In addition, what do we expect of our political system and national government? What can be done to encourage our neighbors to the south to promote personal success and prosperity? Or is it that we have always looked upon our southern neighbors through the lenses of superiority. Are our Latin American neighbors merely sources of cheap labor? Do we want them to be prosperous within the confines of their own native lands? America has extended itself around the globe, toppling dictators and tyrants; defeating its most evil adversaries and then staying amidst the conquered long enough to help them reconstruct and rebuild! Over the years, we have spent trillions of dollars in hostile lands where the people who benefit from our generosity still despise us.

Why can't we, meaning our federal government press for change within Mexico and other countries to the south so that each citizen is able to seek life, liberty and happiness the way we do? We need a national agenda to export true capitalism and freedom in order to protect our own interests. We must encourage governments and support leaders who embrace our own principles to economic prosperity. We should promote policies that help to develop the economies of nations to the extent that their citizens would not have to seek to escape poverty, but be inspired to stay home and enjoy the prosperity of their own country.

Finally, we have forgotten a critical and moral concern not properly addressed by the Hart-Celler Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It was the most moral and comprehensive piece of immigration-related legislation since such laws were first instituted in the United States in 1790 and then modified in subsequent years! The essence of these laws were more determined to restrict if not omit non-whites including blacks, Southern and Eastern Europeans and Asians, while favoring British, German and Irish immigrants. Another effort to control the flow of immigrants limited the annual number who could be admitted from any country to 2% of the number of people from that country who were already living in the United States in 1890, down from the 3% cap set by the law passed in 1921.

One key consideration of the 1965 law was an effort to protect the minority populations in the United States, especially in terms of adversely affecting their status in various ways. Then Senate immigration subcommittee chairman Edward Kennedy (D-MA.) reassured his colleagues and the nation with the following:

"First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same ... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset ... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia ... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think."

Sen. Kennedy concluded by saying,

"The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)

Our current legislators have apparently determined that such delicates matters no longer are worth consideration. An obvious influx of one ethnicity from a certain part of the world will certainly continue to adversely affect the current minority population—especially the African American community! One thing is predictable: the voting power this one group of people have fought and died for will certainly be diluted and dispersed. It is a wonder for why the U.S. Department of Justice has not been interested in launching a study to learn the impact of a free-flowing southern border and subsequent citizenship and voting rights for a large Hispanic population! Why have the black leaders ignored such a challenge that is clearly visible, while hurling ambiguous charges of voter disenfranchisement for requiring a photo ID?

Today, our only solutions (again) are limited if we continue to think inside the limitations. We must either allow those illegal aliens who are currently here stay or close the borders. These are the two primary sides, with secondary conditions attached. Again, they fail to address the problems that cause people to flee from their native lands—addressing the symptoms do not solve the problems. Because of the gross misdiagnosis, America has experienced the massive hemorrhaging along its southern border, with politicians, clergy, intellectuals, advocacy groups, globalists and many others believing that amnesty and immigration reform are the solutions. As with the most recent attempt by Congress to address the illegal immigration problem through the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, treating the symptoms merely set America up for the next wave of illegals! The 1986 revamp of our immigration laws and processes were supposed to have solved the problem, but has only made it worse and has brought us to the dilemma we have before us today!

CP Blogs do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author(s).