This is a good example of the inherent difficulties of a 1933 mile border with Mexico and a 3987 mile border with Canada. I suppose Im a rarity, an immigration hard-ass on the Democratic side of the political border. Ive always believed - and stilll believe - that a countrys sovereignty begins at its borders, that a country which fails to control its borders will eventually fail as a sovereign state. A countrys soul lies in its citizenry. Citizenship requirements are the first and most basic expression of that soul. One would hope that a countrys citizenship requirements would be humane and tolerant, but such things are also a political expression of a peculiarly current nature. As times and political will change, those requirements will amend, repair, evolve. Some will rejoice and others might despair, but it is a matter of National political will and requires observance in the same way all laws require observance. Unless there is something in the definition that violates ones ethical sense - and the US requirements are straightforward and reasonable, it seems to me - everyone without exception must respect the law, and those who dont are subject to coercive enforcement of those laws, as it would be with any other offense. Many of us want a change in immigration policy. I, for one, would like a hugely more inviting policy in which any who are not felons nor pose a threat to our National security are allowed entry and the possibility of citizenship. I would argue strongly thats the best policy for a country whose best expression has always been dusted with an Ellis Island patina. I compare our current situation to the Israeli organized settlement program which creates facts on the ground that become a tactical lever in future negotiations. Im bitterly opposed to that policy in Israel, which I think disastrous and disingenuous. Im equally appalled at the notion of 10,000,000 illegals rumbling in, though good folk many of them may be, here because commerce and personal agendas blink a wallet-fattening eye to gain willing workforces (or maybe not so willing) at numbingly low cost. I could care less (and I mean this literally) that many are fleeing nightmares we now-first-world countries have evolved away from. The only way to admit all these folk is via a change in our immigration policy (which I hugely support), but until I can along with others bring a majority with us to change that policy, we are all required to respect current guidelines and laws. I would point out to those who cluck disapprovingly at attempts to enforce the law that many of us have been screaming the government hasnt properly enforced the laws relative to financial interests. Im one of those, too. If thats our stance, how is it we scream for enforcement over here and non-enforcement over there? That sort of hypocrisy has always curdled my bloood. We shriek for a more even-handed enforcement of all laws, and we should. We should be foes of haphazard and selective enforcement, but the solution cant be one which says OK. Lemme see. You guys get to give to the bird to these regs and laws over here, and I get to shove that law over there where the sun dont shine. :: warbling :: Entitlement!! What is it good for?? Uhhhhhh EVERYONE!!! :: sotto voce Yeayyyys all over the place ::
Posted on: Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:43:14 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015