The border is a mess. Im not sure that even the most dedicated Progressive nor a fan of La Raza can deny this any more. We have a crisis on our hands. The idea of tens of thousands of Central American kids, flooding across our Southern border – and what to do about them – makes this issue very, very real. In many ways, the USA has brought this problem upon itself, in that our border hasnt been secure in...well, forever. As much as my fellow Conservatives would like to make this all Obamas fault, an honest look at the problem means admitting that Bush didnt do much of anything to make it better. So if we can for (just this once) STOP with the blamestorming, what are we to do about this? Step ONE: Define the problem. As I see it, we have two, distinct problems here. A: our border is NOT secure. B: what do we do about the illegals that have already made it into our country? To answer part A of the problem, its pretty bleedin obvious: seal the border. Now that does NOT mean we stop all immigration. It means we stop all ILLEGAL immigration. Good fences mean good neighbors and all that. No matter if its a fence or the National Guard lined up, elbow to elbow, its way past time to stop anybody who wants to from walking into our country. Theres no logical way to defend any other response. Stop. Illegal. Entry. Period. Doing so will take the resolve of the government, and a coordinated effort. And Im afraid as long as people like Obama and Pelosi believe that illegal immigration is just fine with them, were never going to stop the flood of illegals coming in. As to part about what to do with those already here, thats...tricky. If youve heard of the whole Cloward/Piven Strategy thing, the goal there is to overwhelm the government, in order to effect a rapid and dramatic change. In other words, if you overwhelm social services to the point where there is a complete breakdown (so the theory goes) youll have We the People clamoring for the Feds to Do Something!™, giving them carte blanche to impose Socialism on the nation. If you agree that there are far too many poor people born and raised here (there are) and if you agree that we simply dont have the money, manpower, and programs to care for every one of them to the point where we can honestly say we have saved them from lives of abject poverty (ditto), then how in the world can we claim that allowing tens of thousands of government dependents to enter illegality EACH MONTH is a good idea? And theres the rub. Because a vast majority of these illegals are children – and a large proportion of them are unaccompanied minors with some serious health problems – social services and the public health system are quickly being overwhelmed. Stop for a moment. Lets examine the humanitarian issue, because thats where the rubber meets the road. Im a big fan of Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism, or rational self-interest. Its not a perfect philosophy. But it IS logical. And reasonable. Rand uses an example thusly: What if you were driving along a highway and saw a car wreck. The driver was trapped in a car, and would die without help Your help. Do you attempt to save them? Most people would answer Of course! But what if you have a wife and a couple of kids, and attempting a rescue would mean that youd be putting your own life at risk, and if you were to die in the attempt, your own family would end up on the street, impoverished and abandoned? If youre like me, youd have to weigh the odds on a per-case basis. Maybe youd help. Maybe you wouldnt. Youd have to think about it though, because rational self-interest says protect your own family first, helping when you can do so without risking THEIR lives, too. Thats where we are here. If the USA is a family, weve got a lot of our own relatives (the poor) in trouble. Should we ignore them to help the illegals first? I think not. Doing so puts us on the horns of a humanitarian dilemma. I think there IS a solution, though. And it comes with a rather ironic name. Faith-based Organizations. Yep. I think most churches, synagogues, and the like would be happy to help (many are already doing so), with contributions and aid. That is an appropriate use of their funds and manpower. It is NOT appropriate for the government to do the same thing, because that implies that there is no down-side to breaking the law. What the government should be doing is stopping illegals at the border. Not feeding, clothing, and housing them. The government should also immediately STOP any and all foreign aid to countries who are allowing, condoning, aiding and abetting illegals traveling here. If El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala want to ship us their tired, their poor, and their huddled masses, and Mexico wants to help them in that, the can bloody well do without our foreign aid (which is SUPPOSED to be the money we spend to help them with that problem, is it not)? Heres one more question: in the past, if someone was fleeing oppression, crime, or whatever, in their native land, they would go to the U.S. Embassy in their country and ask for asylum. If granted, theyd be whisked away to the USA, via a comfy jet, and welcomed with open arms. We have embassies in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Whats stopping these kids from going there? Seems like a damn sight safer way to get here than riding atop a freight train, if you ask me. Make no mistake – the reason these kids are doing what they are doing, the way they are doing it, is that someone is telling them this is the way to do it. Nobody hops on board a train car roof because they want to. Theyre willing to risk death to get here. I get it. But who put this idea in their heads? And whos facilitating this whole thing? And, sadly, the answer to that IS a partisan one. Obama, pal...you OWN this one. And its within your power to fix it. Step one is to close the border. Step two is to let Central America know that the welcome sign is no longer on. Do that, and we can talk about step three.
Posted on: Sun, 13 Jul 2014 14:15:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015