Illegal Aliens – The Serious Problem
Deborah Venable
April 10, 2006
The
illegal alien problem is not going to go away no matter how much our elected
servants would like to bury it under a pile of feel good, useless legislation
so that they can get back to the really important stuff – like campaigning for
votes to stay in “power.” They really
don’t know what else to do about it I guess.
It never occurs to them to listen to their constituents I must suppose,
or they would see that eighty-one percent of the respondents to one poll think it is unfair to give any rights to
illegal aliens. (Even though the rest
of the poll questions in this poll point to some convoluted conclusions.) This seemed pretty representative to me, so
I didn’t collect the data of any of the other gazillions of recent polls on the
subject. I say that because I have been
alive long enough to remember several other times when this subject has come up
before, and never have I heard the amount of indignation coming from American
citizens that I hear now.
So, I started thinking about it pretty hard, did a little research, and came up with a conclusion that may surprise some folks: This is a very serious problem.
Let’s
start here – with a partial transcript of two Republican
senators talking with Tony Snow of the Fox News Network. Senator Jon Kyl, Republican from Arizona,
and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, establish that they
are good friends, blah, blah, blah and that they are taking the matter
seriously.
Kyl: “Well, I've always had reservations about
making illegal immigrants citizens.”
Graham: “We've got 11 million people here. We're not going to put them all in jail. We're not going to make them felons. And we're not going to be able to deport them, but we can have reasonable punishment.”
These guys go on to say that Democrats are blocking the voting on various proposals and that is the BIG problem at this point. You are welcome to read the whole exchange and see if you get a different take on it. Kyl’s comments were not as lengthy – probably because he opposes the compromise deal and Graham is trying to sell it.
Now
let’s take a look at a debate, if you can call it that, between two other
conservative thinkers. This is from a
column that recently appeared on FrontPage Magazine. I’ll give you the link to that column in just a minute and I
would advise that you read it, even though it is quite long. Here we have Janet Levy spitting out a
stream of questions a mile long, (everything you always wondered about the
illegal alien issue . . .), and then laying down some facts according to census
data that makes you wonder how they KNOW all this stuff. Next she introduces Tamar Jacoby and her
“extensive” credentials.
Tamar starts out this way:
“There’s kind of a
nasty rumor going around in Washington that the Democrats are, whatever this
gesture is, enjoying themselves and waiting to watch this spring as Republicans
tear themselves to pieces over immigration in the Senate. Now, I’ve never
actually heard a Democrat say that. I don’t think any or many of them think it
and I actually don’t think it will happen.”
She talks for quite awhile on what is in America’s/the United
States’ best interest and rolls all that in a little “flour” of security and
cooks it up in the “oil” of law. What
she ends up with is a tasty little cake flavored mainly with party politics:
“I just don’t really see us as wanting to be the party that is partly responsible for ending the nation’s tradition as a nation of immigrants.”
Don’t you just love it????
Mmm-mmm GOOD!
Janet Levy
introduces Doug McIntyre next and his credentials, while impressive, would not
stand up to Ms. Jacoby’s in a battle for academia or congressional “approval,”
but then, why would they? He has his
finger on the pulse of normal American citizens after all. Doug starts out with this quote:
“In the last several years, millions of undocumented aliens have illegally immigrated to the United States. They’ve breached our nation’s immigration laws, displaced many American citizens from jobs, and placed an increased financial burden on many state and local governments.”
“Who said that?”
you might ask. None other than – well,
this is how Doug put it:
“That quote was given on August 4, 1977. The author of that quote was President James Earl Carter in his message to Congress on illegal immigration.”
He continues to
make point after point about the appalling effect that the illegal alien
problem has had on the Los Angeles area specifically. He goes on to talk about the enemies of the sovereignty of
America, and then he pins the problem down this way:
“But, at the federal level, at the state level, the real problem is the corporatists who have tragically infested and taken over our party. You see, for the corporatists, it’s not a conspiracy—its’ a business model.”
Then he gets down
to the real nitty-gritty:
“It’s not an accident that the chief lobbyists for an open border policy in this country are Wells Fargo Bank, Citicorp, Citigroup, Bank of America, the Hotel and Tourism Industry, the meat-packing industry, the poultry industry and on and on the list goes.”
And why? You
might ask. Well, I think Doug has this
exactly right:
“But what we see right now is a business model that makes America reduced from a nation to a market. That’s how they see us—just one market amongst many.”
He brings logic and common sense to his argument and ends with
the thought that reflects what is on many an American mind these days:
“Let me end by saying this. America is important
to the world. America is a blessing to the world. America makes mistakes.
America tries to correct its mistakes. America is not passé. America is not a
market. Thank you.”
You
may go here to read the article in its entirety.
My old pal, Geoff Metcalf, had this to say about our elected servants in an article he wrote recently:
“We have all heard the bromide, "if
you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance…baffle ‘em with b.s.!" THAT is
essentially what Congress (literally and figuratively the antithesis of
Progress) is doing on the immigration issue.”
You can find his article here. Geoff does have a way with words and gets
right to the point here:
“Both partisan factions are trying (and failing) to craft a
compromise that will appease mutually exclusive agendas…and THAT dog ain’t
gonna hunt.”
Moving right along, we find this cute little statement:
“Throughout the dramatic highs and lows of the Senate's immigration
debate, one thing has rung true; no matter which side of the debate you are on,
you are in bad company.
Anti-immigrant groups
that claim to be the voice of the American working class are being joined, to
their dismay, by white supremacists and militant nativists calling for
violence. Meanwhile, pro-immigrant Latino civil rights organizations like the
National Council of La Raza are reluctantly standing next to big business lobby
groups. As Cecilia Muñoz, vice president for policy at La Raza, said this week:
"Civil rights and business are together -- and we're not often
allies."
End Quote.
You
can read this somewhat liberal take on the problem in the whole article here.
J.J.
Johnson has a good article on Sierra Times, in which he states:
“The outrage is not
over a hatred of Mexico or her people, but knowing our history in that waving
of a flag of your nation through the streets of a country not your own, without
fear of reprisal, is not done as a symbol of protest…
…but as a symbol of
victory over the conquered.”
Boy, does he have that right! He also had this to say:
“Those
civilian volunteers that stand watch on our borders at the time of this writing
represent what is left of the once great nation called America. They will be
mocked of course, as our society has long since accepted that any concept of
protecting this nations' heritage, culture or historical roots (or in this
case, even its borders) is seen as extremist, bigoted, xenophobic… you fill in
the blank. Over the years, our educational institutions produce just enough
self-hating white people to insure that voices of dissent over policy must be
tempered ('civil debate' as we were told) to ensure that that only the American
Majority may be insulted.”
As we round the corner on this illegal alien problem, let’s take
a look at another noteworthy article.
An Op Ed by Deborah Simmons in the Washington Times, the Creed Of Americans states the case against our current lawmakers
in the senate very succinctly:
“With last week's debacle on immigration
reform, the character of the U.S. Senate, to paraphrase Frederick Douglass,
never looked blacker. The exclusive Club of 100 misled not only the American
people, but the very immigrants who, having legally entered the country, hope
to become Americans.”
So,
then I started thinking, what would our Founding Fathers have to say about this
problem? Could I find any answers, any
clues that they had thought the potential problem through as they were
sculpting the laws of the land? And
what did they really use as their guide to accomplish in that primitive
meetinghouse of yesteryear what our present legislators can’t seem to
accomplish as easily now? Meaningful
consensus for the good of America.
This
is an excerpt found at this site:
“Constitutional Convention: June 28, 1787,
Thursday, was embroiled in a bitter debate over how each state was to be
represented in the new government. The hostile feelings created by the smaller
states being pitted against the larger states was so bitter that some delegates
actually left the Convention. Benjamin Franklin, being the President (Governor)
of Pennsylvania, hosted the rest of the 55 delegates attending the Convention.
Being the senior member of the convention, at 81 years of age, he commanded the
respect of all present, and, as recorded on James Madison's detailed records,
he arose to address the Congress in this moment of crisis:
"Mr.
President, the small progress we have made after four or five weeks
close attendance & continual reasoning's with each other - our
different sentiments on almost every question, several of the last producing as
many noes as ayes, is methinks a melancholy proof of the imperfection of the
Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom,
since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient
history for models of government, and examined the different forms of those
Republics, which, having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution,
now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all around Europe, but
find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstance.
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as
it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it
when presented to us, how has it
happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the
Father of lights to illuminate our understanding?
In the beginning of the Contest with Great
Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine protection - Our
prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were
engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a
superintending providence in our favor.
To that kind providence we owe this happy
opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future
national felicity. And have we now
forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need His
Assistance?
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I
live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the
ground without His notice, is
it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?
We
have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord
build the house, they labor in vain that build it." (Psalm 127:1) I firmly
believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall
succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We
shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be
confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to
future ages. And what is worse, mankind
may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing
Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.
I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth
prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our
deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to
business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to
officiate in that service."
Jonathan
Dayton, delegate from New Jersey, reported the reaction of Congress to Dr.
Franklin's rebuke: "The Doctor sat down; and never did I
behold a countenance at once so dignified as was that of Washington at the
close of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less
affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight
and authority, even greater than we may suppose an oracle to have had in a
Roman senate." And: "We
assembled again; and...every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit
of conciliation had been cultivated." (America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations
by William J. Federer pp.
150-152)”
Well,
we can certainly rule out THAT solution as a possibility for our present day
politicians, huh? That is another whole
ball of wax right there – even if some of us realize that may be the only
answer. Judging from an overwhelming amount
of negative email I received during my absence about this
page
on my own website, there are an awful lot of folks out there who are totally
uncomfortable with giving any credit to God for the founding of America. (I recently posted an answer to those folks
at the beginning of the Forsaken Roots page linked above.)
The
site from which I pulled the Franklin excerpt makes the case and casts it in
concrete that indeed our founders DID wrestle with many problems applicable to
the illegal alien problem today, including the influence of Christian values on
government. It deserves a read. A link from that page will take you here where you will find many “official” links to
continue your research on this very serious problem.
Okay, I know that I’ve given you a lot to consider here, but I’m not quite done yet. There is more to this problem than meets the eye – no, really! There is one more little piece that fits in this whole puzzle.
Why
are our government servants, much of academia, and many liberal minds
supposedly unable to grasp the problem by the neck and strangle out the
solution? All of the above information
provides the building blocks to understand the illegal alien problem in its
entirety, but the solution seems to be just beyond our grasp if we consider the
big picture. What is the common
denominator?
We have the pulse of the American people screaming for a solution to the open borders, the security issues, the overwhelming burden on taxpayers, the criminal issues, the convoluted economic concerns, our very sovereignty, and the very soul of the good and descent American people versus the invaders, who have seemingly conquered our spirit to fight back. Our government servants, from the president on down, are involved in a dangerous balancing act – trying to insure their parties’ credibility and their own political futures while appeasing everybody involved. That’s a tall order, and not one our elected servants should be filling it. If they could learn from history, they needn’t look any further back than
"Restricted immigration is not an offensive but purely a defensive action. It is not adopted in criticism of others in the slightest degree, but solely for the purpose of protecting ourselves. We cast no aspersions on any race or creed, but we must remember that every object of our institutions of society and government will fail unless America be kept American. American institutions rest solely on good citizenship. They were created by people who had a background of self-government. New arrivals should be limited to our capacity to absorb them into the ranks of good citizenship. America must be kept American. For this purpose, it is necessary to continue a policy of restricted immigration. It would lie well to make such immigration of a selective nature with some inspection at the source, and based either on a prior census or upon the record of naturalization. Either method would insure the admission of those with the largest capacity and best intention of becoming citizens. I am convinced that our present economic and social conditions warrant a limitation of those to be admitted. We should find additional safety in a law requiring the immediate registration of all aliens. Those who do not want to be partakers of the American spirit ought not to settle in America."
Roger Baldwin, stated:
"We
are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state
itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM
is the goal." (Source: Trial and Error, by George Grant)
“Following are some of
the stated goals of the ACLU, from its own published Policy Issues:
the legalization of
prostitution (Policy 211);
the defense of all
pornography, including CHILD PORN, as "free speech" (Policy 4);
the decriminalization
and legalization of all drugs (Policy 210);
the promotion of
homosexuality (Policy 264);
the opposition of
rating of music and movies (Policy 18);
opposition against
parental consent of minors seeking abortion (Policy 262);
opposition of informed
consent preceding abortion procedures (Policy 263);
opposition of spousal
consent preceding abortion (Policy 262);
opposition of parental
choice in children's education (Policy 80)
-- not to mention the
defense and promotion of euthanasia, polygamy, government control of church
institutions, gun control, tax-funded abortion, birth limitation, etc.
(Policies 263, 133, 402, 47, 261, 323, 271, 91, 85).
Following is a case in
point (from David Barton's "America: To Pray or Not to Pray").
In 1988, California was considering adopting legislation on sex education for
public schools requiring that course material and
instruction should stress that monogamous heterosexual intercourse within
marriage is a traditional American value.
The Senator promoting the bill received a letter of protest from the ACLU dated
April 18, 1988 stating:
"It is our position that monogamous,
heterosexual intercourse within marriage
as a traditional American value is an
unconstitutional establishment of religious
doctrine in public schools.... We believe
[this bill] violates the First Amendment."
The
final piece to the puzzle – a very powerful organization that can make all
three branches of government quake and kneel to its beck and call. It has continually chipped away at American
values, American heritage, and America’s good sense. Its policies are rooted not in Christian values, but in the
anchor of socialism and stated Communist Goals. Liberalism is the ship at the end of that anchor. It sailed effortlessly into our ocean of
freedom and proceeded to lace it with mines.
Navigation through those mines is all but impossible, so they must be
removed. That is the solution to this
and so many of our other problems.
While
the politicians are talking about getting the illegal aliens to “come out of
the shadows,” the ACLU assaults the sensibilities of anyone who tries to find
and punish the lawbreakers. The cancer
of socialism spreads rapidly among the ignorant masses that have not bothered
to understand the whole problem. It is
massive and it is serious. It is
intertwined with socioeconomic considerations, which cause many to make wrong
assumptions about the results of “removing” the problem. But, remove it we must. No new law or compromise that allows the
illegals to remain here will solve the problem. No plan that invites foreign worker bees to replace that echelon
of our own society will work to secure our freedoms or our economy. Shining the light of truth into those “shadows”
is the only thing that will solve the problem.