Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
Immigration, Our Rights and the Timing
of it All
No doubt about it, the immigration debate hits us on many levels.
If you were one of the two teenage brothers from Montana who were deported to Mexico for being here illegally, your everyday world disappeared—especially since neither of them speaks Spanish.—They grew up in Montana. When
we separate families we have to expect things to get emotional and even unreasonable.
Living in fear can be emotional too, and some people do fear that we—our cities, military bases, water supply, transportation systems—are targets of international terrorists. Expecting the worst and living in fear isn't exactly congruent with good health or well-being. Living in fear is an unreasonable living condition also.
It's an emotional issue, and very complex and demands reason—a plan—not an election-year bill made for election-year sound bites. Do we really expect to have a good plan in a couple of month's time? This has been a sore point for quite a while and needs a closer look. We can't expect the cavalry and a new law to cure it overnight.
De-Fence
If we could build a high-tech fence that could detect people's movements and thus control their movements, why wouldn't we take it to Iraq? We should test it there, right?
Using the Administration's time-tested illogic, let's build it there so we don't have to build it here.
In truth, shouldn't we? Iraqi oil wells we supposed to fund the war there. They haven't. They are consistently attacked. The Administration may have a good idea; they are just applying it in the wrong country. It's kind of like their idea of civil rights—wrong Constitution/country for them.
Put this great fence around the oil wells.
If we did have an effective fence, it might have stopped about half of the 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be in the U.S. The latest estimate is that half of them entered the U.S. legally, with the proper visas, and simply stayed when their visas expired. Still others fly into our airports. Something the does address. Plus we all know that people go under fences too, especially those who are more “illegal” and dangerous to us/US.
When the President spoke about a guest worker program that allowed people to work here for a certain period of time after which they would return to their country, he seemed to assume that they would. That's about a six million people oversight, isn't it? Is this Administration qualified for border patrol?
After we build a fence, how much of our border would be protected? It seems like we are building a fence in our front yard three feet on each side of our mailbox, because the cats usually enter the yard passing by the mailbox and we want to keep the cats out. What about the rest of the yard?
What about the border to the north, the Southern States without a fence, or our oceans to the east and west? People arrive on the Florida coast via boat all the time.
Since troops seem to be the answer to important questions, what's next? Will we call on the Navy to guard the coast? The ROTC to guard the airports? The Boy Scouts to man the dams? That still leaves holes. We inspect very little of the cargo being shipped here. Aren't there other more critical and real security concerns?
The good news is that those hiking across the desert, landing on the Florida coast or flying into our airports aren't carrying weapons. They have to get those here, probably at a gun show.'
The thought of people traveling over the border with no restraint is disturbing. Those of us who live in border regions have all heard of criminals committing crimes and fleeing to Mexico, only to return later. But what country in the world is impenetrable? Would crime stop? Could a fence ever give us a sense of security? That's an inside job. When it comes to “sense” we have to create that ourselves. It doesn't come externally, and little comes from DC.
Look what they just did in DC. If they were really interested in national security, instead of making the national language English (which they just did), shouldn't we just make sure those entering the country speak Spanish? No terrorists spoke Spanish. They spoke English.
Looking closely building a fence will be good for someone. The bill to help seniors pay for medicine helped seniors some, but it really helped the drug companies. The money going to rebuild Iraq helped Iraqis some, but it really helped those getting the contracts. One estimate is that it will cost $1.9 million to build a fence. Somebody gets that and we get a Southern exposure with an eyesore-fence.
More than anything, the fence represents a failure to resolve our problems and does not represent who we say we are. It just doesn't seem to be the way to win over people we ultimately want to cooperate with.
There are other serious problems with the proposed law. When local law enforcement doesn't have to concern itself with the immigration status of people and can just focus on crimes, they can get closer to the community. When people are afraid they may be deported if they talk to the police, it makes law enforcement more difficult. This bill brings the police into immigration enforcement. It does not enhance public safety. It may do the opposite.
In truth we know how to control the border: have the INS consistently raids businesses that hire undocumented workers. When businesses are consistently raided and fined; and undocumented workers are returned to their country of origin, the flow across the border slows.
Right now neither political party can agree on this issue—and they shouldn't. They obviously haven't thought about it yet. Wouldn't building a fence tend to keep immigrants here instead of allowing the flow of seasonal labor?
Raiding businesses causes chaos, but when we do we uphold the law, so why not? It supports those who do obey the law. It makes the footing equal. It's the law. But unfortunately whole industries rely on cheap labor so it would affect whole industries not just some businesses.
On the other hand the world economy is lessening labor's compensation to equal the rest of the Third World. If we keep those businesses that compete in the world market from using cheap labor, don't we just drive more business to the Wal-Mart/Chinese partnership?
It's a little too complex to solve before the election. Health care or lack of a health care system is part of the picture. People with low incomes obviously need more public assistance, while we are cutting pubic assistance programs. Europeans have guest workers and they don't become citizens, but they vote since they live there. There's much to consider. Legislation can have the opposite affect of the intention and like it or not we live in an interactive region. Once again, we need a plan.
So why the hurry? One reason is the election. Immigration is one of those issues that bring out emotional and fearful voters. Thirty million illegals! And I hear that's just in Encinitas. Or the 50 th Congressional District. Heavens.
Another reason? The nomination of CIA Director, Gen. Michael Hayden. Within days of discovering that he designed and is using a warrentless wiretapping program on American citizens, the border problem has deteriorated to the point that we need to call out the National Guard. And the media stopped asking about wiretapping.
Overnight, the President proved to be the great unifier. He united our focus on immigration. With that emotional broom sweeping us into action, however, aren't we missing what should unite us—preserving our Constitutional rights?
It would probably be very easy for them to get warrants to do what they are doing. Since they are not, however, you have to wonder. Doing it their way there is no Judicial—and little Congressional—oversight.
In addition, after watching the media became cheerleaders for the Iraq War instead of investigators/verifiers of the “facts,” do we want the press to be intimidated? The Attorney General is now going after reporters to divulge their sources. He is looking at how to penalize them for not cooperating.
The good news is that it is easy to be informed on the Internet. We can view the European and world media for different perspectives of the world. What is troubling is that there are constant stories about how, in the name of national security, the Internet needs to be restricted and monitored too.
Another good reason to distract us with immigrants deals with Duke-like scandals that are coming out every week, but not explored too deeply. There a lot unsaid in the mainstream media and it's a good time, for some, to have an intimidated press.
It's someone's job to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare.” Are their immigration solutions as just, tranquil, about defense or for the general welfare?
Isn't a letter, postcard or email to our Representatives in order?
Such as, “Preserve and uphold the Constitution, please. You took an oath to do so. We have grounds to remove you if you don't. Think about it.”
It's a democracy—meaning, the parti of participation—why not take a moment and write this month?
Have a great month,
Steve
HOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
