SEARCH BLOG: IMMIGRATION
This blog excerpt confuses "liberty" with ignoring the law of the land:
Conservatives claim to endorse family values. Why, then, do so many conservatives tolerate or endorse immoral immigration laws that split up families over minor technical infractions? [read more]Many bank robbers feel the same way. Well, they need the money and it is immoral for the wealthy banks to keep it locked up when the need for that money is so great. How can a nation that values liberty and freedom cause such hardship from immoral laws that split up families due to minor infractions like taking some paper from a fat-cat's storage room?
Apparently, it is immoral to restrict entry into the U.S. from people who want to be here. Besides, all of that cheap labor is going to waste in Mexico and Central America. Our problems stem, not from 20 million illegals, but because we have a system that makes them illegal.
All we need to do is make legal the activities that are presently illegal and all of the crime goes away [here the prohibition argument comes roaring to the fore]. Legalize all drugs and crime goes away. A compelling argument for mass abortion: if no babies are born, the infant death rate plummets. How many more people have to come from Mexico before the problems associated with them disappear? Or do we have to legalize all drugs from Mexico. How about all violent gang activities... as long as they are from legalized Mexicans? Do the problems disappear if we say "all is forgiven?"
It works... as long as one does not consider carefully the ancillary changes that take place. Millions of unskilled, under-educated, people who require a wholly separate set of social support mechanisms in their own language [at the expense of the communities which they have invaded illegally].
The wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many. - Mr. Spock on a bad day.My response was essentially, "If you don't like the present immigration laws [and many don't... but not in the same way you don't like them], then convince enough people and their representatives in Congress to eliminate those laws. But if more citizens believe those laws should not only be enforced, but strengthened, you as a citizen are obligated to accept those laws. Even the other NAFTA countries do not accept massive influx of workers into their economies. Perhaps that is because a certain amount of order is necessary for any society to survive.
Liberty and freedom are not the same as lawlessness and anarchy. In fact, they are quite the opposite.
The author of the article refused to accept my comments opposing his viewpoints [apparently, he doesn't believe in freedom of speech either... supposing an argument against his position is a personal affront], but he is welcome to comment here.
Timothy Charles Brown, a Hoover research fellow who believes illegal workers can positively benefit American business, calls for regulation of illegal workers. “We need a holistic approach that looks at illegal immigration not as a political problem but as a business opportunity,” Brown explains. “By transforming illegal immigration from a large-scale, off-the-books, black-market operation into a revenue-producing program that manages the movement of workers in and out of the U.S. economy, we could maximize its benefits to all four major stakeholders—the workers, their employers, the countries the workers come from, and the American taxpayers.”
Conversely, Victor Davis Hanson, the Hoover Institution’s Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow, argues, “by closing the borders, the U.S. would stop subsidizing Mexican failure.” Hanson states Mexico must rid itself of the corruption, elitism, and cronyism that has continued to stagnate its economy and forces its citizens to cross the border in search of opportunity. The solution to ending illegal immigration, Hanson believes, lies in the hope that someday, “Tijuana might become as prosperous as San Diego.” The goal of the United States, Hanson explains, should be to help Mexico by providing the “tough love” it needs. According to Hanson, closing borders, but also offering favorable trade incentives, will spur Mexican citizens to seek employment at home and demand more from their own government.So, is illegal immigration just a "business opportunity" or are we simply "subsidizing Mexican failure?" Or is it an uncontrolled social disruption that could create [more] massive problems for the United States?
The answer is far simpler than reforming immigration laws. The answer is to annex Mexico as the 51st state and let the Obama administration "fix" it. That will keep the Obama administration busy so it can't continue to screw up the 50 states on which they have been focusing. Call it a win-win. Oh, and of course the new "State of Mexico" will have to provide bi-lingual services for all of the non-Spanish speaking citizens who come in from the other 50 states.
What could possibly go wrong?
For those who argue there are great economic advantages in two official [or an additional unofficial language] CLICK HERE.
- Why do we have immigration laws?
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Canada Immigration
- Mexican Immigration Law [or why not a Quid Pro Quo?}