I heard what the President had to say.
I heard what some congressional leaders had to say.
I’ve heard what some of you had to say.
Now, let me add my thoughts.
First, I am for deporting any and all illegal immigrants who have broken our immigration laws. These people are not entitled in any way to American citizenship. They are criminals and should be treated as such. But, I understand Bush’s point, and I’m anything but an idealist. The reality is that it would not be socially or economically feasible to deport 12 million people. If we happen to arrest one of them, then yes, send that person back. But it’s an impossible dream to think that we can round up 12 million people and move them home. As a taxpayer, it doesn’t sound like a good idea.
Which brings me to the best part of Bush’s plan. Don’t round up and deport people. Instead, let the problem solve itself. Go after the employers. Dry up the job market. If the jobs go away, so does the motivation to immigrate illegally. That’s how you reduce the number of illegal immigrants. Make it more beneficial to people to immigrate lawfully. That's capitalism. That's the American way.
I strongly disagree with any plan that would provide ‘a path to citizenship’. This is amnesty, Mr President, no matter how you paint it. Once the job market is dried up, these people have the option of returning to their home country and applying for citizenship. That’s how our laws are set up. We should not allow them the privilege of citizenship after they have disobeyed those laws.
A fence? Absolutely. Kudos to the Senate for voting in support of this idea. I would prefer a massive wall, but this is a good start.
Troops? Yes. Again, 6,000 is a good start, but I think more will be needed, at least in the short term until these other policies can take affect.
What I’ve heard so far may not be ideal, but it’s better than what we had. It IS progress towards solving the problem. Maybe our voices are starting to be heard.
1 comment:
"But it’s an impossible dream to think that we can round up 12 million people and move them home. As a taxpayer, it doesn’t sound like a good idea."
Hey! We agree!
"Instead, let the problem solve itself."
And again, we agree!
"Go after the employers. Dry up the job market."
D'oh! We part ways. Not so much that I don't think we ought to go after the employers (I don't have a strong position one way or the other), but rather that this is addressing the "problem" you referred to. Yes, let's let the problem resolve itself - or, worded better, let's deal with the problem, not the symptom.
But the problem is only partially employers here offering jobs to illegals. The bigger problem is the economy in these other countries. To which we've contributed (No, we're not responsible for the state of their economy, but we have contributed significantly to the poor condition of their economies).
As Latin American author Eduardo Galeano has written:
When underdeveloped countries are called "developing" countries, it's a way of saying they are like children -- growing, developing. And it's a lie. They are underdeveloped because more powerful countries are growing at their expense. Third World underdevelopment is a consequence of First World development, and not a stage toward it. That was the main argument of (Galeano's book) "Open Veins." The history of wealth and the history of poverty are closely intertwined.
We ought to own up to our part of these nation's poor economy and, as a matter of personal responsibility, do what we can to set things a-right. (We owe Nicaragua $17 billion, paying that debt would be a big start.) When we've done what we can to address our personal responsibility in these other nations, then we can morally begin to look at what we ought to be doing on THIS side of the border. But as you said, we ought to deal with the root of the problem first.
Post a Comment