It's
pretty clear that immigration is the new abortion.
With
the latter more or less conceded to conservatives, the left is
fighting tooth and nail for the former. As proven by the government
shutdown, it is equally divisive.
Like
traditional Republicans, Donald Trump has resorted to the party
playbook and is crying the sky is falling over immigration. Yes,
filthy, crime-ridden vermin are streaming across the border like
cockroaches after the light goes out.
Predictably,
his base is kept awake nights by this. Which adds to the Trumpsteria
demanding a brand new border wall.
Please
ignore the facts which show conclusively that the majority of illegal
immigrants currently in the United States overstayed their visas and
didn't clamber over or through a crumbling wall.
But
that doesn't give Don any inflammatory talking points to bellow about
at his validation rallies, does it? Or Fox any blood pressure-raising
video.
Yeah.
On
the other side of the aisle, immigration-centric Democrats believe
the wall is immoral and endorse sanctuary cities, where federal
immigration law mysteriously disappears and illegal immigrants are
protected from deportation despite being, well, illegal.
I'm
not a fan of either approach. As unpopular as it is in twenty-first
century America, clear and sober thought is required.
We
need to stop making illegal immigration a United States versus Mexico
thing. Illegal immigrants come from all over the world. Russia,
China, India, Pakistan, Liberia and Myanmar. For
the geographically-impaired, the United States doesn't share a border
with any of these countries. The entry point for these immigrants is,
um, airports. Seaports. Not our southern border.
All
of which renders Don's new and improved wall as stupid and useless as
the man himself.
Overstaying
your visa is, at the end of the day, illegal. Cloistering yourself in
a sanctuary city should not be an option. Sorry if I skew a bit
Republican here, but I'm not partial to rewarding people who
successfully break the law with citizenship.
Granted,
there are many people who have urgent need of the political asylum
the United States can offer. One
example are the translators who work with our armed forced in places
like Afghanistan and Syria and Iraq. If anyone is in need of
sanctuary, it is them.
Sadly,
there are tens of millions of others. Given the finite resources of
the United States, it is impossible to offer all the world's
deserving candidates protection.
Ideally,
the United States could forever remain the place espoused by the
Statue of Liberty. It would remain into eternity the lamp beside the golden
door, offering shelter to the world's huddled masses yearning to
breathe free.
But
those words were inscribed one-hundred thirty-two years ago. At the
time, America was a growth stock. It was a teenager just beginning
to sense its potential. The future seemed unlimited. There was no
reason for America not to dream big.
All
these years later, so very, very much has changed. The population has
grown nearly six-fold. After a century of almost unbroken
middle-class expansion, the nation is in the throes of a deliberate,
on-purpose contraction.
The
rest of us are holding too much of the wealth that is the
one-percent's birthright, and aided by their strumpets in Congress
and sitting on the Supreme Court, they have set about getting it back.
And
they have been—and continue to be—wildly successful.
To
the point where the United States now enjoys the wealth disparity of
a third-world country. Current figures show that forty-percent of the
United States' wealth is held by just one-percent of its people.
Does
that sound like a democracy to you? Or Idi Amin's Uganda?
Left
unchecked, the jackals setting policy will turn the United States
into an oligarchy with an emphasis on feudalism, presumably making it
less attractive as an immigration destination.
But
until that happens, sensible immigration policy needs to be set.
In
addition to the ideas sketched out above, I'd like to suggest
measured immigration. We accept the refugees suffering unspeakable
horrors in their native countries. We accept limited numbers from the
rest of the world. We eliminate sanctuary cities. We issue visas and
follow up on them.
Yes,
this will require additional staffing in the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services office which will lead, inevitably, to big
government. But if the big businesses and gigantic banks Republicans
endorse are okay, so is big government.
Go big or go home.
Go big or go home.
We
also need to make the security on our southern border more robust.
While not the festering sore Don likes to tell us it is, there is
an undue amount of criminal activity that takes place it would
behoove us to monitor.
By
now you may be looking up from your phone and thinking “What's the
big deal? This isn't any radical new idea.” And you'd be
right. This isn't radical. It merely sands off the extremes on the
left and right.
Where
I get all crazy-ass and unhinged is in suggesting that we implement a
concentrated public awareness campaign about substance abuse.
We
got people to wear seat belts. We got people to stop smoking. We have
cut drunk driving incidents by fifty-percent since 1980. All of this
was accomplished by coordinated media campaigns that crossed federal,
state, county and municipal agencies.
And
even if that didn't work, think of the debate it would generate.
America's
$54,000 question is why can't we keep our population drug-free? Why
are people in what is supposedly the end-all and be-all of human existence ingesting dangerous,
life-threatening substances in record numbers?
There would be another significant benefit: What happens to Mejico
when we stop taking the drugs that are the backbone of its
economy—and its corruption? Does the quality of life get better? Or
worse?
Let's
say it gets better. Then what happens to the tens of thousands of
citizens who want to jump the wall and escape the corruption and
murder which makes Chicago look like a fragrant garden by comparison?
This
is a conversation we really need to have.
But
I'm not holding my breath.
