Immigration Control
Hello and welcome. The purpose of "Immigration Control" is to offer an opportunity for lively discussion on the subject of immigration. Various areas on the subject will be posted and you will be able to reply, pro or con. Please, no foul language or flaming other posters. If you have an article you've written or found elsewhere you want posted please email it to: mvl270@yahoo.com Immigration Control is a production of Moe Lauzier's Issues of the Day.Monday, April 24, 2006
I found this on Uncommon Sense, the CitizenOutreachBlog.cm
No More Amnesty; Build a Fence By John Dendahl
A Robert Frost poem celebrates a fine New England tradition with the now-famous “Good fences make good neighbors.”
The United States needs a good fence.
The Simpson-Mazzoli Act signed by President Reagan in 1986 set up an amnesty under which about three million illegal aliens — three-fourths Mexican and most of the rest Nicaraguan — reportedly “emerged from the shadows” and claimed legal permanent resident status.
“Stiff” sanctions in the act against future employment of illegals and other “reforms” would make this a panacea, the be-all-and-end-all. Only this once, mind you, and our problem will be solved!
Sure. Just four years later, Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., again working on immigration reform, said, “Uncontrolled immigration is one of the greatest threats to the future of this country.”
Indeed it was. And remains so.
Years ago, I argued that the United States should not and would not use a physical barrier and/or military force to prevent illegal entry. Instead, I claimed, we should help particularly Mexico improve its economy, thereby eliminating most of the pressure forcing its citizens into Gringolandia. I was wrong.
To his credit, President Clinton braved withering political fire from his union leader friends and got the North American Free Trade Agreement ratified. Whether or not NAFTA and other efforts have improved Mexico’s economy, the pool of illegals in the United States today, and the daily flow feeding it, dwarf what existed in 1986.
Is the United States prepared to defend its sovereignty against this quiet, pernicious invasion? The U.S. House of Representatives has answered in the affirmative. The U.S. Senate has no answer, which is tantamount to “nay.”
A newspaper editorial published recently illustrated the lack of resolve so evident in addressing this crucial issue. It said, “Republicans can bellow all they want about rule of law, but we’re more than a nation of laws; we’re also a nation of outlaws — from (Thomas) Jefferson and (Thomas) Paine through the Whiskey Rebellion and on to the civil disobedience it took to put us on the road to civil rights still unattained by too many.”
Come again? The Whiskey Rebellion is irrelevant. The Toms invoked there are known most especially for their leadership in efforts leading to overthrowing by force a colonial government prominent in pre-U.S. history, that of the King of England. Forcible overthrow of our contemporary government is a clear objective of some, but surely not of my friend who wrote that editorial.
The civil disobedience involved attainment of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution but denied nonetheless to particular citizens on account of the color of their skin.
In fact, the ‘60s Freedom Rides which were a part of that have recently (circa 2003) been fraudulently emulated on behalf of noncitizens whose presence in our country, furthermore, is illegal. And that was nothing compared with this month’s organized marches and rallies flaunting illegality and demanding “rights.”
This latest outrage may have done us a great favor. Thomas Sowell wrote, “These marches revealed the ugly truth behind the fog of pious words and clever political spin from the media and from both Democrats and Republicans in Washington.”
Washington is rife with talk of another amnesty, of course under the cover of other terms like “guest worker.” I invoke Missouri’s slogan, “Show me.” Don’t talk to me about another chapter in legalizing the illegal until our national government shows its determination to exercise sovereignty with secure borders.
Military action remains an option, but a truly nasty one. Forced repatriation following periodic workplace roundups, possibly including stiff criminal enforcement against employers, remains another. Still pretty nasty.
A good fence would be more humane than either.
Archives
April 2006 May 2006 May 2007 June 2007 September 2007 October 2007
