Watching the local and national news plus
keeping an eye on the California recall election I am puzzled by
the way most of the media tiptoes around the subject of illegal
immigration. It seems that both the Republicans and Democrats
are afraid to even suggest that the United States government
enforce our own laws for fear that the Hispanic electorate will
be unhappy. Why is this so? Do the Hispanic citizens of the
United States oppose the rule of law? Will the Hispanic voter
punish the politician who believes that the United States has
the right to keep its borders secure? I think someone needs to
get all this out on the table and shine a light so that we can
understand what is being said here.
As a citizen of the United States should I be
allowed to assume some level of rights and privilege not
afforded to non-citizens? Are the rights of national sovereignty
to be ignored for every country or just this one? If I went to
Mexico illegally and started demanding goods and services, would
Mexican citizens join in protesting for my rights, or would the
government down there simply put me in jail?
In California, the Democrat governor, it has
been widely reported, in an attempt to keep his job, has signed
legislation to issue valid driver's licenses to illegal aliens.
There is also a Federal "motor voter" program that automatically
registers people to vote when they apply for an automobile
registration and drivers license. I understand that no proof of
citizenship is required other than checking a box on the voter
registration form and the workers are not allowed to question
the applicant about nationality. What could be the purpose of
this if not an attempt to create a class of non-citizen voters?
Another thing that concerns me is the halo of
political correctness surrounding this issue. There is a rather
obtuse set of unwritten rules that seek to deny my participation
in discussions where members of official hypersensitive groups
may be offended. It seems that as a citizen I am not afforded
freedom of speech if a non-citizen is unhappy that I point out
that they are here illegally. So we change the word illegal to
undocumented as if the only problem with their entry into our
country is paperwork related. It is as if they were down at the
US Embassy filling out the paperwork and it got late in the day
so they had to hurry and catch the bus to El Paso. Bureaucratic
snafu.
There is a tendency on the part of people who
hate the idea of US sovereignty to immediately resort to
character assassination whenever anyone has the audacity to
suggest the United States should enforce our laws. I am certain
that before this day is over someone someplace will declare me a
racist because I think we should halt illegal immigration. I
guess I must have a case of very selective racism since I have
no problem with legal immigrants or various minority groups who
were born here.
If I was suggesting that everyone with a last
name that ended in a vowel sound be deported regardless of their
citizenship status, then I suppose the racist label would be
aptly applied. As it is, I only want the illegal immigration
halted, the illegal aliens already here deported, businesses
that hire illegal aliens fined heavily and some definition and
assurance that there are privileges associated with citizenship
that aren't afforded to anyone who can manage to avoid the INS.
Why is this a problem? It seems perfectly
reasonable to me. Of course, I'm not running for public office
and have no reason to put my career advancement over the good of
the country. I think the argument that we are a nation of
immigrants is getting a little stale. There was a time when we
were a nation of slave owners and I see no rush to continue that
tradition. At some level of population, the definition of 'more
is better' reaches a point of diminishing returns, especially if
those entering the country are net consumers of public services
instead of net providers of tax revenues.