Almost as predictable as Springtime riots in Paris, it is time again for the semi-annual illegal alien debate.
The debate is being shaped as a matter of racism by those opposed to placing any restrictions on or in any way sanctioning individuals who have entered the United States without fulfilling the properly legislated and clearly defined legal obligations for doing so. Those individuals are by definition and their own willful actions Illegal Aliens. Aliens because they are not native to this country. Illegal because they have chosen to circumvent the laws defining how one may legally enter and remain here. Simple non-judgmental definition of words in the English language. No racism involved at all.
CNN aired comments from a young woman who appeared to be in her late high school or early college years. She wanted everyone to understand that she is not a bad person just because her parents brought her to this country to have a better life. She is totally correct, that does not make her a bad person. She is however in a bad situation, not of her devising but certainly not of the devising of the American taxpayer either. Her parents chose to enter this country illegally and bring with them one or more children who are also illegal. It is not "unfair" to send her to the country of her birth, citizenship, and legal residence any more than it is "fair" for the legal, taxpaying citizens of this nation to have to educate and provide medical attention to her and millions like her. It is the law, plain and simple. Equal protection does not mean equal outcome for all. Sometimes someone is going to get the short end of the stick. That's just the way it happens to be. If one class of citizen is singled out for special consideration just because they can get together a better PR machine to make people feel sorry for them, then there is no equal protection. Those without the special consideration are by definition then being discriminated against.
By the simple happenstance of a shared border and economic reality, the overwhelming majority of those persons in this country illegally are of Hispanic descent. It is not racist to insist that those who have violated the law by improperly entering this country, whether through conscious action or unknowingly through the actions of adults in their lives, should be expelled from this country when that violation is detected any more than it is racist to arrest a person who has committed murder and is Mexican.
The true issue in this debate, and the one most often overlooked is not the illegals per se. The true issue is border security, and whether we have the will politically to secure this nation against all possible sources of infiltration and harm. As much as it was a failure in the 1980's the most recent time we offered one last, final, never-to-be-repeated opportunity for those here illegally to become square with the law, I would welcome another such amnesty immediately for all persons presently upon soil that can be legally defined as part of the United States of America.
I support such an amnesty if, and only if, substantive and meaningful steps are taken to ensure that all our borders are properly secured against penetration. No one should enter or leave this country without being properly identified, accounted for, and certified to be here for an acceptable and legitimate purpose. The Civil Libertarians will get up in arms over that, but consider: isn't that already the criteria for legitimate citizens of this nation attempting to return from abroad? Just try getting past Immigration officers at JFK, or Miami International, or LAX with just your Kansas driver's license, winning smile, and explanation that you accidentally lost your silly little passport somewhere in Morocco while on vacation. Your ride home will run out of gas circling the airport waiting to pick you up.
And that is what this whole ridiculous argument needs to do - run out of gas. No one is demanding we send all the illegals home and keep them and all the other filthy little cockroaches like them where they belong. All anyone wants is to ensure secure national borders, and a population that is accounted for and contributes to the common weal through hard work and a fair share of the tax burden. Paying people a fair wage and making them full partners in the system may well cause produce and certain services to rise in cost, but that will also spread the costs of education, medication, and incarceration across a broader base and lead to a general improvement in the lot of all. And greatly reduce the prospects of terrorist agents crossing into this country while we are busy being politically correct and looking the other way.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
It's Called Democracy, Boys and Girls - No Do-Overs
From the Be Careful What You Wish For department: the Palestinians recently held an election. What could be better? The free exchange of ideas, the will of the people carrying the day and leading to the peaceful transition of government.
Well, it seems no one except the Palestinians like the outcome of the election.
And so the consensus now is to make Hamas a global pariah before they even form a government and assume power. Cut off all funding and humanitarian support until they toe the line and adhere to the terms of their survival as dictated by the world.
In other words, create a situation once again where the Palestinians can do nothing but fail, and then use that failure as justification for punishing them further. This is no different than when Sharon isolated Arafat and removed his capacity to exert any control or authority, made demands of him that could not possibly be met, and then punished him and the Palestinian people for the failure to take action he was incapable of taking because Israel had made it impossible in the first place.
There is another way.
Only the most naive of fools would claim that Hamas is an organization that represents the better impulses of humanity. It is deplorable that as part of their charter they call for the extermination of Israel and refuse to repudiate that objective. There is no question that they have initiated violence against the people of Israel, though there is more than a little room for reasonable debate as to whether that violence has been on all occasions entirely unprovoked. Clearly most of the citizens of the world would not relish the thought of Hamas as a next door neighbor.
The truth though, is that through the political process and not through force of arms, the Palestinian people have spoken and asked that Hamas be the standard bearer for their hopes and aspirations. As a would-be sovereign people, their will should be honored.
Is it reasonable to fear that a Hamas led Palestinian Authority will differ little from the Hamas terrorists we have come to know and abhor? Of course. That should not however preclude them from having the opportunity to lead the Palestinian people forward. Sanctions, suspension of aid, and isolation from the global family of nations are all steps that should be held in reserve to be applied against a Hamas led Palestinian Authority that proves such actions are justified by their own future deeds. They need to be aware that the world is watching, and that if they do not act toward other nations with proper respect and consideration they will receive their justly earned reward. To punish first can only create a bunker mentality and a self fulfilling prophecy of failure. Persecution inevitably leads to the persecuted lashing out in regrettable ways, even when such persecution may well be justified.
It can certainly be hoped that a Hamas led government will comport itself responsibly, with honor and dignity, in a sincere effort to advance the interests of the Palestinian people who elected them. If they do that job well they should be rewarded, by the world at large and by the continued support of their constituency. Should they fail to execute that job effectively, the same people who have just empowered them will kick them to the curb. And if the Palestinian people should prove unequal to the task of controlling their chosen political leaders, then there will be more than ample opportunity for the rest of the world to step in and inflict the justice they seem so eager to dispense now in advance of the crime.
Well, it seems no one except the Palestinians like the outcome of the election.
And so the consensus now is to make Hamas a global pariah before they even form a government and assume power. Cut off all funding and humanitarian support until they toe the line and adhere to the terms of their survival as dictated by the world.
In other words, create a situation once again where the Palestinians can do nothing but fail, and then use that failure as justification for punishing them further. This is no different than when Sharon isolated Arafat and removed his capacity to exert any control or authority, made demands of him that could not possibly be met, and then punished him and the Palestinian people for the failure to take action he was incapable of taking because Israel had made it impossible in the first place.
There is another way.
Only the most naive of fools would claim that Hamas is an organization that represents the better impulses of humanity. It is deplorable that as part of their charter they call for the extermination of Israel and refuse to repudiate that objective. There is no question that they have initiated violence against the people of Israel, though there is more than a little room for reasonable debate as to whether that violence has been on all occasions entirely unprovoked. Clearly most of the citizens of the world would not relish the thought of Hamas as a next door neighbor.
The truth though, is that through the political process and not through force of arms, the Palestinian people have spoken and asked that Hamas be the standard bearer for their hopes and aspirations. As a would-be sovereign people, their will should be honored.
Is it reasonable to fear that a Hamas led Palestinian Authority will differ little from the Hamas terrorists we have come to know and abhor? Of course. That should not however preclude them from having the opportunity to lead the Palestinian people forward. Sanctions, suspension of aid, and isolation from the global family of nations are all steps that should be held in reserve to be applied against a Hamas led Palestinian Authority that proves such actions are justified by their own future deeds. They need to be aware that the world is watching, and that if they do not act toward other nations with proper respect and consideration they will receive their justly earned reward. To punish first can only create a bunker mentality and a self fulfilling prophecy of failure. Persecution inevitably leads to the persecuted lashing out in regrettable ways, even when such persecution may well be justified.
It can certainly be hoped that a Hamas led government will comport itself responsibly, with honor and dignity, in a sincere effort to advance the interests of the Palestinian people who elected them. If they do that job well they should be rewarded, by the world at large and by the continued support of their constituency. Should they fail to execute that job effectively, the same people who have just empowered them will kick them to the curb. And if the Palestinian people should prove unequal to the task of controlling their chosen political leaders, then there will be more than ample opportunity for the rest of the world to step in and inflict the justice they seem so eager to dispense now in advance of the crime.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Jimmy Who?
Watching FOX Sports today for the football - that's another sore subject I WON'T be going into here! - it was difficult to avoid noticing Jimmy Johnson's hair.
Was that a body double?
Did he inflict that horror upon himself?
Did he pay someone to do that to him?
One thing is certain: all those charges of vanity Johnson has endured for years clearly are baseless. At least he has a sense of humor about it, and agrees that he looks like a Chia Pet.
Wow.
Was that a body double?
Did he inflict that horror upon himself?
Did he pay someone to do that to him?
One thing is certain: all those charges of vanity Johnson has endured for years clearly are baseless. At least he has a sense of humor about it, and agrees that he looks like a Chia Pet.
Wow.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Aloha From Kona
It is interesting what my line of work does to people.
I travel primarily throughout the U.S., Canada, and Caribbean on business, mostly on a weekly basis. Many of the small towns are fascinating, and usually far better than the derisive jokes made about small town America. Then again there are those places that no amount of bad press could do proper justice . . .
I was speaking to a colleague prior to this most recent trip. The topic of places we've been came up and she observed "I've only been to Kona and Maui" when talking about spots visited in Hawaii. It didn't hit me then, but after the call was ended I realize just how jaded she - and most of us in the racket - really are. How many Americans can there possibly be out there who will complain they have "only" been to Kona and Maui? No doubt far fewer than the number who have ever actually been to Kona or Maui.
(I've only been to Oahu and Kona, and don't get to go to Kauai until next month . . ..)
I travel primarily throughout the U.S., Canada, and Caribbean on business, mostly on a weekly basis. Many of the small towns are fascinating, and usually far better than the derisive jokes made about small town America. Then again there are those places that no amount of bad press could do proper justice . . .
I was speaking to a colleague prior to this most recent trip. The topic of places we've been came up and she observed "I've only been to Kona and Maui" when talking about spots visited in Hawaii. It didn't hit me then, but after the call was ended I realize just how jaded she - and most of us in the racket - really are. How many Americans can there possibly be out there who will complain they have "only" been to Kona and Maui? No doubt far fewer than the number who have ever actually been to Kona or Maui.
(I've only been to Oahu and Kona, and don't get to go to Kauai until next month . . ..)
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Details Make a Big Difference, Reuters
The title of this post is linked to a Reuters news article posted online Sunday, December 4, 2005, at 3:41 AM EST titled "Iran says not interested in talks with US".
The seventh paragraph in the posted article reads: "He [Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] added that Iran had not received any formal proposal for talks on Iraq from Washington, which broke diplomatic ties with Tehran shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution."
1979 was twenty-six years ago. Many readers of this article were not even born then, and many more are too young to have had a meaningful understanding of the events transpiring at that time.
The casual reader, uninformed by history and with perceptions colored by current events and slanted reporting of them, could easily conclude that the United States severed relations with Iran because of an abiding dislike of all things Islamic.
Adding the additional information that the cause of the break in relations can be traced to Americans being held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days would provide both accuracy and perspective. Not the toppling of the Shah's regime. Not the religious preference of the new leadership. The taking hostage of American citizens and diplomats.
Reuters, and all other news organizations, do a grave disservice to the truth and to an accurate understanding of events when critical facts are omitted from purported news reports.
The seventh paragraph in the posted article reads: "He [Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi] added that Iran had not received any formal proposal for talks on Iraq from Washington, which broke diplomatic ties with Tehran shortly after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution."
1979 was twenty-six years ago. Many readers of this article were not even born then, and many more are too young to have had a meaningful understanding of the events transpiring at that time.
The casual reader, uninformed by history and with perceptions colored by current events and slanted reporting of them, could easily conclude that the United States severed relations with Iran because of an abiding dislike of all things Islamic.
Adding the additional information that the cause of the break in relations can be traced to Americans being held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days would provide both accuracy and perspective. Not the toppling of the Shah's regime. Not the religious preference of the new leadership. The taking hostage of American citizens and diplomats.
Reuters, and all other news organizations, do a grave disservice to the truth and to an accurate understanding of events when critical facts are omitted from purported news reports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)