Immigration and border security go hand-in-hand.
First, we need to address border security. Immigration laws are meaningless if they are easily circumvented by crossing the border illegally.
The southern border needs to be secured. People are crossing the border illegaly not just to find work, but organized crime cartels are moving drugs and other contraband across the border. Mexico is in a state of civil war, though no one wants to call it that, and that civil war will increasingly spill across our border unless we take decisive action. Another grave concern is that Mexican government authorities, including the Mexican Army, are being targeted by the cartels for subversion. One result is that significant groups of corrupted Mexican military personnel have been observed escorting drug shipments on the US side of the border. If it were a potentially hostile country, like Iran, doing this, there would be a temptation in some circles to declare war and deal with the situation decisively. In Mexico's case, however, it is very obvious that, while there is corruption in the Mexican government, it is not a deliberate policy on the part of anyone in Mexico, except for the cartels and their allies, to violate US territory in order to do harm to the United States. (In fact, despite the problems down there, Mexico is a good friend of the United States, perhaps a better friend to us than we are to Mexico.) However, the illegal activities along our southern border are out of control, and are disrupting American communities not just near the border, but across the country.
Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution very clearly spells out that it is the purview of the federal government to punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and to call forth the militia to enforce federal law, suppress insurrection and repel invasion. Narcotics trafficking touches on all of these responsibilities. A 500-kg package of cocaine dropped in one of our communities probably does more damage to America than a 500-kg bomb dropped in the same place. In the process of smuggling narcotics and other contraband into our country, foreign powers (the cartels) commit piracy and felonies on the high seas, they cross our border illegally, they damage American communities and kill Americans. As these foreign forces cross our border, this is an invasion, and as they establish allies within the United States who break our laws and defy just and proper government authority that is legally established and exercised, this will eventually develop into an insurrection, just like it has happened in Mexico. Furthermore, it is too easy for terrorists to mix in with the flow of those who cross our frontier illegally, and if tons of drugs can be brought in, what is preventing nuclear and other very powerful weapons from being brought in? The federal government must act to deal with this, or the federal government will be in such obvious violation of its Constitutional mandates as to render itself irrelevant and replaceable according to the standards established in our Declaration of Independence.
Let me state that more clearly. Either the federal government does its job, or we have a duty as established in our Declaration of Independence to overthrow government authority by any means necessary (peaceful, legal means preferably, via lawsuits, political action, and elections) and replace certain government officials with people who know what the Constitution requires them to do and who will do it. Those who cynically foment the unrest leaking up from Mexico need to understand that as this unrest spreads from Mexico across the border and destroys our communities, there will inevitably come a time when it will not be just innocent, law-abiding Americans who will suffer.
We need to immediately deploy military forces along the southern border and in contiguous waters near our coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico to deal with what has become a clear and present danger to national security.
This will have the inevitable effect of causing smugglers to move contraband and illegal immigrants into our country crossing our coastlines, via our ports and airports, and across our northern border. We need to immediately begin moving in the direction of more adequately protecting these areas, and more thoroughly inspecting cargo, freight and passengers that enter US territory in places other than along our southern border.
If our government were doing what it is supposed to be doing under our Constitution, we would not have such a big bureaucracy dealing with social services, education, health care, and so on, at the national level. If our economy were functioning the way it should, we could easily get by with a smaller bureaucracy working tax issues.
It would be wrong to simply downsize the government and throw all these people, who have invested years as public servants in government service, out in the street, especially when we do not have adequate numbers of people monitoring immigration, customs and our borders and ports. As we downsize some federal agencies and departments, we should offer the affected employees an opportunity to transfer into expanded immigration, customs and border patrol functions. Not all of these jobs are badge-and-gun-carrying enforcement jobs; there needs to be improved office and clerical support to keep track of immigrants who are in the country legally, and other such functions, so there is room for some of our people to be more effectively utilized in jobs not unlike ones they now have. In the long run, control of our border should be a civilian function, so ultimately, the military would need to be withdrawn and the baton passed to better-manned and -equipped civilian agencies that can do this job.
Another approach that needs to be taken simultaneously is to decentralize the decision regarding legality of some substances to the states and their political subdivisions, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. If a state wants to use certain substances, such a marijuana, for medical purposes, the matter should not be a federal issue. Movement of those substances across state lines becomes a federal issue, and it is appropriate for federal resources to be made available to states that are having difficulties enforcing state laws. However, I can make an argument that a decision to use some drugs is a Ninth Amendment issue, I can make an argument that the decision to legalize or prohibit use of some drugs is a Tenth Amendment issue.
The illegal movement of marijuana or cocaine across our borders into our communities is a federal issue that must be addressed decisively for reasons previously outlined, but a stricter reading of the Constitution would mean states would have more authority to decide if buying, selling or consuming such drugs within the state is a crime, and as some states decide that it will not be a crime, that will greatly ease the burden of federal enforcement regarding illegal trafficking. Some states will become havens for legal drug use, and others will be more drug-free. This is how our federal system was intended to function. People can vote with their feet, and move to a state that suits their needs and desires.
Regarding immigration, immigration laws should be revised.
People who seek to enter the country legally should have more attention paid to their cases and situations, so as to ensure that we are letting the right people in, and to ensure prompt attention is given to applications for visas, renewals, citizenship, and so on, and to ensure prompt attention is given to people whose permission to be in our country is expiring. This is not a coded message for a heavy-handed "round 'em up and kick 'em out" approach. Some immigrants have tried to do the right thing the right way, and get caught up in the bureaucracy. They should be dealt with using common sense and compassion. However, there are also people here in this country legally, but with nefarious purposes. Their activities and files should be monitored adequately, in a manner prescribed by law.
People who have entered the country illegally deserve no amnesty. Rather, I would propose that US consulates in foreign countries - especially in Mexico - be adequately staffed to deal with applications from people who seek to enter the country to work. Such applications should cost a minimal amount, and if the applicants meet certain basic criteria, they should be allowed in the country. While here, they need to keep authorities apprised of their location and activities. If they work, they will pay the same taxes as US citizens, but they will not be eligible to collect Social Security, unemployement insurance, or certain other "entitlements", and they must stay out of trouble and obey our laws. If they get into minor trouble, their permission to be in our country can be revoked, and if they are found in the country without permission, they should be penalized by imprisonment in a minimum security facility for a period of time, and then transported, at their expense, to the country of their citizenship and denied the opportunity to apply for re-entry into the United States for a period of time.
Thus, I would propose that an announcement be made that, effective on a certain date, applications will be accepted at consulates in foreign countries. The illegal immigrants must leave the country and apply at a consulate in a foreign country for permission to be in the US legally. After that certain date, anyone found in the country who has entered the country illegally will be handled as outlined in the paragraph immediately above. From the time the announcement is made until the given date, there should be stepped-up enforcement of immigration laws to encourage people who entered illegally to leave immediately, though care should be taken not to obstruct their departure with this stepped-up enforcement.
If the economy is handled as I suggest in a previous post, America will be booming, and there will be plenty of work for US citizens, and people who seek to enter our country legally, obey our laws, and work productively for a period of time will have jobs available to them as well. Also, they will be contributing tax dollars, but will not be a burden on some of our entitlement programs. Currently, illegal aliens are often driven into an underground economy, and become a burden on some of our entitlement programs, without contributing to our tax base, because their earnings are illegal and thus not taxed; my suggestion would help reverse that.
Furthermore, by allowing a streamlined process for people to enter the country and work here legally, we will ease the pressure exerted by the hordes who seek to enter the country illegally, making our border security job easier.
Regarding who is allowed into our country, we need to recognize Islamic law for what it is - a political agenda that is in sharp conflict with our Constitution - and limit immigration of people who advocate this political agenda. However, we should consider easing restrictions on people who face religious persecution in countries subject to Islamic law. Political Islam is very much akin to Nazism or communism, and we should not allow it to destroy our country amid cries of religious freedom. Our Constitution is not a suicide pact. There will be difficulties discerning which Muslims are peaceful and could constructively add to American society, and separating them from those who seek to destroy our country and make it a part of some caliphate. It is the fault of Muslims, not the fault of America, that there exists a tenet of Islam known as taqiyya, making it acceptable to deceive infidels as to the true nature of their intentions. To be sure, not all Muslims practice taqiyya, but how can we know which ones intend us no harm, and which ones merely say they intend us no harm in order to get inside our gates? We need to err on the side of caution and on the side of preservation of our Republic, and that means erring on the side of keeping people that we have doubts about outside our borders.
In this same context, we should consider which people we allow in from countries that are experiencing an influx of Muslim immigrants who seek to take over rather than assimilate into their host country. For example, many European countries are getting quite intolerable for decent, law-abiding, non-Muslim people. Increasingly, non-Muslims are discriminated against, targeted by violent crime, and persecuted by government authorities if they decry what is being done to them and their countries. Non-Muslims who seek to escape what many European and certain other countries are becoming should be accepted eagerly, but regarding Muslims, again, it is the fault of Islam, with its tenets of jihad and taqiyya, that we should be cautious about them.
I will undoubtedly be called racist for my concerns about Islam.
Muslims will be the first to tell you that a fellow Muslim is a fellow Muslim. Only infidels are categorized as Serbs, Croats, Russians, Germans, Chinese, Thai, or whatever. But submission to Allah is open to anyone who honestly recites the shahada in Arabic (this act is known as the kalima). Consequently, Islam is not a race nor is it, theoretically, racist; Muslims claim it is a religion, and for many it is, but for many, Islam is and has always been a political agenda as well. It is precisely those Muslims who seek to impose this political agenda on us, and replace our Constitution with the Quran, who will call me racist. Fortunately, though, the term racist has been so misused and abused that it has lost its impact. (In a way, though, this is sad, too, because racism still exists in the world.) For the record, I am a Republican, and anyone who knows anything about our Grand Old Party knows that the Party of Lincoln has been at the forefront of fighting against racism ever since the GOP was founded.
Many other immigration concerns center around China. China has a very large and very active espionage network targeting America, and various businesspeople and students form key parts of this network. To be sure, a big part of the reason why the network is successful is because so many of its operatives are innocent of any crime, and unaware they are being used by Chinese intelligence. They take papers and reports that are available to the public, perhaps not realizing that this information becomes pieces of a puzzle being assembled by Communist Chinese intelligence services. While I have a great deal of admiration for China, and I think, in the long run, it is good for both America and China to be on friendly terms with each other, I also believe we should prudently and carefully consider the pros and cons of our interactions with China under the communist government that is in power there.
None of the immigration and border security plans will be able to address our problems if we do not deal effectively with corruption in Washington, DC. Officials, both elected and appointed, on both sides of the aisle, are selling us out to the highest bidder. The high bidders include foreign powers, such as potentially hostile governments and foreign-based and -controlled criminal cartels, which, in turn, are associated with terrorist organizations. This is at the heart of the OKBOMB, it is at the heart of 9/11 and the Sibel Edmonds case, it is at the heart of the scandal surrounding the outing of Valerie Plame, and it is at the heart of the current Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal. (These cases all need to be honestly investigated, by the way, with no obstruction of justice from higher-ups.) Furthermore, many officials are in the habit of doing favors for domestic businesses while on the government payroll, in the expectation that when they leave government service, those businesses will take care of them.
Government officials ask if certain elements of the American people are a threat to the government. Christians and veterans of military service are inevitably among the groups that concern our public servants.
America was founded on the principle that it is government that threatens the law-abiding people, not the other way around. Our Declaration of Independence addressed this matter, and our Constitution was written with this fact in mind.
Our "President" pals around with convicted terrorists and with religious leaders who call for our Creator to damn and destroy our great nation. Other officials peddle influence to and take bribes from foreign criminal cartels which do business with terrorist groups. Yet, hypocritically and cynically, it is they who accuse us of being a threat to America, and of being terrorists.
Our public servants violate their Constitutional oaths of office, they commit treason against our country, and even now they scheme to take our freedoms away and destroy our Republic.
So, are we a threat to our government? Yes, absolutely. Our desire to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, makes us a threat to a government significantly populated and controlled by those who seek to destroy our Constitution.
The American people will get better government, and we will get it out of a box. Hopefully, better government will come out of a mail box, or a ballot box, or possibly a jury box, but if necessary, we will get better government out of a cartidge box.
In the Book of Esther, we hear of Haman's hatred for the Jews, and how Haman had a gallows built to hang Mordecai on. In fact, though, Mordecai had served the king more honorably than had Haman. Ultimately, Haman's plot backfired, and in his righteous anger, the king ordered that Haman be hanged on the gallows which Haman had constructed to hang Mordecai.
Similarly, we hear stories of FEMA camps and of preparations by our government to imprison honest, law-abiding citizens, because those citizens threaten the schemes of the corrupt government officials who treasonously sabotage our nation.
I hope these stories are true, because our Creator, Who knows what is in our hearts and minds, will deliver the victory to the real, honest, decent Americans, and when He does, we will need a place to keep all the crooks. Like Haman's gallows, such FEMA camps might come in useful, but perhaps not useful for the purpose for which they were intended. ;)