Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Immigrants, friend or foe? I'd say friend.

This entry is to cover some issues that I have run across while listening to a morning radio show on a local rock station here in Houston (Walton and Johnson morning show on Houston Rock Station 103.7 FM I will also cover some ideas that I have been involved in discussing on a few online political forums.

I had originally intended to make this one huge blog covering as many as 8 issues that we face here in the U.S.. This has proven to be a bit of a task and I have decided to break each issue into its own post to save everyone, including myself, the headache of going through them all at one time.

I know I have been out of the scene for a while but I had some personal, family issues that needed to be worked on. I hope to get some positive feedback (Well, any feedback would be good) from these posts because I am doing a great deal of work to make this happen. I wouldn’t mind being noticed even if I am not appreciated.

Due to the amount of time needed to each point of this issue, I will only touch on highlighted points and go into further detail or discussion for individual points if comments merit.


This is a touchy subject for a lot of people. Before continuing with a suggested solution, I will first take a look at the problem. Seems like a logical place to start. Keep in mind that there are exceptions to almost everything.

First off, let’s try and look at this for what it is. Immigration is good. There is nothing wrong with immigration as long as it takes the proper channels. There is a difference between entering another country through legal channels and entering another country through means of legal evasion. The lines between the two are obvious.

When a person enters another nation by contacting the immigration authorities and filing for work or education visas or with a request for citizenship, that person is entering through legal channels. When a person enters another nation under the cloak of night or in the trunk of a car to avoid being detected, they are illegally entering that nation and should be subject to legal recourse from authoritative entities.

As for having civil rights, you are not afforded certain rights under the Constitution of the United States if you are not a legal citizen. The "courts" can interpret what ever they want but if it were the intended purpose of the amendment or law, it would have been practiced that way from it's inception. The Constitution was written to protect U.S. citizens, not illegal immigrants. If you have not taken steps to become a legal citizen, you have no legal recourse against detention and/or deportation.

Let’s take a look at some things that feed this problem. The starting point is Mexico. Clash of financial classes along with a horrible taxation system put the common man there in a bad situation in terms of living a comfortable life and providing for his or her family. Education and healthcare in Mexico has little to be desired for lower income families. This creates another avenue for desired migration to “a better land”. Polls in Mexico have shown, recently, that almost half the Mexican population wants to move to the U.S. ( This fact, in and of itself, really isn’t a problem. The problem is the method in which many of these people attempt to accomplish this goal.

Blame for wanting to come to the U.S. to provide a better life for themselves and their children should not be placed on the people that want to migrate. The reasons should be placed upon the Mexican government for being historically oppressive by nature and the U.S. government for not allowing proper channels to be available for those that want a better life here. In fact the U.S. is, through policy and lack of legal enforcement, encouraging illegal immigration.

The U.S. has spread resources into areas where it should not be. I know in this day and age everyone wants to place the blame for that on the Bush administration but that simply isn’t the case for a large portion of U.S. resources. Granted, the Bush administration hasn’t done much to resolve this problem but then, neither has any other administration over the last 60 years.

The U.S. has little, if any, control over what the Mexican government does. Therefore, if we want to resolve this issue we must have certain things in place to make sure that legal movement is more manageable. This can be done while, at the same time, helping to secure our boarders.

Two points of interest come to mind; military deployment and the war on drugs. The U.S. has a bad habit of staying in countries where we have fought wars in defense of our interests and allies. Why are we still in Europe? I understand having naval ports available in various parts of the world to be set in case there is a need to reply to an attack on U.S. soil and we need to have restocking points to get where we need to go. Most of America's combat first response is in the form of aerial and naval which is more than capable of holding their own until ground troops are in place. Even the ground support units that may be needed (Spec. Ops. forward air controllers, target acquisition scouts, etc…) can be flown in where they are needed. Why do we need Army, Marine and Air Force bases running in Europe?

Why not take those military personnel and place them on our boarders where they can defend our homeland? I’m not saying they should be set in place to shoot immigrants. I want to cut that off right here before getting accused of being a militant racist. The point of the U.S. military is to defend the U.S.. Our boarders are where they belong, not in Europe where there is minimal threat to the U.S.. Having military bases close to our borders will be a deterrent for those looking to cross in those areas. I would, personally, think twice before walking past a base filled with armed guards and tanks. Plus, the addition of these bases can help bolster the local economies in near by towns/cities.

Now we come to something that will probably get me flamed by some and praised by others, the war on drugs. At 12 billion dollars a year, how many entry stations could we put in place and/or maintained? There is almost 2000 miles of land border between the U.S. and Mexico. In that 2000 mile stretch there are just over 20 commercial crossing points that handle, roughly, 350,000,000 legal crossings per year into the U.S.. That's a lot of checks at the border for so few, legal, entry points.

The war on drugs would be much better covered at the border than several hundred or several thousand miles away and will help build a better image, internationally, for the U.S. by showing that we are becoming less intent on being intrusive and interventional. Multi-function centers placed on our borders will all for legal immigration as well as screening points for those crossing into the U.S.. This will reduce the burden of endless miles of travel for border patrol agents allowing them to be more effective in covering illegal crossing. It will also give, what is currently DEA, employees a chance to be home with their families rather than going into foreign nations and risking life and limb.

Politicians need to make some decisions before everything falls apart. I hear people complaining everyday so if you have a problem with any of my suggested solutions, please provide alternatives and do not just complain to me for saying something you don't like. We have enough complaints, we need solutions.

Additional References: