Tag: immigration reform

Posted on

illegal immigration

BorderFenceImage_jpg_800x1000_q100Once again our leaders have managed to do what-should-be the impossible.  They have managed to politicize a problem instead of solve it (sigh).

Please pause for a moment before throwing the first proverbial stone in yet another ad hominem attack.  One of the aspects that most gets my goat or some other colloquial critter is how we say “yeah, but” when justifying our response… “Yeah, but he did it first…  Yeah, but it was the President…  yeah, but Congress…”  “Yeah but’s” are the intellectuals covert, clever means of justifying something within their own response that doesn’t make total logical or compassionate sense.  “Yeah but’s” are what allow both our current President and Congress to politicize a problem instead of solve it.  We have a problem with illegal immigration — especially now with child migrants.

This is a tough one, friends.  I remember as a hope-filled child, proudly singing those words with my elementary peers…  “Give me your tired, your poor… Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free;  the wretched refuse of your teeming shore.  Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.  I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Today there are huddled massed just across the Texas border, masses no doubt yearning to breathe free.

First, a brief synopsis of the facts so we can speak intelligently (and avoid the “yeah, but’s”):

  • More than 52,000 children have been picked up illegally crossing the border since October — nearly double last year’s total and 10 times 2009’s numbers.
  • Most are from Central America and are unaccompanied by adults.
  • Many are motivated by safety concerns in their own country.
  • Many believe they will not be deported, due to both rumors and public statements by our government.
  • U.S. policy allows Mexican child migrants to be deported quickly.
  • A 2008 law calls for all Central American children to be given a court hearing; the purpose of that law was to combat child trafficking.
  • Court hearings often take up to 2-3 years to take place; many often fail to appear.

Immigration policy has long been the balance of logic and compassion (…remember the two things the “yeah, but’s” allow our leaders to omit).  We can’t allow for total amnesty, as that doesn’t address the very real motive of many in this world, whose chief desire is to destroy America (see September, 2001).  We also can’t simply arrest and ship home, as that doesn’t recognize those tired and poor masses that our country was founded upon to serve.  So what do we do?  While by no means do any of us know exactly the way to solve this problem, let the Intramuralist submit a means of where to — and to not — begin…

We can’t begin by simply throwing more money at the problem.  As a whole for years, our government has not acted faithfully with our money — spending too much on political priorities; hence, hiring more agents, judges, etc. means increased debt, and it doesn’t solve the long term problem.

We can’t begin by fortifying the border.  That takes time.  Securing the border doesn’t solve the short term problem.

What we do first in my semi-humble opinion is semi-simple.  We ask the Central American governments to get involved.  They don’t have to solve the problem alone, but until they choose to be responsible for a solution governing their own people, we halt their current financial aid.  Collectively, the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras receive over a billion dollars annually in military and economic assistance from the U.S.  Granted, we need to be sensitive here, as we don’t want to destabilize the drug-infested area significantly more, but it is logical to expect these governments to be part of the solution and not just the problem.

What we do second is less simple.  Our leaders need to gather together, with no political strategists or schemers — maybe no cameras — role up their sleeves, and set all political motives aside.  That means not adopting any policy motivated by how it impacts a specific voting bloc.  Together they must develop a logical, compassionate, cost-efficient short term and long term strategy.  No one is king; no one person sets the policy; and all refrain from saying “yeah, but.”

In other words, our leaders would serve us best — and craft solutions best — by not politicizing another problem.

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

hating politics

I hate politics.  Ok, so really… that’s kind of a lie.  Sorry, I attempt to be transparent.  I’m also very human.  While several of you consider yourselves among that camp (a camp that includes my very respected spouse), I do not hate politics.  If, however, there were ever days when the Intramuralist was most tempted, Monday and Tuesday were two.

 

From this semi-humble vantage point, politics is a tool that is best used as an ethical, responsible means to govern and assist people.  When I come to the proverbial breaking point where the thought of “hate” creeps into my head, it’s typically prompted by a distortion of that responsible means — typically, too, made manifest via the perception of either arrogance or self-servingness.  It’s a point where what’s best for the country seems secondary to some other motive — a motive which may or may not be able to be discerned with certainty.

 

Afford me first the grace to offer both caveat and confession…

All parties and all people are capable of arrogance.  All parties and people are capable of self-servingness.  I am equally capable.  Note:  neither Democrats nor Republicans are overwhelmingly noted for their outstanding ethics; neither is known to consistently put what’s best for the country first.

 

Hence, follow the sequence of events leading to Monday and Tuesday…

 

Both Pres. Bush and Pres. Obama promised to enact immigration reform.  Bush promised it within term 2; Obama promised it within year 1 of term 1.  Neither prioritized such as promised.  With arguably up to 12 million persons living in this country illegally — impacting our workplace, healthcare system, etc. — this is an issue that undoubtedly has bipartisan appeal (hence, the promises)… hence, also, why the Intramuralist believes this is not a partisan issue.

 

Consistent with that thinking, on Monday, a group of 8 leading senatorial voices (which included Dick Durbin, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Chuck Schumer) excitedly and incredibly respectfully announced the bipartisan agreement they crafted in order to deal with this challenge well.  Look at the polls.  Citizens have no desire for “liberal rule,” “conservative rule,” or anyone’s dictatorship; they want — we want — effective, bipartisan agreement.  American citizens do not seem to believe that one party has the complete and always correct way.  Hence, Monday’s bipartisan agreement — where both Democrats and Republicans had to “give” on something and were still excited about it — seemed a potential, effective solution.

 

That solution may still exist.  It may not.

 

On Tuesday, the President decided it was necessary to announce his immigration proposal.  He flew to Las Vegas and back to D.C. solely to deliver this address (note:  such a trip costs taxpayers an estimated $1.6 million).  While commending the senators for their announced actions, Obama added that the Senate must move fast, saying, “If Congress is unable to move forward in a timely fashion, I will send up a bill based on my proposal and insist that they vote on it right away.”  The President’s proposal seemingly differs from the mixed group of senators in that it does not require border security prior to offering free legal status.

 

As a person who (does not) hate politics — and questions this of all parties — I question the motive of the President’s speech.  Was the proposed bipartisan solution not enough?  Was the senators’ joint excitement not ample to keep the momentum rolling toward achieving what’s best for our country?  Or does there exist some secondary motive — something that true, we cannot discern with certainty?

 

In the White House Press Secretary’s daily Monday briefing, Jay Carney added the following:  “I think it’s important before we let the moment pass to acknowledge that the progress we’re seeing embodied in the principles put forward by this bipartisan group is happening for a reason: I think it’s happening because consensus is developing in the country, a bipartisan consensus, and it’s happening because the President has demonstrated significant leadership on this issue.”  [emphasis mine]

 

“Because the President.”  President Bush?  President Obama?  My sense is that who is responsible pales in comparison to actual solution.

 

Wait.  Allow me one more significant tangent prior to this post’s end…

If you find yourself excessively irritated or joyfully ‘amen-ing’ at today’s dialogue, please be aware of the prodigious potential for naiveté on each of our parts.  Know that persons from both parties have secondary motives, and also know that no politician is exempt from hidden motive, regardless of how much of our admiration they tend to attract.

 

Ok, ok… enough…  I don’t really hate politics.  It’s just that sometimes both parties really tempt me.

 

Respectfully,

AR