Thus, we turn this week to the lovely and hopefully intelligent folks at Virtue to tell us just how the law should be laid down. Gentlemen, ladies, since I think we’d all agree on the problematic nature of the issue, let’s skip the debate on semantics. What can practically be done about illegal immigration? What steps can we take, and in what order? Take it away.
Samuel Ashwood: My solution to this problem is more radical than most would prefer. I am not opposed to legalized immigration, but we want the kind of immigration that “Americanizes” the people coming to our country. This is not occurring with the illegal immigrants. While many of them are poor people just trying to improve their situation, the border area is also rife with drug smuggling and all types of violence. In my view, this calls for drastic measures being used to protect American citizens, including using military forces to garrison the border, if necessary. Building a wall is a good idea, and strengthening and encouraging “minutemen” groups is also a strategy I would favor. Unfortunately, our government does not seem willing to do either, and President Bush has decried the minutemen groups as “vigilantes.”
Legalizing illegal immigrants is not the answer. These people are criminals who have violated our law, and trespassed our national territory without permission. I believe the government should do everything in its power to make it as easy as possible for the border defense bureaucracies to send any illegal immigrant back to their home country, as soon as they are apprehended, instead of requiring a dictionary’s worth of paperwork, which usually results in the illegal being allowed to remain.
The primary problem is that terrorists can slip across our border as easily as a poor dirt farmer looking for a chance to improve his lot in life. That is why the borders must be defended with every means practicable. To me, it seems difficult for the government to present itself as being serious about fighting terror when they are doing little to strengthen and protect our borders from floods of illegal immigrants. The economic and drug damage being done could very well pale in comparison, if terrorists slip across our open borders, and pull off another 9/11 style attack.
Derek Wallace: I strongly share Mr. Ashwood’s sentiments. I also agree with columnist Cal Thomas, who recently wrote: “Observing the pro-immigration demonstrations in Phoenix, Los Angeles, Atlanta and elsewhere in recent days, I wondered: whose country is this? . . . Have we gone mad?”
The people in these demonstrations are apparently rallying for “immigrants’ rights.” But as Thomas noted, “What rights? If they are here illegally, they have the right to leave.”
It is unfortunate that President Bush has taken the opposite attitude. While claiming he does not support amnesty, Bush continues to support immigration polices that essentially amount to amnesty.
What can practically be done about illegal immigration? Perhaps a good place to start would be enforcing the existing immigration laws of our country. If they were being seriously enforced now, we would not have eight to 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. now.
Likewise, we would not have illegal immigrants from Mexico parading their “undocumented” status, laughing, and telling Associated Press reporters: “They kick us out, we’re coming back tomorrow.” (1)
The problem is so bad, no one really nows how many illegals are in the U.S. now, but it’s likely the number is much closer to 12 million than eight million.
If all else fails, citizens have the ability to start taking matters into their own hands, as those involved in the highly successful Minuteman Project did. Despite all the criticism it faced from liberals and spineless “conservatives” (Bush condemned it as irrational and its participants as “vigilantes”), the Minuteman Project showed that citizens can help put a stop to immigration problems in a peaceful, law-abiding manner.
Moderator: Mr. Ashwood, Mr. Wallace, what are your feelings on freeing up the existing immigration quotas and bureaucratic red tape to make it easier for sincere folks to come legally?
How would you propose enforcing the existing immigration laws?
What would you reply to folks who say that a locked border would create an international incident, possibly destabilizing the region and causing a revolution in Mexico?
Most importantly, as Christians, we are to have compassion on the downtrodden. Given the economic state many illegals come from, they would certainly seem to fit this category. They would say themselves (I know; I’ve asked quite a few) that the reason they’re going to the United States is to send money home so their families don’t starve. How do you believe your proposed solutions take this kind of compassion into consideration?
Samuel Ashwood: I believe with the terrorism situation as it is, easing the existing immigration quotas and bureaucratic red tape may not be a good idea. Any immigrant in these days, but in particular those from the Middle East, should be strictly monitored. I don’t have enough knowledge of exiting immigration laws to give a detailed answer to this question, but the primary problem we have is illegal immigration, not legal.
As far as enforcing existing immigration laws, I believe in enforcing them to the fullest extent, and passing and enforcing stricter laws, if feasible.
If stopping the flow of illegal immigration creates an international incident and revolution in Mexico, so be it. The primary concern of the American government is the safety and security of the American people, not the Mexican. What the Mexicans do within their borders is their business. They should not brook our interference in their politics, nor should we allow them to disrupt our existing framework, as the floods of illegal immigrants are doing.
There are two answers to the final question. First, as an individual Christian, I am required to help the poor and downtrodden. If a starving illegal immigrant were to come to my door, I would certainly be required to feed him. However, this is not the function of the national government. The government’s purpose is not to help the starving and poor of other nations, but to protect and defend its own citizens. We cannot allow floods of poor illegal immigrants to pour in, defying our own laws and disrupting our economy, and bringing criminals and terrorists in with the masses, simply so we can feed the poor. Nowhere in the Scripture is the national government required to feed the poor. This is a law enjoined upon individual believers. The national government’s policy should be to establish as friendly a relationship as possible with Mexico, but to use any means necessary to protect the well-being of its own citizens, which I believe necessitates stopping the flow of illegal immigrants immediately.
Moderator: Well, it looks like we’re out of time for this issue. It seems to have shaped up as an interesting counterpoint to the editorial. While it would be downright cheesy to say “we report, you decide,” our gracious readers should have an excellent chance to view the issue of illegal immigration from multiple facets. Richness of debate and diversity of opinion can only be a good thing. Mr. Ashwood, Mr. Wallace, thank you for your contributions.
0 Responses to “Searching For Truth - Solutions to Illegal Immigration”