An Alternative To Amnesty
Before
I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
Almost four
years ago come this June, I proposed an alternative to Amnesty
for Illegal Immigrants. To the best of
my knowledge and beliefs, nobody heeded me then. I doubt if anybody would listen to me now or
ever. Ergo, it behooves revisiting
for emphasis and clarity of recollection both the gist
and premises of the arguments [proof edited]:
“.
. . the influx of illegal aliens in the southern border is undermining the very
concept of our national sovereignty. The wall has to be mended before any
meaningful talk of any kind of immigration reform, comprehensive or otherwise,
makes any sense. In answer to [one of] Robert Frost’s questions {What I was
walling in or walling out,} mending the wall would be walling out intruders
who do not respect our laws simultaneously as it would be walling in our self-perception
as a nation of laws.” [Read more: p.243 op.cit.]
It really matters less that nobody is listening. The message still has to be trumpeted through
the four corners of the earth because it is wrong not to. When you bother to have laws, you must find a
mechanism to enforce them. When somebody
breaks the law, that body has to answer for the crime of law-breaking. Anything short of this makes a mockery of our
self-image as a nation of laws. When it
involves trespassing across our territorial borders, it makes a lie of the
notion that we are a sovereign nation.
If there ever were a shovel-ready
project chuck-full of economic stimuli, this could have been
it, in all its grotesque Obamist splendor of “. . . meaning planning is
complete, approvals are secured and people could be put to work right away once
funding is in place.” This could have
been worth all the contortionist spin accrued Solyndra
and the thirty-two other kindred Green Energy ventures lucky
enough to get loan guarantees from the $800-billion stimulus package and
promptly folded shortly after the bounty was in. The political commitment to do it was the
main missing ingredient.
The mechanics of implementation could have been as
straightforward, prima facie, as arranging for a community picnic on a July 4th
weekend. Or better yet, to leverage the advantage
inherent to the February cold climate, we could schedule a round-up for the
Presidents’ Day weekend. There are three
essential components to the operation: (1) rounding them up; (2) shipping them
off; and (3) keeping them out.
The enumeration does not imply order of
importance. The qualifier “prima facie”
is necessary because when an operation involves people and their sensibilities,
nothing is ever simple and straightforward.
It behooves to count the ways that complications can arise.
1.
Rounding them up ~~ any dragnet-like
operation always runs the risk that some target entities may be filtered through
the sieve. Moreover, people acquire
varying degrees of adaptability. Some
people readily grow roots and support network within any community faster than
managed by certain others. The common
denominator however is documentation on how and when did you commence being in
your present circumstances.
2.
Shipping them off ~~ at first blush this
appears to be straightforward. It seems
to only require deploying enough long-distance buses of the Greyhound
or Trailways and
kindred variety to transport the rounded up people to a designated destination. The designation of a proper destination can
be tricky. Since the people may not
possess any kind of documentation, how does one determine where to ship them
to?
This is an aspect of the problem I had
recognized and warned of in the earlier
publication.
{See, e.g., p. 243 ff op.cit. print or electronic, wherein
page numbers don’t apply.}
“Suppose, by a miracle of miracles, the country finally develops the political will to enforce the law and the spine to round up all those undocumented individuals and transport them to the Mexican border. What happens then if the Mexican authorities simply disown them? In the absence of evidence that they belong to any other country, the U.S. would be stuck with the bodies of living human beings.
“It would be a de facto reverse writ of habeas corpus, i.e., “you have the bodies, they are your problems.” Shall we have the moral courage and justification to just unload the people at the border? I hazard to guess that we do not. We have a long tradition of being a compassionate people. We shall have ended licking at the flat end of the immigration lollipop.”
3.
Keeping them out~~ As I had extensively
argued and demonstrated on pp. 237 ff, chapter 16, “Incidental
Lessons in Fluid Mechanics,” of the earlier
cited book, keeping the border less porous and permeable than
exists now is as basic as plugging a leak in the dike. The logic is so elementary. The context is so conventional. It is quite a marvel that the policy-making
crowd had not picked up on to make it the operative wisdom for governance.
There are mesanthropes, skeptics and
cynics who opine that making the border more impregnable would effectively be
tantamount to the East Berlinization of America. Nothing can be farther from the truth. East Germany was walled off because had they
left everybody free to travel, all those who had the wherewithal would have
departed for the western sector.
Of the three components, if priority were to be
assigned, mending the wall should be deemed more important. A mop up operation is an exercise in futility
if the supply is not curtailed at the source.
All three should be construed as mutually reinforcing
their effectiveness. Ergo they could conceivably
be most beneficial if all three are synchronized when implemented in a virtually
concurrent manner.
The point that should not need any emphasis at all is
that playing fast and loose with the law requires that you own up the
consequences. Issuing waivers as the
wont of the Obama Regime is the hallmark of tyranny.
Only when you claim to be above the law would you
sanction selective enforcement thereof.
Our forebears invested precious sweat, blood and tears to get the
Constitution written and adopted. The
least we can do is to abide by its letter and spirit. We require the same of anybody who happens
into our borders, by any reason or happenstance, whatsoever.
Some may strike you as old and recycled notions but a conversation on immigration is something we need to have else we may not survive as the nation as we knew it.
ReplyDelete