Thursday, January 15, 2009


Immigration reform, securing the border, the disposition of X Million illegal aliens, drug cartels, the debate about the costs and benefits generated by illegal aliens, gang-crime, urban lawlessness, language disputes, and "the Hispanic vote" have all combined to be a major issue that is complicating other issues of the day from Homeland Security to economic recovery. President Bush expresses "regret" that he did not tackle immigration reforms before becoming spent on the rock wall of Social Security reform. President-elect Obama and his Congressional majorities are reputed to be poised to grant amnesty and to pullback on border control. "Hispanic" Americans, like "Black" Americans and "Female" Americans seem bent on constructing their own permanent victimized "nation within a nation". If Obama's Senate seat can be openly described as a "black" seat and Hillary Clinton's seat can likewise be described as a "woman's" seat; can the next public office vacated by a Hispanic office holder not be described as a "Hispanic" seat? This rending of the united national fabric and the denial of the proven concept of "one from many" is bad in and of itself as well as the complications it creates locally and nationally when it coincides with other things.
There are, for discussion's sake, several schools of thought in the nation discussion of this issue. Hispanic communities are divided into a spectrum of purposes from requiring all illegal aliens to be sifted and sorted, requiring some to be deported and some to be given colored cards to extremists that want to put California to Texas back into Mexico. About their positions and their bloc-voting pressures, I have nothing to say.
Other Americans might be categorized into three groups. The "Tom Tancredo" groups might be depicted as advocating a secured border with Mexico and a return of illegal aliens to their homelands as expeditiously as possible.
The "Cardinal Mahoney" (of Los Angeles) groups advocate defying the law, safe-houses, and treating any and all illegal aliens as citizens as quickly as possible, no matter the costs or law or future national implications. The last group or "Bill O'Reilly" groups are best described as someone having their two feet in two different canoes going downstream: that is to say they disparage Tancredo and Mahoney while offering some of the other two's platforms and ideas. In all this dialogue there is something that goes unmentioned that should be mentioned: MEXICO.
President-elect Obama just met with the President of Mexico "as have all incoming Presidents in recent years". President Bush met frequently and with great deference and pomp with the last two Mexican Presidents. There is little argument about the interests of the United States being concerned with and significantly depending on a healthy and friendly Mexico.
Mexico is, and has been for years (rich American enclaves, time-share resorts, and cruise ship ports notwithstanding), a lawless and dangerous country with corrupt politicians, police, and army. Drug cartel antics from beheadings to wanton murders further increase the corruption and lawlessness throughout the country. Add into this the stable "rich aristocrats stay rich and the poor stay poor" society and economy akin to Indian societal rules based on the caste you are born to, not the innate humanity of the individual (like the "Hispanic", "Black", "Woman" Balkanization in the US mentioned above?). Finally Mexican elections, also like certain recent American elections, are noted as unreliable and dishonest. Add this all together and you have a nation badly in need of reform.
So, you ask, "tell me something I don't already know". What has been "neglected" or been unmentioned regarding this subject in recent years? The answer Tom Tancredo, Cardinal Mahoney, and Bill O'Reilly is that necessary Mexican reforms must be accomplished by Mexicans. How can this ever even be begun when Mexicans that want to work and raise families and worship freely (some of their "best?) can simply pick up and move to the US and, tough though it may be, be freer and happier and raise their families in peace and security? Whether you share the Cardinal's blind charity or O'Reilly's sophisticated formulas or Tancredo's concrete approach, dismissing the loss of these citizens in their own country may be the greatest affront to the Cardinal's charity or O'Reilly's formulas or Tancredo's defense of American law. As long as this oppressed class of Mexican citizens can freely come
here and work and remain free to either remain or eventually go "home" with
some savings: Mexico will never be reformed and her citizens will remain oppressed, poor, and powerless! The current path of Mexico is increasingly dangerous for not only Mexicans but the United States as well.
Throughout history, national and societal improvements that last are generated from within by deeply motivated members of that society. As long as we allow Mexicans(and Nicaraguans and San Salvadorans too) to enter and remain in uncontrolled numbers, the greatest danger may ultimately be the destabilization and growing anarchy in those nations, sped up by the loss of the very citizens with gumption, that breed international pressures that bring our nation down even more than all the domestic claims of harms that such "immigration" may cause or be causing.
Given the current state of the US Hispanic voting bloc and the developing animosities, again like our "black" and "woman" group-feelings of victim-hood and being owed something, it may be too late to integrate the welfare of all our neighboring nations just like the growing chasms between the groups emerging in American society in a beneficial way. The government officials of these countries no more want these particular citizens remaining and calling for reforms than black and women's leaders in America today want to listen to Michael Steele or Governor Palin. Those industrious "immigrants" on American soil are desperately needed in their own countries just like black and female American spokespersons and leaders are needed
today in ours. Neglecting to speak of these things only contributes to the
problem(s?) and the day beyond which reforms become unimaginable without
societal disruption.
Jim Beers 14 January 2009

No comments: