Quantcast

Categorized | Opinion

Much Ado About Immigration

Due to Robert Sarvis’ supposedly controversial position on immigration and Hanover County’s recent kerfuffle over the matter, I have given a great deal of thought to the issue of immigration and am convinced that the framework of the discussion lacks a great deal of clarity and integrity. I intend to clarify the issue and offer a solution which fits the nature of each of the problems associated with the topic of “immigration reform”.

When discussing immigration reform, one must deduce that we are referring to our nations immigration laws. In this respect, we have but three choices: To follow the laws as they are. To change the laws (reform). Or to leave the laws as they are, but refuse to follow them.

If we accept that the laws currently on the books are sufficient, if enforced, to adequately control legal immigration into this country, then the discussion ought to be directed toward a defense of our current laws, reference to the success and benefit of those laws, and a demand for an explanation from opponents as to why those laws are not, in fact, sufficient.

If we want to reform our laws, then we must begin with an objective purpose to which our reforms are a suggested course of action. For example, a common Libertarian Reform idea is to dramatically increase access to legal immigration regardless of nationality, income, education, religion, etc. Coupled with enforcement of our borders, something currently lacking, the ideas goes, that we could increase our population legally, with less hoops and red tape, which would reduce the incidence of illegal immigration, making the enforcement of our borders easier and less economically burdensome to the tax payer. This is the reform platform that I support.

If we believe that our current laws are sufficient, but that they simply do not always need to be enforced, then we must justify our tolerance of “arbitrary law”, laws which affect some people differently than others; which, in a literal sense, eradicates our tradition of “equality before the law”.

That said, whether we seek to undermine the philosophical foundations of our republic, reform our system, or fight to enforce the system already in place, we need to have a clear understanding of the objectives of our immigration policies. Obviously, the purpose of an immigration policy is not to “keep out foreigners”. Rather, the purpose is to control and oversee the process of naturalization, weed out unwanted threats to our society, and to operate a registration process which allows us to keep track of who is coming in to our country and from where.

Controlling and overseeing a legal process of immigration seems to be something that almost everyone can agree to; where we get into trouble is when we discuss our definitions of “unwanted threats to our society”. Is poverty an unwanted threat? By itself, poverty is certainly not a threat to our republic, until you consider our very expensive welfare state. Should citizens from other countries be allowed to move to America and avail themselves of taxpayer money set aside for US citizens? Should we allow foreign born immigrants to enter our society before receiving the vaccinations that US born citizens have undergone to ward off the threat of epidemic disease? Should foreign born citizens learn the common tongue of our nation, as we have done, before becoming naturalized?

I believe that we should not place limits on an immigrants income when allowing them to enter the United States in pursuit of citizenship, but I do believe that there should be a stipulation that all citizens must pay federal and state taxes for a period of five years before they can gain access to any of our welfare programs. No person should be able to enter the United States that has not had our vaccinations. Vaccinations should be provided to US Embassies overseas for free to anyone looking to immigrate to the United States. Anyone looking to immigrate to the United States should be required to speak the common tongue. Without a degree of proficiency in English, new immigrants will not be able to advance in our current economic system, nor will they be able to communicate with authorities, and they will be less like to assimilate.

Now, neither Mark Warner nor Ed Gillespie have an immigration plan. Warner will continue to support his party’s lawless push for amnesty. Ed Gillespie wants to build a wall (apparently he hasn’t been briefed on the elaborate tunnel systems coming into the United States and Israel). Robert Sarvis, on the other hand, does have the workings of a plan. Sarvis’ recently updated immigration platform, while emotionally tied to his own family history, is the most rational position on immigration existent within this Senatorial race.  If you are interested in understanding Robert Sarvis’ position on immigration, please follow this link to his official campaign site. I will tell you that what Sarvis’ position lacks is a clear policy on border enforcement. This conspicuous absence fuels the line that “Sarvis is for open borders”. I don’t think that he is; but he hasn’t done a good enough job demonstrating how he intends to secure the border. That said, he does agree with me that dramatically increasing legal immigration will make securing the border easier for law enforcement, which leads me to believe that he does support border security. I think Mr. Sarvis simply feels that building walls is not sufficient and doesn’t address the root causes of illegal migration over our borders in the first place. If that is the case, I completely agree.

Now, what about the illegal immigrants that are already here? What do we do about children in Hanover County schools that have not been vaccinated against deadly diseases, diseases which seem to be popping up all across the United States since the Obama Administration opened the border? How is it even possible that children here illegally are able to attend publicly financed schools? We’ll get into that in a second. But first, I’d like you to think about this: Your child could get sent home for talking about Jesus Christ, or drawing a picture of a gun, or praying publicly. Meanwhile, children, not citizens of this country, are mandated to attend public schools, without vaccinations, putting the lives of all of your children at risk. How is that possible?

Apparently, children of illegals are considered homeless, and thanks to all the “we vote for Republicans no matter what because that’s better than seeing Democrats elected”, No Child Left Behind mandates that all homeless children get to attend public school. Unfortunately, they don’t define homelessness in a way that matters.

The facts are as follows: People pouring over our borders, by foot and by plane, are forcing thousands of Americans into hospitals. Eventually, we’ll be talking about the hundreds of people that have died. A society is a sacred thing, a thing which ought to protect itself against avoidable tragedies. Surrounding our children with preventable disease is an avoidable thing. The government has made health care expensive enough without importing old diseases already eradicated in our lands.

Not following the law isn’t an option. There is no such thing as free people living under arbitrary laws. That we think we are free is a matter of historical tradition and memory, not fact. The fact is that we are currently living under arbitrary laws, applied variously and unequally amongst the people. Strict immigration laws don’t work. Do they make sense? Yes. Do they work? No. We need to dramatically expand legal immigration and secure the border. Yes, secure the border first.

A final note: Yes, I realize that increased immigration will have an effect on wages. I know we all want to keep wages high. Consider, if you will, that lower wages also mean cheaper prices and a higher standard of living… at least, for those with a quality living. There are reasons to keep immigrants out. Europe has been overrun and is dealing with radical Islam like we haven’t known. Germany is full of Turks. France is full of folks from Algeria. I like our melting pot and I want to keep it. Keep the ingredients coming, but control it thoughtfully, purposefully, and meaningfully.  The majority of Muslims in America have been fine. I lived in Northern Virginia for years and none of the Muslims, Jews, Christians, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Mormons gave me any trouble. I just had trouble ordering a burger at McDonald’s.

 

About Steven Brodie Tucker

Graduated with a degree in Philosophy from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Also studied economics and political science at George Mason.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Check out NewsMax!

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Submit a Blog Post!

Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

Google Ad

Google Ad

Follow Us Anywhere!

Google Ad

Archives

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
%d bloggers like this: