Dear Editor:
Your obtuse editorial of Oct. 20th begins with the familiar, faulty
premise of labelling those against loosely or uncontrolled immigration
as "anti-immigrationists" where they are merely immigration
restrictionists as my previous analogies of restrictive speed limits and
of hot water when showering logically described. Even a position of an
immigration time out is not an anti-entry position, but only a
reasonable policy to temporarily address excessive past migration and
with respect to 9/11 concerns which your editorial gives shortshrift.
To say that "the role of immigration in such national security is
miniscule...." is like saying that the role of the male in the birth of
a child is of no consequence. While the time involved may be brief, the
result is profound with a direct link.
What "No sensible person..." can deny is that we have had and still do
have unsecured borders and lax immigration policies that result numerous
problems and threats to our security, from large to small. To applaud
Congress for the ill-advised proposals of disguised amnesty that we have seen to
date is similar to endorsing their frequent overspending and subsequent
"solution" of printing up more money and raising the debt limit. Having
failed in both allowing too much immigration and spending, their stopgap
"solutions" does nothing to resolve the basic problems. Why would a more
vigorous effort in the deportation of illegals "require us to become a
Gestapo state and inevitably lead to the destruction of the liberties"
any more than any other area of law enforcement? It is untrue for
anyone to say that efforts to secure the border and control entry have
failed as serious efforts have not been applied. Yes, restrictionists
are "insisting that Congress address the undocumented problem, and that
our government agencies pursue a national security agenda", but not by
eliminating the liberties of citizens and by making airports or America
a police state. If there is any "worst enemy", it is the failure of elected leaders in
their mandates of securing our land (not foreign ones). Citizens will
and are demanding that proper solutions be found to address these
problems, not stop-gap measures that only make problems worse, as the
following articles attest: http://bigjweb.com/artman/publish/article_1316.shtml
http://www.vdare.com/misc/yeagley_deport.htm.
R. L. Ranger
Copyright © 1999-2002 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
|
Add to del.icio.us