Dear Editor:
It is truly unfortunate that Gary Endelman's scholarly, but
contradictive, article, "Elephant In The Room", concludes that in the present dilemma between the desires of illegals and the rule of law that
amnesty is inevitable and that our national will, law, social fabric and
sovereignty must be subordinated to that of foreigners, special
interests and to cover the failures of Congress in enforcing immigration
policies. He correctly notes the futility of any form of amnesty which
only encourages further illegal entry and amnesties and the corrosive
effect upon our social fabric and rule of law and points out the need to
reform immigration policies to avoid future amnesties. But he errs not
only in acquiescing to a amnesty now, but also in the type of reform
that most of America wants (as opposed to special and political
interests). We can no longer absorb and subsidize the huge numbers that
are coming here or would like to. The reform that is needed is a return
to limited, controlled and allocated entry policies with a time out
applying to Mexico, not to "regularize" the invasion. The latter is
something desirable for our digestive systems, not to excessive
immigration and lawbreakers. Just one more amnesty and then never again
was the lie that we have heard before. This is no different than
Congress deceitfully saying, just let us raise the debt limit one more
time and then we will control our spending. To blame US or our policies
for illegal entry is specious. The bank robber who followed suit would
demand that the bank change their policies to parallel the robbers
desire for "a better life" and to make his work easier, less risky and
with full pardon (and possibly even with an cross nation march to
Washington). It is also a misrepresentation to generalize that "all
they want to do is come here and work". Many come here to commit crimes
and do and all who violate our borders begin their American experience
with a criminal act against US. How can this possibly be the basis for
any amnesty or citizenship? How can the callous pandering to illegals
for political or profit motives be justified in view of the greater
parameters involved? How is the Rule of Law preserved or honored by
making a mockery of it? How is the truth obviated by marginalizing it?
The way to deal with an elephant in the room is to remove it and to
repair the reasons it came to be there, not to feed it, make it a
permanent resident and allow it to make a mess and take over or destroy
the house. However, an invited dog, cat or other manageable
relationship is usually welcomed if not coerced or untenable. Such a
policy is not anti-house guest, but merely a restrictive one that limits
non-residents in a reasonable manner that secures the integrity,
interests and property rights of the homeowner. The real "elephant in
the house" that so many ignore is the truth that a home or a nation
should be secured for the benefit and interests of its owner/citizens,
not others. That many continue to exhibit a condition of xenomania
against the interests of the citizen owners of America is violative of
reason, law, sovereignty, our rights and what we have long laboriously
struggled to build by a huge sacrifice of toil, blood, sweat and tears
of our own. To capriciously dilute this is beyond being inappropriate.
R. L. Ranger
Copyright © 1999-2002 American Immigration LLC, ILW.COM
|
Add to del.icio.us