A taste of our immigration debate... for the public

Look - no one, especially me, is arguing that a closed society is capable of permanent sustainment. The "ingredient", in my opinion, that gives this nation it's unique soul, is that immigrants from throughout the world (and not just any immigrants - the most determined and hard working their native born nations have to offer, in that they are willing to uproot and relocate entire families in order to "make it" here), have populated this great land and made it what it is today. What we have now is a national debate on what to do with two converging situations. 1.) we live in an age of organized, focused and dedicated terrorism; and 2.) our borders are effectively "open." The two can not simultaneously exist if we are to call ourselves either protected, safe, or even sensical. The situation at the borders, given the age of terror we now live in, is simply untenable. These two converging issues is what has brought the "illegal immigration" issue to the forefront. Personally I never once had a discussion, let alone an argument, about illegals until after 9/11. I knew it was happening, I mean I was conscience of it, but honestly it wasn't on my radar screen. Now it's on everybody's.

The bottom line on the border issue - regarding terror, is this: no president, no elected or appointed government official, no one, can honestly look into the camera and tell the American people that the government is fulfilling it's first and most basic responsibility of keeping the citizenry safe when the border remains insolvent. Period. And no sane society, during war time - which we are unquestionably in - allows their national borders to remain in such disarray. It just defies all aspects of common sense. On that principle alone the border must be secured.

Now, in what I call the second tier of the argument - as I put security first - we have the cultural issue. And I must take issue with this in your last ...
"Only that the illegals coming into the country, now as in all times past, are coming because they want to be AMERICAN. They want the success and ease that we live with, the opportunities that they are denied in their home nations, and the resources that we avail ourselves of like healthcare, education, travel, and lifestyle enhancements that they can't get."
Presumably the last two words of that sentence would be "at home." "That they can't get at home."You're half right. And this is the issue Savage et al are referring to. Personally, I don't think these people are coming here to be "Americans." (this is assuming of course that there exists a standard acceptable definition to us both for what it means to be "American").

In my opinion their desire to enter this country is based out of what I call vigilante economics. They want more and better opportunities to make money and they don't want to wait in line - period. It's no more complicated than that. The difference from immigrants past, as I see it anyway, was that for the Italians, the Polish, the Jews, etc, when they came here, they insisted that their children learn English. I've heard stories of the kids getting a back hand for not speaking English in the house - "we are Americans now damn it, speak the language", as one elderly man said his father put it (per a recitation I listened to on the radio recently). They displayed American flags in their delis, and homes. They joined the police, fire, and military forces, and ... they voted! Not at the expense of their native culture mind you, just that "Americanism" was featured and encouraged. And when I see Mexican protesters marching while waiving Mexican flags on the streets of LA; when I have to press one for English; when I sit in an a US located employee dining room and watch 40% of the workers screaming in cheer for Mexico to win a soccer match - WHILE PLAYING THE USA no less, I get the distinct impression that the Mexican immigrants that want to be "Americans", those descendants (in spirit) of the Ellis Island immigrants, are the ones coming here legally. The illegals are just here to make a buck, send half back to Mexico and go see a Matt Damon movie. No oaths, no creeds, no pledges, no English - just money, some Gatorade, and the occasional purchase at Wal Mart. That's the extent of their American experience. And yes, that describes a growing portion of native born Americans, I understand that - but that's their birthright, sad as that is (forgive me fior ending in a preposition).

And I can hear you screaming now Titus - THEN LETS MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO BE LEGAL! Titus my boy, on one point you were dead right. We will never, and I mean never, quail the desire people have to come here. Especially the desire coming from a third world neighbor. And no system you can put in place at the border will EVER satisfy the demand. You could make it a hundred times easier this afternoon and still, the capacity at which we could process the people wanting to come in would be too slow to satisfy all. That's assuming you could expedite background checks, physicals and English competency tests - all part of the bipartisan bill the POTUS pushed, and which will be a part of any immigration reform bill even if it is written by Pelosi and company. So my point is that no matter how efficient at expediting the process you make it, it will never be enough to prevent attempts at illegal entry. Thus security must be the first step. Those who don't meet your standards, don't pass the above requirements ( i.e. have criminal backgrounds, don't want to take time to learn English, etc) will simply continue to cross an unsecured border. Not to mention, no matter how fast the Titus plan for expedited legal entry is, it will never be as quick as grabbing your sh** and running.

So where does that leave us? Well, it of course leaves us with the only sane answer a society can come to. Secure the border first, and in a dramatic and effective way, and then, and only then, set up an expedited process for legal entry in a way that fits the needs and demands of the US - NOT THE POOR MEXICAN IMMIGRANT for crying out loud. That's what this is about isn't it? The sustainment of America? Its assured continuation? Well first and foremost we must have security (in an age of rampant terror and drugs) and then set up the expedited legal process - and I'm all for the two being attached in one bill, as long as enforcement for a two year period is the first step and necessary to trigger the second. I don't see how anyone, with an ounce of common sense, can come to any other conclusion.

One last point. You assume that the massive undertaking that would constitute an efficient, expedited legal entry process is one that could be undertaken by the feds without missing a beat. Yet you see securing the border as some elusive goal that they could never achieve. I find that a bit odd. Just a thought.