Inarguable...

I am forced to admit that it is impossible for me to maintain an argument based on the rights of individuals (and, in some cases, entire societies) that have gained access to the US illegally. My contention has always been that the system that makes them "illegal" is so flawed as to be non-functional. Since it is something the US has only had in effect since 1952 (the McCarran Walter Immigration Act), I feel that correcting the errors and flaws of current immigration laws and regulations is hardly the impossible task that Ryan seems to think it is... just as securing the border might not be the impossible task that I am inclined to think.

When I use terms and phrases like the system that makes them "illegal", I am not suggesting that it is the LAWS fault they are illegal... only that we are trying to enforce laws that are impractical and probably unenforceable. An example of another such law would be the crime and lawlessness that followed the implementation of the Volstead Act of 1919. This does not mean, however, that I think Al Capone wasn't guilty of murder and violence because I think it is wrong for the Feds to regulate morality... only that what the Volstead Act did was to increase the occurrence of very crimes they were trying to eliminate.

I understand the need of a "secure" border... I even support it. I simply haven't heard a viable, practical suggestion as to how to achieve that goal. I still maintain that the use of US active-duty military personnel "shoulder-to-shoulder" across the US-Mexican border will result in nothing more than massive expenditures of money, manpower and equipment in a time when it is vitally needed elsewhere and the increased possibility of the death of those trying to illegally enter the US (admittedly, a chance they take themselves... but resulting in even more bad press for the US).

Some kind of increase in manpower and expense is undoubtedly needed, I don't deny that. All I am saying is that in the world of realpolitik, no current US President or presidential candidate is going to promote the kind of effort Ryan is calling for in securing the border... for exactly the reasons I have given: alienation of huge portions of the voting block, expense, bad press, et al. It simply won't happen. Some other answer or compromise measure will have to be found. Undoubtedly, it will be a combination of what we have discussed and suggested here... comprehensive immigration policy reform with increased security at the border and more stringent enforcement of deportation policy for those deemed habitual or dangerous offenders.

The last point I wanted to touch on was one brought up in comments on the previous posts numerous times... English proficiency as a requirement for applicant immigrants.

At no point in the past 231 years has the US required immigrants to speak English. I find it difficult to understand why that is such an issue now. Yes, more than 15% of the current US population do not speak English as a first language... I know that. I simply can't understand why that is "bad" to the point that it must be mandated by Law to force that 15% to conform. In a world where English is the largest spoken language on earth (and the language of business and technology globally)... followed closely by Spanish, how can it be a bad thing to have a population that so closely reflects the actual spoken demographics of the globe? Where do we see examples of ethnic societies in America where English doesn't emerge as the primary language of the population after only ONE generation?

We have all lived among the vast Asian population of the Mississippi Gulf Coast for more than a decade... did we experience the refusal of that population to "conform"? Did we not work with second-generation Vietnamese that were fluent in BOTH tongues, very nearly equally? Of ALL the Vietnamese people we dealt with on a daily basis in our chosen profession, what percentage of those people were we UNABLE to communicate with at all? In my 14 years on the Coast, I would say I encountered that kind of language barrier in no more than 1 in 100 cases... and I am not exaggerating at all.

Perhaps the most telling point is one that Daydream Believer made in her comment... who is going to determine "proficiency" in a time when one in four high school graduates can't find their home state on an unlabeled map... or cannot read even one act of a Shakespeare play (written in their NATIVE tongue!)? How many people do we work with on a daily basis can't write a proper letter to the editor of the local newspaper without spellchecks or grammar guides (myself included)?

I do not refute the argument that some degree of ability is needed to promote functional literacy in American society for non-English speaking immigrants (legal immigrants, mind you). All I am saying is that if the onus of proficiency is dropped on the applicant's lap, it is simply one more hurdle to citizenship when I can't help but feel that it is the hurdles that are prompting illegal attempts at entry rather than legal ones.

Why, then, can't basic language (English language, obviously) be provided as part of the citizenship class that ALL citizen applicants must take anyway? Rather than a one-week course, make it a four week course that includes 3 weeks of class and material to make the application of even limited English skills more practicable for immigrants... this extra course could be waived if the applicant can show adequate skills prior to applying, of course (no sense wasting time and money on an immigrant with a PhD in English language studies).

I guess I keep asking myself which is the greater threat to an America embroiled up to its ASS in the War on Terror (with theaters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and very possibly Iran and North Korea sooner or later)... a pourous border OR 20 million undocumented aliens residing illegally in the country? I think I would agree with Ryan and say a pourous border is the greater threat, and having said that, I think Baddboy's suggestion of playing hardball with Mexico about policing thier side of the Rio Grande is an excellent idea. Cut off the $110 billion dollar support and assistance checks until such time as we can see that Mexico is doing all it can to stem the tide of illegals from their end of the field. That amount alone is more than twice what the PotUS has asked the Congress for in War funding over the last 14 months... and that kind of action on our part could go a long way to changing how Mexico City feels about the "immigration" status of the 2,000 Mexicans crossing the border every day.

Now, if I had to guess, I'd venture to say that with the implementation of THAT kind of hard-ball play, we wouldn't NEED 5 divisions of US Army and Marine troops on the US-Mexican border to stop the flow... Mexico would post 5 divisions of their own troops there instead, with guns pointed south instead of north.

This is a pro-active response to the problem, where I still insist that Ryan's initial suggestion to "secure" the border with Federal troops and National Guard personnel is reactionary at best... and a flat-out recipe for disaster, at worst.

So, to wrap up... I am still more than a little pissed off that every single thing I write or say on this topic is dismissed out of hand as "liberal bullshit" time and time again. I question failing immigration policy, and I'm labeled a "moron"... when in 1938, FDR kept in place an immigration policy that REFUSED entry and immigrant status to 500,000 German and central European Jews... and history is very clear what their fate was over the course of the next 7 years. I question the suggestion to use active duty military as a police force, and I'm called unpatriotic and anti-military... when all I have to do is refer to such historical events Kent State, the military occupation of Mississippi and Alabama during Reconstruction, Wounded Knee and Rosebud Reservations, and MacArthur's attack of the "Bonus Army" to show that the US military make lousy policemen... especially in the US itself.

I have readily admitted that my position is nearly impossible to defend outside of the realm of moral emotionalism... NEVER a good position to make political opinion from. That does not negate the moral side of the issue, however. Labeling an argument "irrelevant" because of emotional attachment is as untenable as arguing from a purely emotional position alone. My concern for "poor kids" of illegal aliens (whether or not those children are US citizens) is as valid an argument as any in an age when one side of the "isle" pits public perception and emotion against the other on a minute to minute basis. I still stand by the premise that ANY US policy that risks the rights and liberties of even ONE innocent citizen risks the rights and liberties of ALL US citizens... this is the very heart of Ryan's favorite "slippery-slope" argument in any number of his favorite political "hot topics". The Gonzalez-Reno affair is an excellent example... Reno was RIGHT in what she did, and nothing she did to enforce her determination was ILLEGAL or WRONG... yet the country, the world, and very probably history itself will vilify her and the Administration she was working for because of it. All the world will recall is that she was "pandering" to the evil Castro in giving up the child Elian into his Communist regime's hands. The moral issues of the affair had far-reaching and tangible effects on the outcome of the affair... this is undeniable, and unfortunate... especially since the Administration had in its power to stop the disaster before it exploded.

Am I really THAT out of line in hoping that the same (or worse) can be avoided in THIS situation?