My plan was to enjoy the rest of the summer
in relative equanimity until the political season picks up again
after Labor Day.
The thought crossed my mind that equanimity
might come easier if I avoided talk radio and news reports in
general for two weeks, like I suspect some people do all the
time in order to live a calm and clueless life. But something in
my nature needs to know what's going on, so last week I learned
about the illegal immigrant who killed a fine young American man
in Milford on Aug. 20.
It's infuriating when any drunk driver kills
anyone. But this case was worse than usual because the innocent
young victim could probably have survived if the driver had
stopped instead of dragging him. Worse, the driver wasn't
supposed to be here at all.
I've not quite grasped the illegal
immigration issue since my introduction to it when I was a guest
on NECN, talking with Jim Braude about various things. He asked
me what I thought of illegal immigration and, puzzled, I
responded with the obvious: "What part of illegal don't you
Jim seemed surprised by this. I still don't
get it: What's the valid argument for illegal immigration?
Yes, some libertarians don't believe in
borders, arguing that anyone should be able to live anywhere he
wants. However, in their ideal world, this policy would
self-control, because newcomers wouldn't expect government
support and services; they'd come the way most of our
forefathers did, working incredibly hard and barely getting by
for a generation until they found their own way into the
Also important to note: These libertarians
can't live anywhere they want in the rest of the world. Mexico,
for instance, wouldn't have let Nicolas Guaman, the drunk
Ecuadorian who dragged the young American to his death in
Milford earlier this month, walk across its southern border and
settle in. It's generally understood that nations will have
borders and control who gets to live there.
The U.S. had the technical ability to put a
man on the moon; why has it been unable to emulate China's Great
Wall, or Panama's canal, along its southern border? One gets the
impression that recent federal governments don't really want to
I sometimes wonder if the reason we are still
in Iraq and Afghanistan is that the president fears adding to
unemployment numbers with military personnel who come home. I'd
offer them all positions in the National Guard to patrol the
borders. I also wonder why unemployed Americans aren't there
now, instead of sitting around getting extended (eternal?)
We keep hearing that employers need illegals
to do the jobs that Americans won't do. Let's celebrate this
Labor Day by cutting back those unemployment benefits and I'll
bet Americans would start doing those jobs. The alternative
seems to be continuing the delusion that we are in a normal,
cyclical recession and the traditional manufacturing jobs are
coming back any day now.
Another thing I don't understand is why
anyone would be opposed to the federal government's "Secure
Communities" program, with its fingerprint-sharing system that
could identify illegal immigrants when first arrested? What's
the alternative, insecure communities?
Legislative Republicans on Beacon Hill have
long been pushing for Massachusetts to join, but Gov. Deval
Patrick has refused to sign on.
Now, with a young Massachusetts American
unnecessarily dead because of an illegal immigrant who was once
arrested for assault on a police officer, Patrick says that the
Obama administration no longer requires a sign-off, that all
states are expected to participate. So our governor can wash his
hands of responsibility either way.
Giving credit where it's due, President Obama
has presided over more deportations than the Bush
administration. However, it's hard to get over his Aunt Zeituni
who lived here as an illegal immigrant in public housing for
years, collecting welfare and disability; and now his Uncle
Onyango, still an illegal immigrant, who was just arrested for
drunk driving in Framingham after almost hitting a police car.
When offered a phone call, he said he'd like to call the White
Those who support illegal immigration argue
that it would be impractical and too expensive to deport all the
illegal immigrants in the country. Probably true; but let's get
started with those who have been caught committing various
crimes and misdemeanors, including drunk drivers like Uncle
Onyango, and see how far we get. Then withdraw government
subsidies for illegal non-citizens and see how many others
Another thing I don't understand: Why are
people who support only legal immigration called racists by
people who support the same people coming in illegally?
Considering that most illegals are the same race as most
Americans, i.e., Caucasian, this accusation seems ignorant as
well as silly.
I wish everyone in the world who wants to
live a free, happy and productive life here could fit into our
country. Since that isn't possible, the only alternative is a
rational immigration policy that addresses our real needs as a
But our recent federal governments don't seem
to want this. The final thing I don't understand: Why not?