Musings
This is a paper I submitted to my government class back in plebe year. I was browsing around on my computer and thought it might make for interesting reading for you LJ-stalkers. Just FYI: I got a 95% for this. Footnotes and bibliography are in the comments section, since there wasn't enough room in the post.
“Give me your tired, your poor…send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Engraved on the Statue of Liberty, Emma Lazarus’s words have inspired millions to enter the United States to make better lives for themselves. We are a country of many cultures, races, and languages. We have been known as the great “Melting Pot” for over a century. But lately, we have become more of a “tossed salad,” with new immigrants refusing to assimilate into American culture. Unchecked immigration poses a threat to American culture, politics, and society. Harder steps must be taken to limit both legal and illegal immigration.
To begin, we must explore what a “nation” is. Some define it as a people who share common history, religion, traditions, heroes, or other such notable things. They also share something called a “national identity,” meaning that they think of themselves as citizens of said nation. This is a common ideal that binds them into one fabric; even if that fabric is of different weaves and colors, it is still one piece. When foreigners came here in the past, they wanted to escape their old lives and become “Americans” in deed as well as name. There was a certain pride in acknowledging their roots, but roots were little more than identifiers that provided common umbrellas for new citizens to gather under. While this seems somewhat clannish (and it was), these “umbrellas” provided a base for new immigrants to get their footing and start to make their way in the new country, to eventually move out from under the shelter as a child moves out of the parents’ home when it is possible for him or her to make it alone. Therefore, it follows that a “nation” is made up of a group of people who share this “national identity” regardless of race or ethnic background, but are committed to the betterment of themselves and their nation.
But lately, the pride in one’s heritage is being taken too far: new immigrants are holding too tightly to their shared customs and refuse to move away, preferring to stay put right where they are-at the bottom of the economic ladder. Once established within our borders (often with the usually¬-legal help of countrymen already living here), they group together (especially in border areas), and it is as though a piece of the old country has been transplanted wholesale onto American soil. They become “hyphenated Americans” (African-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc.), which implies a lingering allegiance to the old country. This is not conducive to good citizenship, and the lack of motivation for upward movement does not help relieve the already-heavy burden on the country’s welfare system: the use of such programs as food stamps and Supplemental Social Security by immigrants runs anywhere from 50-100% higher than in native-born citizens.^1 As of the 2000 Census, nearly thirty percent of immigrant households were below the poverty line.^2
Without sounding nativistic, the whole point of moving to a new country is supposed to be to improve a lifestyle, whether for an individual or for an entire family, but such benefits come at a price: namely, to become a citizen of the United States (which involves at least learning to speak and read English). The last Census also showed that one-third of the legal (to say nothing of the illegals that the Census does not account for) immigrants had not finished high school, and some 22% had not even had a ninth-grade education.^3 Not having a ninth-grade education is fine if a person wants to work in lawn care or as a convenience store cashier for the rest of their life, but to get anywhere in today’s world requires at least a G.E.D. On a hopeful note for young immigrants and first-generation children, the New York Times reports:
Two years after Californians voted to end bilingual education and force a million Spanish-speaking students to immerse themselves in English as if it were a cold bath, those students are improving in reading and other subjects at often striking rates, according to standardized test scores.^4
I would call that a wake-up call for those who think banning bilingual education is an affront to foreign-born students. Immersion is proven to be an effective method of teaching a new language, at little to no additional cost to the education system: that should quiet complaints about limited funds.
Congress knows that illegal immigration is a big problem for the country, and is taking steps to assist struggling law enforcement programs, but little has been finalized. In the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2005, Congress found that while over one million illegal aliens are caught trying to cross the border each year, an estimated half-million still make it in (a highly optimistic number according to most news sources, who put it upwards of three million), with ninety-four percent of them crossing the border from Mexico into the Southwest. Records show that only ten million legally arrived in the States in the entire 1990’s decade.^5 To combat the rise in illegal crossings, Congress is attempting to procure millions of dollars in grant money to agencies within one hundred miles of the border (specifically the Southwest).^6
Still, there are issues dividing the legislature: Senators Kennedy (D-Mass.) and McCain (R-Ariz.) have proposed that aliens already in-residence may apply for full citizenship or permanent legal residence after paying a fine and keeping a clean criminal record. Others, like John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and John Kyl (R-Ariz.) are more inclined to strengthen the borders by aiding law enforcement agencies with jurisdictions including the border areas in an attempt to stop the problem at its source, or at least slow it from a flood to a trickle.^7
James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention quote Gouverneur Morris as saying: “Every society from a great Nation down to a Club has the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.”^8 We have the power, so why not exercise it? Such things we may do to limit immigration might include putting an annual cap on legal immigration-not by nationality, but in total-in order to slow the flood, stoppage of any amnesty programs, deportation of illegal aliens and prosecution of those who smuggle them over, and denial of any continuation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Amnesty is essentially a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that proves we are not willing to prosecute those who break our laws and cross our borders illegally; deportation of aliens and prosecution of human traffickers is the only solution for dealing with aliens who refuse to become citizens. If we do nothing, we might as well scratch existing immigration laws off the books for all the good they do. As for NAFTA, look at what happened with the European Economic Community: it grew from an economic union into a political one.^9 Do we want to enter into a political union such as that with Mexico? I think not.
For now though, I believe it would be more efficient to move against the problem with the borders first. If the focus is on those already inside the borders, it is like shutting the gate after the horses have all run away-or in this case, having a hive’s worth of bees inside a tent: it is almost impossible to get them out, and they will sting while being swatted one at a time; in the meantime, more bees will come in, and will replace those lost. Perhaps the analogy is a bit cold, but I find it apt. There is no point in dealing with existing problems until you can stop the source. Stop or slow the entry of illegals, then deal with the existing ones.
Concerning society, the increase in flow of illegal aliens is becoming a danger to the general public as well. Human trafficking is a very profitable, if high-risk business for people who want to make money at the expense of others. Aliens are smuggled over the border at prices of several thousand dollars a head, though the aliens themselves are treated like inhuman cargo most of the time. Because it is such a high-risk business, smugglers are known to be very violent when confronted: “where the offense was committed for commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain…in the case of a first violation of this subparagraph, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years.”^10 With such a sentence hanging over their heads, smugglers are more inclined to either shoot their way out, or more commonly, “dispose” of their cargo rather than get caught with it.
Once inside the borders, there is an open culture waiting to take in aliens, with one in particular (especially for younger ones) that is not exactly conducive to adopting American culture or paving the way to good citizenship: gangs. In such places where a high percentage of the population is of a “minority” (a self-defeating definition when you stop to think about it), individuals attract each other, taking a sort of perverse pride in their shared heritage. Coming together to form their own social groups out of fear of rejection, or simply [often] adolescent rebelliousness, they begin to establish “turf,” or territory. When a gang’s territory conflicts with another’s problems arise. To call them “violent” would be an understatement: in California (a state historically rife with immigrant crime) between 1988 and 1994, the number of illegal aliens held in state prisons exploded from fifty-five hundred to eighteen thousand.^11
Illegal immigration is also becoming a problem for our economy. Immigrants are now an integral part of the American economic system, but illegal aliens are known to take jobs that nobody else will (e.g. janitorial, retail, and menial labor positions), thereby providing a not-insignificant portion of the economic infrastructure’s base. To get legal immigrants or natural-born citizens to apply would mean raising the wages, since they have no reason to keep quiet about unfair treatment. Depressed wages limit the ability of a person to get ahead and climb the social and economic ladders, creating a permanent lower class; the effects of having such a setup can be seen in any Third World country’s ratio of haves to have-nots. Should illegals be cut out of the economy, wages would have to be raised, since there would be only legal residents and citizens to take the jobs, which would hopefully provide a boost to the stagnating economy and improve the overall standard of living as that extra money percolated back into the economic system.
The fact that it is largely migrant workers who take the so-called “dirty jobs” is really more of an indication of the American people and how we have our noses in the air (and the fact that Big Business loves to pay as little as possible and reap the largest returns it can) than anything else. That we as a society are too proud to take such positions means that Big Business can pay the absolute minimum it can get away with-which is often lower than federally-mandated minimum wage-to those who are desperate for any sort of work to help them appear normal. Still, this can backfire, as Wal-Mart learned when it was found to have knowingly hired over one hundred illegal workers to clean stores, some earning just a dollar an hour and living in the back rooms.^12
Perhaps the risk of upsetting Big Business is one reason for the split within the Republican Party concerning debates over immigration and border security. Big Business is traditionally a pillar of support for the Republicans, but if the risk is losing a large portion of their workforce (not to mention its bank accounts), it stands to reason that Republicans may find themselves lacking a good portion of their usual support come campaign season.
However, Republicans are not the only party affected by the immigration issue-it is a touchy subject on both sides of the aisle, with each party taking similar stances, but for different reasons. Republicans do not want to upset their friend Big Business, but the majority of Democrats would rather not upset a large part of their constituents. Traditionally, large migrant groups and other minorities are pro-Democrat (another reason for Democrats to pay only lip service to border security, as it adds to their power base), and would be incensed at any attempt by their representatives to enforce immigration laws. In this case, retaliation would likely be that immigrants would search elsewhere for a representative who would work for them and their friends not yet over the border; should Democrats encourage tighter borders, higher standards for citizenship, and deportation of illegal aliens, they may quickly find themselves without a job.
Such attacks on societal and political values are even creating problems abroad. In Europe, Danish interior minister Karen Jespersen expressed the opinion that refugees with criminal records be put on a “deserted island.” This was following a series of gang rapes of Danish women by Middle Eastern immigrants and demands that Danish law be made to conform to Islamic law, with new restrictions on women, return of the death penalty, and mutilations as punishment for theft. The fallout from that little pearl of wisdom: “Europe was aghast-at Ms. Jespersen…the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia was instantly on her case.”^13 So it comes as no surprise that few of our own politicians are reticent about voicing their own opinions. The problem with the “head-in-the-sand” mentality that so many elected officials assume is that the issue is not going to go away; it is going to escalate until it is too late. Why we cannot figure out that over one million illegal aliens per year are as large a danger to our society and economy as one million hostile foreign soldiers are to our immediate national security is beyond me.
In the midst of all today’s problems, the country has been criticized for not getting its priorities in line. People complain of wars overseas draining funds that should be put to use here at home first. America’s infrastructure appears to be tottering, especially its education system, which is estimated to need some $300 billion to bring the sub-par 75% of buildings up to today’s standards. ^14 While not every elementary school needs cable modems and HDTV’s in every room, having actually been educated in falling-apart buildings-I distinctly remember having a chunk of ceiling plaster fall to my desk during a test (and that was in relatively well-off Fairfax County, VA, to say nothing of lower-income areas)-I can understand where these complaints are coming from.
In response to that, I feel that I must agree with those who deplore the apparent misuse of our country’s funds. Promoting democracy in foreign countries is a noble goal, but we cannot always be the White Knight in world affairs. At April’s Forrestal Lecture, Mr. Hadley, National Security Advisor to the President, remarked on how we are sending millions of dollars in aid to Africa to build schools and treat the sick, and how we are providing thousands of dollars’ worth of scholarships to African students so they may study over here. The way I understood it, it is as though we are taking on the lion’s share of responsibility for an entire continent, especially when it comes to footing the bill. It seems as though we are bent on solving the world’s problems without fixing our own first. Why, when our own public school systems are declining, do we ignore them? The proof: why would we need a “No Child Left Behind” Act if schools were performing to an acceptable degree; why are standardized tests such as the SAT changed after decades of use? Granted the SAT needs to keep up with changing times, but the verbal/math sections should be fine for college boards-if we need a “writing” portion, it implies that the education system is not-or cannot-do its job properly.
This is not to say that we can fix a problem by throwing money at it (though Africa has been a fiscal sinkhole for years); my point is that we as a country really need to get our heads on straight and our priorities in order: home first, world after. “Even if immigrants are high achievers should we invest more in our citizens or in citizens of other countries?”^15 By that argument, we should be worrying about how to protect our borders and support our society instead of figuring out how we can smooth the way for people who entered the country illegally, thereby encouraging more to do the same. Besides the fact that our country is infinitely more forgiving to illegals, and still one of the best to live in, immigrants choose to come here because their own countries are messed up, breaking, or already broken. If that is the case, that national population should be working to fix themselves rather than just leaving it behind and putting more of a burden on us. President Fox of Mexico supposedly helps us out by trying to rein in attempted border crossings, but every Mexican that becomes a Mexican-American (that hyphenation again!) is one less person straining his own economy.
To conclude, immigration creates a host of problems. It significantly adds to the strain on a generous economy by lowering wages for jobs and suckling the proverbial Welfare teat dry, and it imperils the stability of our country’s societal values. Should they prove inclined to move up in the world, I have no problem with allowing immigration, albeit at a lesser rate than we allow now. To fix the problems we have, I believe that Congress should authorize funds for an expanded and improved Border Patrol, especially along the Mexican border. As I mentioned above, we should also abolish amnesty programs, and consider deportation as a standard punishment for illegal aliens caught in-residence, especially if they are arrested in connection with a crime; we should not allow them to live off of money made from taxes that they do not pay. Without totally sealing our borders, we should restrict applications for lawful immigration and consequent naturalization, and keep better track of those who enter on “worker and student” visas, making sure that they do no endlessly renew them or attempt to disappear upon expiration. What we need to do is ensure our protection from foreign incursion-however benign-and only then proceed to focus on our problems within our own borders.
“Give me your tired, your poor…send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!” Engraved on the Statue of Liberty, Emma Lazarus’s words have inspired millions to enter the United States to make better lives for themselves. We are a country of many cultures, races, and languages. We have been known as the great “Melting Pot” for over a century. But lately, we have become more of a “tossed salad,” with new immigrants refusing to assimilate into American culture. Unchecked immigration poses a threat to American culture, politics, and society. Harder steps must be taken to limit both legal and illegal immigration.
To begin, we must explore what a “nation” is. Some define it as a people who share common history, religion, traditions, heroes, or other such notable things. They also share something called a “national identity,” meaning that they think of themselves as citizens of said nation. This is a common ideal that binds them into one fabric; even if that fabric is of different weaves and colors, it is still one piece. When foreigners came here in the past, they wanted to escape their old lives and become “Americans” in deed as well as name. There was a certain pride in acknowledging their roots, but roots were little more than identifiers that provided common umbrellas for new citizens to gather under. While this seems somewhat clannish (and it was), these “umbrellas” provided a base for new immigrants to get their footing and start to make their way in the new country, to eventually move out from under the shelter as a child moves out of the parents’ home when it is possible for him or her to make it alone. Therefore, it follows that a “nation” is made up of a group of people who share this “national identity” regardless of race or ethnic background, but are committed to the betterment of themselves and their nation.
But lately, the pride in one’s heritage is being taken too far: new immigrants are holding too tightly to their shared customs and refuse to move away, preferring to stay put right where they are-at the bottom of the economic ladder. Once established within our borders (often with the usually¬-legal help of countrymen already living here), they group together (especially in border areas), and it is as though a piece of the old country has been transplanted wholesale onto American soil. They become “hyphenated Americans” (African-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc.), which implies a lingering allegiance to the old country. This is not conducive to good citizenship, and the lack of motivation for upward movement does not help relieve the already-heavy burden on the country’s welfare system: the use of such programs as food stamps and Supplemental Social Security by immigrants runs anywhere from 50-100% higher than in native-born citizens.^1 As of the 2000 Census, nearly thirty percent of immigrant households were below the poverty line.^2
Without sounding nativistic, the whole point of moving to a new country is supposed to be to improve a lifestyle, whether for an individual or for an entire family, but such benefits come at a price: namely, to become a citizen of the United States (which involves at least learning to speak and read English). The last Census also showed that one-third of the legal (to say nothing of the illegals that the Census does not account for) immigrants had not finished high school, and some 22% had not even had a ninth-grade education.^3 Not having a ninth-grade education is fine if a person wants to work in lawn care or as a convenience store cashier for the rest of their life, but to get anywhere in today’s world requires at least a G.E.D. On a hopeful note for young immigrants and first-generation children, the New York Times reports:
Two years after Californians voted to end bilingual education and force a million Spanish-speaking students to immerse themselves in English as if it were a cold bath, those students are improving in reading and other subjects at often striking rates, according to standardized test scores.^4
I would call that a wake-up call for those who think banning bilingual education is an affront to foreign-born students. Immersion is proven to be an effective method of teaching a new language, at little to no additional cost to the education system: that should quiet complaints about limited funds.
Congress knows that illegal immigration is a big problem for the country, and is taking steps to assist struggling law enforcement programs, but little has been finalized. In the Border Law Enforcement Relief Act of 2005, Congress found that while over one million illegal aliens are caught trying to cross the border each year, an estimated half-million still make it in (a highly optimistic number according to most news sources, who put it upwards of three million), with ninety-four percent of them crossing the border from Mexico into the Southwest. Records show that only ten million legally arrived in the States in the entire 1990’s decade.^5 To combat the rise in illegal crossings, Congress is attempting to procure millions of dollars in grant money to agencies within one hundred miles of the border (specifically the Southwest).^6
Still, there are issues dividing the legislature: Senators Kennedy (D-Mass.) and McCain (R-Ariz.) have proposed that aliens already in-residence may apply for full citizenship or permanent legal residence after paying a fine and keeping a clean criminal record. Others, like John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and John Kyl (R-Ariz.) are more inclined to strengthen the borders by aiding law enforcement agencies with jurisdictions including the border areas in an attempt to stop the problem at its source, or at least slow it from a flood to a trickle.^7
James Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention quote Gouverneur Morris as saying: “Every society from a great Nation down to a Club has the right of declaring the conditions on which new members should be admitted.”^8 We have the power, so why not exercise it? Such things we may do to limit immigration might include putting an annual cap on legal immigration-not by nationality, but in total-in order to slow the flood, stoppage of any amnesty programs, deportation of illegal aliens and prosecution of those who smuggle them over, and denial of any continuation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Amnesty is essentially a “get-out-of-jail-free” card that proves we are not willing to prosecute those who break our laws and cross our borders illegally; deportation of aliens and prosecution of human traffickers is the only solution for dealing with aliens who refuse to become citizens. If we do nothing, we might as well scratch existing immigration laws off the books for all the good they do. As for NAFTA, look at what happened with the European Economic Community: it grew from an economic union into a political one.^9 Do we want to enter into a political union such as that with Mexico? I think not.
For now though, I believe it would be more efficient to move against the problem with the borders first. If the focus is on those already inside the borders, it is like shutting the gate after the horses have all run away-or in this case, having a hive’s worth of bees inside a tent: it is almost impossible to get them out, and they will sting while being swatted one at a time; in the meantime, more bees will come in, and will replace those lost. Perhaps the analogy is a bit cold, but I find it apt. There is no point in dealing with existing problems until you can stop the source. Stop or slow the entry of illegals, then deal with the existing ones.
Concerning society, the increase in flow of illegal aliens is becoming a danger to the general public as well. Human trafficking is a very profitable, if high-risk business for people who want to make money at the expense of others. Aliens are smuggled over the border at prices of several thousand dollars a head, though the aliens themselves are treated like inhuman cargo most of the time. Because it is such a high-risk business, smugglers are known to be very violent when confronted: “where the offense was committed for commercial advantage, profit, or private financial gain…in the case of a first violation of this subparagraph, be imprisoned for not more than 20 years.”^10 With such a sentence hanging over their heads, smugglers are more inclined to either shoot their way out, or more commonly, “dispose” of their cargo rather than get caught with it.
Once inside the borders, there is an open culture waiting to take in aliens, with one in particular (especially for younger ones) that is not exactly conducive to adopting American culture or paving the way to good citizenship: gangs. In such places where a high percentage of the population is of a “minority” (a self-defeating definition when you stop to think about it), individuals attract each other, taking a sort of perverse pride in their shared heritage. Coming together to form their own social groups out of fear of rejection, or simply [often] adolescent rebelliousness, they begin to establish “turf,” or territory. When a gang’s territory conflicts with another’s problems arise. To call them “violent” would be an understatement: in California (a state historically rife with immigrant crime) between 1988 and 1994, the number of illegal aliens held in state prisons exploded from fifty-five hundred to eighteen thousand.^11
Illegal immigration is also becoming a problem for our economy. Immigrants are now an integral part of the American economic system, but illegal aliens are known to take jobs that nobody else will (e.g. janitorial, retail, and menial labor positions), thereby providing a not-insignificant portion of the economic infrastructure’s base. To get legal immigrants or natural-born citizens to apply would mean raising the wages, since they have no reason to keep quiet about unfair treatment. Depressed wages limit the ability of a person to get ahead and climb the social and economic ladders, creating a permanent lower class; the effects of having such a setup can be seen in any Third World country’s ratio of haves to have-nots. Should illegals be cut out of the economy, wages would have to be raised, since there would be only legal residents and citizens to take the jobs, which would hopefully provide a boost to the stagnating economy and improve the overall standard of living as that extra money percolated back into the economic system.
The fact that it is largely migrant workers who take the so-called “dirty jobs” is really more of an indication of the American people and how we have our noses in the air (and the fact that Big Business loves to pay as little as possible and reap the largest returns it can) than anything else. That we as a society are too proud to take such positions means that Big Business can pay the absolute minimum it can get away with-which is often lower than federally-mandated minimum wage-to those who are desperate for any sort of work to help them appear normal. Still, this can backfire, as Wal-Mart learned when it was found to have knowingly hired over one hundred illegal workers to clean stores, some earning just a dollar an hour and living in the back rooms.^12
Perhaps the risk of upsetting Big Business is one reason for the split within the Republican Party concerning debates over immigration and border security. Big Business is traditionally a pillar of support for the Republicans, but if the risk is losing a large portion of their workforce (not to mention its bank accounts), it stands to reason that Republicans may find themselves lacking a good portion of their usual support come campaign season.
However, Republicans are not the only party affected by the immigration issue-it is a touchy subject on both sides of the aisle, with each party taking similar stances, but for different reasons. Republicans do not want to upset their friend Big Business, but the majority of Democrats would rather not upset a large part of their constituents. Traditionally, large migrant groups and other minorities are pro-Democrat (another reason for Democrats to pay only lip service to border security, as it adds to their power base), and would be incensed at any attempt by their representatives to enforce immigration laws. In this case, retaliation would likely be that immigrants would search elsewhere for a representative who would work for them and their friends not yet over the border; should Democrats encourage tighter borders, higher standards for citizenship, and deportation of illegal aliens, they may quickly find themselves without a job.
Such attacks on societal and political values are even creating problems abroad. In Europe, Danish interior minister Karen Jespersen expressed the opinion that refugees with criminal records be put on a “deserted island.” This was following a series of gang rapes of Danish women by Middle Eastern immigrants and demands that Danish law be made to conform to Islamic law, with new restrictions on women, return of the death penalty, and mutilations as punishment for theft. The fallout from that little pearl of wisdom: “Europe was aghast-at Ms. Jespersen…the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia was instantly on her case.”^13 So it comes as no surprise that few of our own politicians are reticent about voicing their own opinions. The problem with the “head-in-the-sand” mentality that so many elected officials assume is that the issue is not going to go away; it is going to escalate until it is too late. Why we cannot figure out that over one million illegal aliens per year are as large a danger to our society and economy as one million hostile foreign soldiers are to our immediate national security is beyond me.
In the midst of all today’s problems, the country has been criticized for not getting its priorities in line. People complain of wars overseas draining funds that should be put to use here at home first. America’s infrastructure appears to be tottering, especially its education system, which is estimated to need some $300 billion to bring the sub-par 75% of buildings up to today’s standards. ^14 While not every elementary school needs cable modems and HDTV’s in every room, having actually been educated in falling-apart buildings-I distinctly remember having a chunk of ceiling plaster fall to my desk during a test (and that was in relatively well-off Fairfax County, VA, to say nothing of lower-income areas)-I can understand where these complaints are coming from.
In response to that, I feel that I must agree with those who deplore the apparent misuse of our country’s funds. Promoting democracy in foreign countries is a noble goal, but we cannot always be the White Knight in world affairs. At April’s Forrestal Lecture, Mr. Hadley, National Security Advisor to the President, remarked on how we are sending millions of dollars in aid to Africa to build schools and treat the sick, and how we are providing thousands of dollars’ worth of scholarships to African students so they may study over here. The way I understood it, it is as though we are taking on the lion’s share of responsibility for an entire continent, especially when it comes to footing the bill. It seems as though we are bent on solving the world’s problems without fixing our own first. Why, when our own public school systems are declining, do we ignore them? The proof: why would we need a “No Child Left Behind” Act if schools were performing to an acceptable degree; why are standardized tests such as the SAT changed after decades of use? Granted the SAT needs to keep up with changing times, but the verbal/math sections should be fine for college boards-if we need a “writing” portion, it implies that the education system is not-or cannot-do its job properly.
This is not to say that we can fix a problem by throwing money at it (though Africa has been a fiscal sinkhole for years); my point is that we as a country really need to get our heads on straight and our priorities in order: home first, world after. “Even if immigrants are high achievers should we invest more in our citizens or in citizens of other countries?”^15 By that argument, we should be worrying about how to protect our borders and support our society instead of figuring out how we can smooth the way for people who entered the country illegally, thereby encouraging more to do the same. Besides the fact that our country is infinitely more forgiving to illegals, and still one of the best to live in, immigrants choose to come here because their own countries are messed up, breaking, or already broken. If that is the case, that national population should be working to fix themselves rather than just leaving it behind and putting more of a burden on us. President Fox of Mexico supposedly helps us out by trying to rein in attempted border crossings, but every Mexican that becomes a Mexican-American (that hyphenation again!) is one less person straining his own economy.
To conclude, immigration creates a host of problems. It significantly adds to the strain on a generous economy by lowering wages for jobs and suckling the proverbial Welfare teat dry, and it imperils the stability of our country’s societal values. Should they prove inclined to move up in the world, I have no problem with allowing immigration, albeit at a lesser rate than we allow now. To fix the problems we have, I believe that Congress should authorize funds for an expanded and improved Border Patrol, especially along the Mexican border. As I mentioned above, we should also abolish amnesty programs, and consider deportation as a standard punishment for illegal aliens caught in-residence, especially if they are arrested in connection with a crime; we should not allow them to live off of money made from taxes that they do not pay. Without totally sealing our borders, we should restrict applications for lawful immigration and consequent naturalization, and keep better track of those who enter on “worker and student” visas, making sure that they do no endlessly renew them or attempt to disappear upon expiration. What we need to do is ensure our protection from foreign incursion-however benign-and only then proceed to focus on our problems within our own borders.