Are You Racist If You Are Against Illegal Immigration?

Passions are running high, and political rhetoric is frightful. It’s crunch time, and Americans must make a choice between the immigration proposals of Donald Trump and liberal politicians that want to open our borders.

It’s shortsighted to believe the current level of illegal aliens in this country, which supposedly stands at 12 million, is a non-issue. This number will increase substantially because of further illegal entry and childbirth of those already on American soil. Yet the naturalization of existing illegals is the only sensible alternative.

It’s inane to espouse further illegal accommodations, including the caravan of those marching towards the U.S. and sanctuary cities, which limits the effectiveness of our immigration officers. Why isn’t the number of illegals that use our health care and educational services at a cost estimated well above $100 billion annually a relevant concern?

Surely, there’s no turning back the clock on illegals already in the country. But it makes no sense to allow the number to increase, or to abandon efforts to deport those illegals that are criminals and/or troublemakers.

The most puzzling thing is why so many Americans believe that others have a right to come to our country with or without sensible conditions. There are no references to any such responsibility in our Constitution. Immigration is an activity that has resulted in productive diversity, but it has been measured until just 20 years ago.

Developed countries and some undeveloped countries are facing the same issues as the U.S. What policies regarding illegals make sense, are fair, are humane and take into account the citizens of the home country that are subsidizing them?

In an ideal world there would be no poverty, religious persecution, racial discord or political instability. Every poor person believes or has a strong expectation that life in America, Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain is much better than their current circumstances. But there are not enough financial, societal, educational, medical and political resources in all the aforementioned countries to save every one that needs saving.

Advanced and wealthier countries have an obligation to protect themselves from outside influences that are harmful or disruptive. In recent years voters have been electing representatives that promise to protect the homeland from reckless immigration policies among other issues. More and more citizens in developed countries throughout the world are no longer willing to keep the floodgates open to people seeking something better. More and more individuals don’t want limited resources to be used for illegal immigrants at the expense of domestic requirements.

The leaders of these countries and their followers are not necessarily racists. Wanting an orderly and well-vetted system to accept applications for citizenship does not make Trump or his base evil or bigoted. Most Americans are descendants of immigrants. We understand the value of diversity. It results in innovation and prosperity, and in the case of America, the strongest and most wonderful place in the world.

No, it’s not racist to have closed borders and to accept new applications for citizens based upon a well thought out process. It’s not racist to have immigration officials rooting out troublemakers. It’s not racist to worry that illegals are straining our educational and health car system. It’s not racist to add up the cost of open borders, especially when there are domestic needs not being addressed.

America must make choices. We must fund the needs of America first, and hopefully, find enough money to help needy people around the world. The priorities should never be in reverse order.

Stop Any Additional Illegal Immigration First

Most Americans understand that this country is a melting pot, and its great success, in large part, is based upon diversity afforded by immigrants from all over the world. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that millions of people in other countries would love to move to the U.S. After all, we are free, and we have the best standard of living in the world. The questions are how can the U.S. control the number of people entering this country, and what should it do about the millions who have already come here illegally?

 

Frankly, the U.S. has done a horrible job controlling the flow of immigrants, particularly into the Border States in the South and West. This lack of control has created a maelstrom, which has yet to be addressed by the president or Congress. A New York Times editorial, predictably, advocates an open door policy that would do nothing less than cause panic in large and small towns across the nation.

 

In Murrieta, California, protestors blocked buses transporting migrants to a border patrol facility. The mayor of the city and infuriated citizens reacted in “farcical” manner in the opinion of the Times. I don’t see the situation in the same light.

 

The negative reaction of the community to the influx of a significant number of illegal immigrants is totally understandable (the violent and lewd behavior of some is not). In this peaceful hamlet, the U.S. Government attempted to foist a number of strangers from foreign countries onto the local citizenry. The migrants on the bus came to the U.S illegally; they may be peace-loving individuals or maybe not. No one really knows because the authorities have not vetted the interlopers.

 

If they remain in town, the local government would be responsible for their well-being, provide medical assistance and send children to the local schools. The latter would increase the size of classes with non-English speaking children, thereby slowing the pace of the learning experience. The former two issues would cost taxpayers (local, state and federal) plenty.

 

I’ve been wondering what would happen if several buses of migrants rolled into Greenwich, Connecticut or Scarsdale, New York. Would the locals in these communities welcome the migrants with open arms?

 

The U.S. Government knows the impact of illegal immigration over an extended period of time. The costs of this phenomenon in California have been devastating to the state’s economy. And, every state in this position expects the federal government to pay a portion of the expenses. So, even those of us far away from the southern border will feel the pain.

 

The Times editorial addresses the “insensitivity” of Republicans as they attempt to offer a first step to solve the problem- close the border to new illegal migration. Our country has sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers overseas to fight for and protect allies. Why is it unreasonable to send large numbers of soldiers to southern California, Arizona and Texas to stop illegal entry into our country, a national security risk?

 

Capping the problem must be the first step. Preventing the headcount of illegal immigrants from increasing from 12 million to 20 or 25 million is not insensitivity.

 

After the flow is cut off, the federal government can then focus on dealing with those already here illegally. I am not in favor of treating  people who have violated our law as welcomed guests. Yet, I understand and support a humane and fair program to assimilate those already in the country. However, the process should not be an easy one. Citizenship should not be a cakewalk. Applicants must prove that they will be good Americans, care for themselves and obey our laws. The penalty for not doing so must be immediate deportation.

 

The problems of immigration will not be simple to rectify. Resorting to bleeding-heart and politically correct tactics by the pro-immigration group will not be effective. The financial, security and demographic implications of adding millions to our population must be carefully considered. If we can solve this dilemma and decrease unnecessary expenditures, just think how much more will be available to Americans that are suffering as I write this essay.