Imigration problems, Government Non-Solutions
Well, I would have thought that one of the first jobs of the new Homeland Security Department would have been reviewing and overhauling immigration polocies. You know, like the ones that let 19 terrorists into the country and then sent them visas six months after they killed 3,000 folks and themselves?
I would have thought that laxity and bureaucratic nonsense would have been less tolerated post-9/11 then there were before, but apparently, I'm incorrect.
Then again, it is an election year.

We have a major problem with immigration in this country, mostly illegal. We're not going to discuss the people who come here from all over the planet legally and with all the required paraphenalia and after jumping through all the legalistic hoops. We're talking about the folks that sneak across borders, stowaway on planes and ships, overstay their legitimate visas, etc. The problems in this area are:

a) No one checks up on 'em...
b) No one deports their asses often enough....
c) We're so concerned about being seen as "fair" that we give non-citizen lawbreakers Constitutional rights...
d) We're not allowed to shoot them...

President Bush is about to announce an "Immigration Policy" which amounts to blanket amnesty. Amnesty has always been the "solution" to the problem of unchecked immigration. This shouldn't be a solution anymore, but Bush has to overcome the massive Black vote that wil go to Reverend Al and Howard Dean by pandering to the Hispanic vote, most of which will go to Reverend Al and Howard Dean anyway. He's looking for just enough Hispanics to vote his way to:

a) Avoid another Florida by winning California...
b) Offset the negative Black vote...
c) Shake the image of Republicans being the party of rich, white guys by including rich Spanish-speaking ones in the party too...

You can make a ton of arguments for amnesty; who will pick lettuce? Who will fill all those vacant landscaping positions? Where are we supposed to get really good domestic help or drive cabs? In the end, these are all arguments based on the average American's aversion to being inconvenienced by not having salad or having to mow the golf course. Of course, these jobs also pay near-shit wages, and no self-respecting American would take them, at least not without a dental plan.

Those, however, are not good arguments. They are CONVENIENT arguments. Government policy should NEVER be based on convenience, but instead on principle.

The principles should be these:

a) While we welcome anyone who wants to be a citizen, we should make it a point that we don't take lightly to you flouting the LAW before you even take the oath.
b) Tax money is being used (wasted) to provide schooling, medical care, welfare, jail cells, legal aid, and a host of other state and local 'programs' and benefits to folks who do not pay for them, or at most make minimal contributions, but get much more in return. That tax money comes from individuals and corporations that are American citizens. He who pays should get the benefits, not someone who came here specifically to take advantage of them.
c) Why are we wasting money on an INS and Border Patrol when the Government that runs them doesn't seem to care at all? Couldn't we find something better to do with that money, like bomb the bejesus out of more Middle Eastern dictators or find a cool way to send more junk into space? Or, on a serious note, fins ways to improve the average citizen's quality of life? I don't mean freebies or a welfare state, but what about better public transportation? More museums? Better schools?
d) It ain't our job to take care of Mexico's and Central America's poor, it's their own government's job. If those institutions prove unable to deliver the goods, perhaps we should invade there and turn them into Iraq.

But I guess that doesn't get ya the White House for a second term, does it?