Build It and They Won't Come

Well, it's been several years since the 9/11 attack, and perhaps time to finally deal with the issue of border security. The issue finally has "legs", as the pundits love to say.

How can you tell the issue has legs? Well, because many Republicans suddenly start acting and thinking like Democrats. A shocking number of ostensibly conservative leaders are suddenly willing to confer citizenship privileges on millions of people -- read "potential voters"-- who have entered this country illegally. And, when Republicans start thinking, talking and acting like Democrats, you know there is trouble brewing somewhere.

Here is the deal: this culture cannot survive if it cannot protect itself from foreign invasion. Sure, I know, the Mexicans only want to make a living. True enough, and honorable enough, in most cases. But, when you see many thousands marching and demonstrating in the streets-- many waving Mexican, not American flags-- demanding "rights" from the rest of us, it can only be because they feel emboldened to do so. A troubling sign in itself.



It's not that we don't like Mexicans, or foreigners in general. It's that we love the American culture more. And when people can waltz across the border unchallenged, and receive government benefits gratis, live and work in the United States without either having to learn the language or promise fealty, then we cede our culture. When something is free-- residency and citizenship, in this case-- then it has no value. When our ancestors came to this country, in order to be allowed to live here they had to promise to obey our laws. In order to get citizenship, they had to learn the English language, learn our history, and swear loyalty to this nation.

When you can cross the border illegally, and without consequences, and then expect citizenship bestowed upon you without effort, then that citizenship has no value. As such, we become a nation of people who do not value this culture. And our culture dies. Witness what is happening in Europe.

It's a fundamental tenet we learned from childhood: rewarding bad behaviour only begets more bad behaviour.

Two issues loom large in this issue: how to get the right people into this country legally; and how to keep the bad guys out.

A guest worker program certainly has merits. It represents a "try before you buy" sort of concept, much as temporary employment works already in the United States. Do your job well, don't be a jerk, you can stick around permanently.

I do have doubts about the "guest worker" ideas currently proposed. Being a free-market champion, I tend to thing our supposed need for cheap labour is a mistaken notion, and the so-called guest worker programs suggested are really amnesty by another name. More on that subject in a future article.

Even if we can agree on the need for "guest workers", what will make such an immigration program dangerous would be to implement it before securing the border. If we secure the borders first, we can always assess the true need for additional workers-- symptoms such as wage inflation and extremely low unemployment would be very telling indeed. Then, we could open the gates in a regulated and orderly fashion to satisfy legitimate, market demand.

On the other hand, if we allow guest workers now, without secure borders, we will start a modern day equivalent to a the gold rushes of the nineteenth century.

Israel is building a security fence around their country, and where they have completed it, terrorist attacks are virtually non-existent. Walls work. A security fence equipped with and supported by available technology will pinch off the invading inflow to a manageable trickle. Between cameras, networks and flying drones, we can leverage our border patrol enough so they can do their jobs. Add a few attack helicopters and we can change the subject of illegal immigration for good.

As Robert Frost wrote, "Good fences make good neighbors".

Build it, and they won't come.

You Sir, are no Liberal

I just finished reading a post by George Clooney over at Ariana Huffington's site. He lambastes Democrats in Congress, and finishes by saying "I am a liberal. Fire away."

Au contraire, Leftist fool.

There was a time when one could be proud to be called "liberal". It meant you actually supported the notion of "liberal democracy". In other words, a constitutional republic where individual rights were supported by law and culture. The idea of being a "nation of laws, not men" means the rule of law protects everyone, including minorities who do not have a political majority. Historically, the last person you would ever call a liberal was a Democrat.

Why? Well, look at the history. The Republican Party was specifically founded to end slavery. In opposition to the long-ruling Democrats, who not only supported the continuance of the evil institution, but forced a civil war in its defense. And who later instituted the infamous Jim Crow laws to negate the 14th and 15th amendments. And still later, conducted a filibuster in the United States Senate to defeat the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was the Republicans who broke the filibuster and made the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts happen.

Since the Vietnam era, Democrats have been described as "liberal". This tag has nothing to do with political ideology, rather intellectual fuzziness. Today, under the "liberal" banner, Democrats continue to fight appointment of judges who intend to actually uphold the Constitution, as it is written. They are far more interested in the immediate outcome of a particular case than the legal basis or continuance of rule of law. If it feels good now, go for it. That is what "liberal" has come to mean.

Just to be clear, I will make this assertion: The best friend of minorities in this nation is the United States Constitution, as it is actually written. Not as some politically-motivated judge might imagine it to mean, but as the founding fathers-- and amendment authors-- actually wrote it. So, for example, when the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", it means just that.

The label "liberal" has become a universal tag for something quite different from an ideological liberal, so much so that the word itself has become something like political hate speech. The worst thing you can do to a politician before an election is to get the public to think he or she is "liberal". Political kiss of death, more often than not. So, after years of Democrats running away from the "liberal" label, Clooney thinks he is being courageous by embracing the tag.

George Clooney is no liberal. He is a Leftist. The political Left does not want to protect individual rights. It does not want to end poverty. It does not want to end racism. The Left will gladly deny rights of individuals when they represent political opposition to the Left. It will eagerly create legislation-- recall the Great Society-- knowing it will ensure continuing poverty for many. The Left will gleefully and unashamedly use racial epithets to smear its opponents.

Equal rights? No, but special rights for a few, and no rights for "them".

In a startling display of idiocy, Clooney accurately describes this as a polarized time, then wonders how that happened. He goes on to insist it is not unpatriotic to hold our leaders accountable, and that Democrats who supported the Iraq war simply feared being called unpatriotic.

For some reason, Democrats keep questioning their own patriotism. I never hear Republicans call Democrats "unpatriotic", but the Democrats keep throwing up that defensive shield by calling the question themselves. Let's clarify this: Democrats on the Left are not necessarily unpatriotic, they are simply ignorant and self-serving.

Take Clooney's delusional view of Iraq and al Qaeda:

"...where is the link between Saddam and bin Laden? What does Iraq have to do with 9/11? We knew it was bullshit."

Osama bin Laden made the link himself, some time before 9/11 when he declared war on us. He made it clear his war on the United States was based on the U.S. presence in the Muslim "holy land". We had troops in Saudi Arabia, yes. But why? From Desert Storm, long before the 9/11 attack. bin Laden objected to our presence in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the area, and planned the 9/11 attack in response. The Iraqi matter from Desert Storm was still unresolved, and represented a strategic threat to the United States. Hence, the Iraq invasion, to eliminate Saddam Hussein as that threat. The effort to end the lingering Iraqi confrontation was a direct result of the 9/11 attack. Bullshit? No, just obvious.

The Left proffers a set of lies about Iraq. That the war was unnecessary, that it was "blood for oil", that there was no link between Saddam Hussein and either terrorism or al Qaeda. This is hardly liberalism. It is politically motivated delusion.

Clooney, you are no liberal. Would that it were true.

You sir, are a Leftist.