My Immigration Song

My last post title took a page from a Beatles song.  This time, I borrow from Led Zeppelin, another band I listened to during my misspent youth.

Herewith are my views on immigration, which will no doubt lead some to label me all kinds of terrible things.  So be it.  I'll let my record speak for itself.

First, we are indeed a nation of immigrants.  My own progenitors hailed from England, Scotland and Wales, as far as I know.  On my father's mother's side, I am a third-generation American.

I've had many friends who are first-generation Americans - from Canada, South Africa, India, Iran, Nepal, France, Russia, Pakistan, Greece, Malawi, Mexico, the DRC and other countries.  I love them, and I welcome them to America with open arms.

On my trips to New York City, I've been as moved by visiting Lady Liberty and Ellis Island as I have by visiting Ground Zero.

And yet, there is a Ground Zero.  For a reason.

You see, when the British and Dutch originally settled the U.S., fleeing religious persecution in their home countries, they wished to start a new life.  They didn't wish death to Americans (though they did kill numerous native Americans, but they came here to settle in a new land, not with a pre-planned vendetta or fatwah against the country's original inhabitants).

When the Irish, Italians, Germans and Scots flowed through Ellis Island, they came solely to make a better life for themselves, and often fleeing persecution.  The same is true of the Chinese who flocked to California after the Gold Rush began, and the Mexicans who came across the border after the revolution there.

So how is that different from those coming to the U.S. today, seeking a better life than they could find in Mexico or Central America, or fleeing persecution in places like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Libya?

Let's first look at the former question, then the latter.

The immigrants who came through Ellis Island, California and from Mexico after the revolution, came here legally.  Yes, they wanted the better life that America offered, the economic opportunity, the freedom from heavy-handed central government oppression that quashed their opportunity to make their own way in the world and make a better life for themselves.

In other words, they were fleeing the kind of central government control and life-dictating oppression that Democrats in America seek today.

They worked their tails off, and made better lives for themselves, and made America a better place.  Sure, we imported La Cosa Nostra and the Russian Mafia and some gang warfare.  But by and large, because these people were committed to coming here legally, gaining citizenship through prescribed channels, they were committed to doing better by doing good.  (And we had our fair share of home-grown crime as well, dating from the days of the Mayflower to today.)

So I have a problem with those coming here illegally.  (I actually have a problem with anything illegal, because it's - well, illegal.  We are a nation of laws, and I am a law-abiding citizen.  Except when it comes to speed limits.)

Now, I don't for a minute believe that we could conceivably deport all illegal immigrants.  There have been decades of unaddressed illegal immigration, and it represents too much toothpaste having left the tube, and spread itself to every corner of the bathroom.

But when politicians say they want to focus on those who have come here illegally and then committed a crime, my legalistic brain says, "Whoa - stop right there."  They don't call it "illegal" immigration for nothing.

The minute you step across this nation's borders illegally, you have broken the law.  So why do you have to rape, or steal, or murder, before we determine that you've committed an illegal act?  Every illegal immigrant has broken the law, by simply coming here illegally.  Like it or not, this is fact.  The law is clear; there is no nuance here.

Granted, we have brought some of this upon ourselves.  Mollycoddled Americans who refuse to do basic construction or landscaping work for less than what they could earn as a CPA or a dental hygienist have created an environment that invites immigrants unafraid to do an honest day's hard work for an honest day's fair wage to flow across our borders.

I once hired a landscape company - a small sole proprietorship - to do my yard work.  The owner told us that his crews were hard-working and dependable.  He noted that, other than the foreman, they may not speak English.  But he also noted that, unlike his American crews, they showed up on time, worked hard, and didn't have to be bailed out of the drunk tank every Monday morning.

I get that.  However, it still doesn't justify coming here illegally.  Hard-working immigrants can come here through legal channels, obtain a green card or gain citizenship, and pursue a living.  It's been happening for centuries.

Other countries - including Mexico (where much of our illegal immigration originates from) and Canada (where many in the liberal left have threatened to go if they didn't get their way, but dammit, they just won't follow through) have much stricter immigration laws than we do.  In fact, Canada - taking a page from France, which settled much of our neighbor to the north - has laws protecting its language, refusing to acquiesce to the practice of making everything multilingual.  In other words, if you want to live in Quebec, you had better be willing to learn French, or you'll find yourself in a monde de merde.

So what would I do about the illegal immigration problem?

First, I'd provide a path to citizenship for those already here, though even that would probably still leave us with millions of illegal immigrants.  Second, I'd secure our borders, as most other countries have done, and as Presidents Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama have advocated, so that the problem doesn't perpetuate.  Whether that involves a wall - something that Presidents Bush and Obama worked to build, and Senators Clinton and Obama advocated - is secondary.

Third, I'd make it clear: if you're here illegally, but haven't committed ANOTHER crime, we may not deport you, but you will not vote, you will not participate in Social Security or any government health care programs, and your children will not be citizens, even if they're born here.  That means they won't have the right to free public education.  And if they commit a crime, they will not be jailed here, they will be deported to your home country.

Now, what about President Trump's executive order on immigration?

First, anyone who calls it a "Muslim ban" has already lost my attention, because it is neither.  That rhetoric only serves to give voice to what I said in my last post: by having no nuance less than nuclear, your reaction is rendered moot.  In other words, if you distort the truth, you're not worth listening to.

The order places a temporary halt to immigration from seven countries that the previous administration identified as exporters of terror.  (I'd have actually taken it a step further, and included Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia on the list.  Why we continue to delude ourselves into believing that Saudi Arabia is an ally is beyond me, especially after 9/11 and Osama bin Laden.  Of course, the answer is oil.  Hopefully, this administration's commitment to domestic traditional energy production will reduce our dependence upon Saudi oil - let's face it, we aren't going solar anytime soon, and those who advocate that we should are still largely driving gas-powered cars and flying on airplanes and trains fueled by petroleum products.)

The halt is temporary.  Until this administration can put in place proper vetting of immigrants from those countries, something past administrations failed - or refused - to do.  Yes, they are predominantly Muslim, but it shouldn't be lost on any thinking person that radical Islamic terrorists have pledged egregious harm against Americans, and that ISIS has sworn that it will infiltrate refugee programs.

I concede that, to date, no Syrian refugee has committed an act of terror on U.S. soil.  The operative words are, "to date."  ISIS has promised that it will happen.  It has happened in Europe.  Just because it hasn't happened here yet is no reason to invite it to happen.  Were members of my family to be slaughtered by a radical jihadist infliltrating a refugee program, I would first and foremost hold to account those who blindly argued that it wasn't a risk.

This temporary halt is based in part on testimony from the intelligence community under President Obama that we presently cannot properly vet those who come into this country from those nations.  Think San Bernardino.  Think Orlando.

Some of my liberal friends have argued, "What about Oklahoma City?  Charleston?  Should we not also deport white Christian males?"  That is mere misdirection.  No one is talking about deporting terrorists of any stripe.  We prosecute them, whether they're Muslim, Christian or Buddhist (there are probably not too many Buddhist terrorists, though).  If we could have stopped Timothy McVeigh from coming into this country, we should have.  But he was already a citizen, as was Charles Manson.  There will always be crime, and mass murder, and terror.  But we needn't encourage or enable it.  And McVeigh and Manson did not tell the world that they wanted to kill Americans.  We learned of their deeds after the fact.

To that point, the halt also isn't limited to Muslims.  There are Christians, and probably Hindus and Buddhists and atheists, in the seven countries identified in the executive order.  There are also Muslims in many other countries throughout the world.  The order addresses only those countries identified by the previous (liberal) administration as being sponsors of terror against the U.S.  Of course, the left takes no issue with the origination of that list, only that it is now being used by a Republican administration.

I have faith that we can get the vetting process down.  That faith is bolstered by the fact that the 109 detainees from the executive order were vetted and released.  But if we don't, I'm fine with those restrictions remaining in place ad infinitum.  If Canada wants to take them, let them do so (but let's add Canada to the list then, because we share a border with them).  I'd prefer to err on the side of avoiding one more San Bernardino, one more Orlando, one Munich or Paris, than worrying about someone's irrational sensitivities being violated.

Now, regarding refugees.  I have nothing but sympathy for those who are persecuted, those who are threatened by war, those whose lives are at risk, be it in Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan.  (Or many nations in Africa outside of Somalia - funny how the left doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the DRC or Nigeria or Rwanda, back when it was in civil war.)

Anyone who knows me, knows this about me.  I have participated in mission work from the Gulf after Hurricane Katrina, to the inner reaches of Kansas City, to Malawi in Africa, to the Navajo Nation in the U.S.  I have traveled extensively and seen poverty everywhere, from 48 of the 50 U.S. states to more than 20 countries on three continents plus numerous island nations.  I have been generous toward the native population in all of those places, from the homeless from New York City to San Diego to the school kids in Malawi for whom I established a scholarship fund with $50,000 of my hard-earned dollars to taxi drivers in places like Antigua and Tortola whom I tipped generously, just because I knew they needed the money more than I.

I understand all of the scripture that speaks to how we should treat the refugee living among us.  But nowhere in scripture do I find reference to a mandate to bring the refugee living elsewhere to where I am.  I am called to be a brother to those who are living among us, and to provide for them where they are, but not necessarily to bring them here.

And that brings me to a final, important point.  The strongest support we can provide to refugees in foreign lands is to aid them in securing those lands.  If America were suddenly overrun by some radical force that threatened our freedom (and I recognize that the left will say that's exactly what happened on January 20, but they're delusional), I would not want some foreign government to provide me asylum.

Unless it was someplace with a perfect year-round climate, lots of beaches, great food and a perfect mojito.

I wouldn't want to move to Syria, where my embrace of Christian principles would not be welcomed, where my adherence to traditional western laws would be subverted to Sharia, where I would be expected to support female genital mutilation and honor killings.

Instead, I'd hope that some ally would come in and help me overthrow the forces that were threatening my homeland.  Because I've lived here all my life, and I love my country, and would prefer to stay here, free and safe.

Likewise, I assume that most Syrians and Afghans and Iranians would prefer to remain in their homeland, but have it be safe from the tyrants that would threaten their freedoms and their rights.  Tyrants that would prohibit their daughters from being educated, and would persecute them for practicing any faith that did not align with the tyrants' most radical views.  That is the ultimate refugee protection program, not bringing them all here and expecting them to assimilate into a culture that may be anathema to their own mores and beliefs.

So, noting that I've probably done more for "the least of these" than the vast majority of those protesting President Trump's executive orders, I have no problem with securing our southern border, stemming the flow of illegal immigration, deporting those who have committed further crimes after coming here illegally, and temporarily halting immigration from countries that have demonstrated a commitment to doing us harm until we can better vet those incoming visitors and would-be residents.