Today's topic is immigration. This won't be long.
I feel a great deal of sympathy, especially right now, for a Mexican national who enters the United States in hope of a better life. The violence in Mexico is heartbreaking. My thoughts are often directed to the children and staff of an orphanage I served at, located near one of the cities where Mexican citizens are inflicting unspeakable terrors upon their brethren. I pray for their safety.
These circumstances cast an important light upon the question of how to handle illegal immigrants. I cannot argue against due process of citizenship, and the legal channels by which a person can establish residence in the United States. What I also cannot argue against are the motives of any who, with just and good intent, take action to separate themselves and their families from poverty and violence. I cannot argue against a parent birthing an anchor baby in the United States so that, whatever may happen to them, the child's citizenship provides for a better opportunity to live a life of peace.
I can argue all day at the trafficking of drugs across the border, and can argue that American users are complicit in funding terrorists who exist below the realm of civilized man. They are beasts; dogs. Yet even dogs understand the basic rules of business. They provide a service to a willing customer.
We talk about immigration reform, and we talk about securing the border. The United States would do better to stop consuming drugs, or legalize and regulate the production of drugs, and remove the market from the border. I have always felt the latter is a base and self-centered argument made by people who seek to please themselves through addiction, and seek justification for their folly. Their position would be better served if preceded by the 'self-sacrifice' needed to dry the market for border drugs and pacify the need for Mexican nationals to flee their homes. The contra-position is more popular, that users would continue until our government's only option to curb drug trade is to legalize and regulate. I say that the former position is better because it is a position of peace. The latter, in it's displayed consequence, is a position of death.
So long as the latter is the reality, I cast no blame upon those who do whatever they can to enter the United States and burden further the same wallets that fund the terror they are trying to escape.
Popular Posts
-
Whichever side of the aisle you lean, this is a fun and brilliant idea by the Republican Party. If you listen closely, you can hear the coll...
-
One of the big no-no's that gets tied to post-modernism is moral relativism - the idea that its all about 'what works for you' -...
-
I have not actively followed the Obama Citizenship question. I saw references to a Certificate of Live Birth, and it looks legit as far as I...
-
Pray early and often, but especially pray early. That early time with God really sets a pace for the day. This isn't some 'do it cau...
-
Today is an important day in my year. Fifteen years ago this evening, a great influence on my life, Rich Mullins, stepped over the line of t...
-
I heard a song on the radio the other day that made me cry, which usually means it's worth sharing. It's called 'Better Than a H...
-
Kentucky just won the National Championship... and the farewell montage music is straight out of the late 70s. It's like cool jazz meets...
-
Let me say up front that pop-articles must be taken with a dose of discernment, because articles are, among other things, a compressed and b...
-
I have yet to succeed in completing a writing project that requires focus over a long period of time. This may end up no different, but I...
-
When did education become the whipping boy for excessive government spending? When, at any point , has a state increased their budget line f...
Post a Comment