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
-
Yesterday, I played a riveting, down-to-the-wire match of disc golf. The match had all the right components: lead changes, narrow misses, na...
-
Pre-Script: I didn't write this. Andrew Peterson did, and I'm not sure I could've said it better anyway, so here you go, and enjoy. I've...
-
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...
-
The following is an email from my summer home through college, Wind River Ranch. Enjoy. ------------- The following is a very short, yet enl...
-
I shall now use the word 'epiphany'. Last week, I was struck by an epiphany of magnanimous proportion. (Magnanimous means generous, noble, a...
-
So this is a first. I've never before used my blog space to advertise another blog. Here goes. One of my favorite authors (and people) is Ke...
-
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 t...
-
Yay for Election Day 2010. Is this the first time in circa 15 years we've had split control of Congress? Either way, maybe now they'll learn...
-
I'm a big fan of my wife. This is one of my favorite pictures of her.
Post a Comment