Where Do We Go From Here?

Where exactly? Hard to say. This is all new to me.

At the advice of friends, I'm working out my ideas, spreading good news and venting my frustrations on the web.

This may last a week or a month or 10 years. Let's just take it 1 day at a time.

I'm not a fan of public lewdness. Still, I think the Indiana Statute crosses the line. Hence "discernibly turgid". The legend that this was the extent of Jim Morrison's crimes on the eve of his arrest is untrue, but it gives me pause that the state of excitement of half the population should be regulated by public ordinance. Moreover, I may get pumped up over this or that--and you may not approve. For God's sake, don't legislate against it. If Morrison were with us today, it's likely his only means of being observed in a discernibly turgid state would involve the use of Viagara. It's unlikely he'd be arrested. He might even be invited to shoot an ad with Bob Dole.

I tend to be more conservative philosophically, but I think that makes me a man without a party. Don't get me wrong. I think Reagan was a great President and Kennedy was a great Actor. The revisionists tell us that one was an amiable dunce who very nearly brought us to nuclear armageddon, but the facts differ and there are folks who remember. The Shining Star of Camelot mishandled his role in the cold war and brought nuclear tipped russian missiles to within 30 miles of our shores. Later, we named our largest missile launchpad after him. The dunce made the calls that brought down the Berlin wall. The one thing the press ignore is that both Presidents ushered in periods of unparalleled economic growth and prosperity and did so by adopting remarkably similar fiscal policies. I hope history sorts itself out once Rather and Couric have faded from view. I hope the United States has another Ronald Reagan in her. Principled leaders seem to be in short supply in the beltway these days.

I guess the point is I don't want to offend, but I want even less to sit atop the tightly scripted, politically correct fence of nonoffense. Let me know if you're mad or you're not. It probably won't change my mind, but my views have been known to evolve, slowly--so slowly.

I'm not sure we can deport 12 million illegal, undocumented aliens, but it is the President's and Congress's, and Federal and Local Law Enforcement's duty to try. My previous employer had me take a "Franklin-Covey" time management course where they told us basically to achieve big ideas by building a plan on specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and tangible goals. So, why not set a plan to deport the first million by, say, May 1, 2007.

I've heard that the hispanic press objects to the use of the adjective "illegal" as a noun to describe a person who has illegally crossed the border into my country for whatever reason or who illegally remains in the country. I respect the editorial sentiment and thank those journos for defending proper use of my country's official language. "Illegal" is not a noun. "Criminal" is a noun and properly describes a person who perpetrates an illegal act, such as entering a neighboring country without abiding that country's immigration laws or remaining in that country for whatever reason without following that country's legal process to obtain legal residence or citizenship.

Criminal seems like such a harsh word for parents that just want to make a better life for their children. One wants to empathize with the individuals. "They work hard.", we're told or "They love this country." I suspect it would be easier to take their love on faith if it was the American flag they were wrapping themselves in, instead of the Mexican flag, on May 1 when they hoped to demonstrate their love by shutting down the American economy (or at least a few restaurants).

It is criminal, though, to present a false identity in order to secure employment and social and economic benefits where one has not been invited. Or am I wrong?

I suspect that, as long as the incentive remains, it will be difficult or impossible and extremely costly to deport 12 million "immigrants". Fine the employers (who are also criminals) and enforce the laws. Maybe fewer will come when gainful employment dries up. Maybe Americans won't work to care for our elderly or clean our homes, but I suspect if the price goes up 2 or 3 dollars per hour, our wealthy will find qualified domestic workers. The price of peaches may go up 20 cents a bushel. We'll deal with it.

I suspect the majority of those here will stay even if the legal economy no longer provides as much opportunity. Their children are here. There's not much to go home to. And we provide education, food stamps, subsidized housing and driver's licenses. 12 million people might be driven into criminal enterprise in order to keep a hold on those benefits. They'd fight to stay, I wager, rather than go back to Mexico and demand a responsible government and a decent economic opportunity in their homeland. But if those benefits were to be explicitly reserved for documented, legal immigrants and citizens? If the act of a State paying benefits to nonlegal residents were to be made unlawful? 12 million people might begin to deport themselves or perhaps move north of the border to Canada where they'd no doubt be welcomed and given shelter and work in the great socialist experiment to the north.

The thing is this. Newt's Republicans, Reagan's Republicans, they're all gone. They've been replaced by feckless political science majors, sycophants, panderers, underachievers and criminals, the same as Kennedy's democrats were in the 50's and 60's. They pretend to assemble a tough bill in the house which will be shredded by the omnibus bill in the Senate. All that will remain at the end is the "Guest Worker Program" and the pork and the union handouts. If there were principled men and women in Congress, interested in representing the will of their constituents (not manufacturing 12 million new constituents to replace us) then they would evaluate the proposals individually, giving honest debate, in order, to each of the following 10 corrective measures:

1. a physical barrier along a significant portion of our southern border;
2. enforcement of existing immigration laws;
3. increasing the border patrol with or without troops;
4. increasing INS activity in the interior;
5. Penalize with fines and jail time individuals guilty of hiring illegal residents;
6. Shut down, fine and/or confiscate the property of those businesses that hire illegal residents;
   
7. fining AND deporting all individuals encountered who do not have a documented, legal right to be here;
8. withdraw public assistance and other benefits for undocumented residents;
9. increasing the number of legal immigrant visas from Latin American countries; and
   
10. creating Amnesty or "guest worker" programs

All but the last would tend to decrease the incentive to enter illegally. Most of the first 9, if considered individually would find support of the majority of Americans. If most of the first 9 were passed before #10 -- Amnesty -- was given consideration in congress, then even Amnesty might be pallatable. It might do less damage, in any event. As it stands, there's a race across the the borderline to be the first person arrested after passage so that you can tell one last lie: "I've been here 5 years and 3 months, Mr. Man. Sign me up for benefits!"