In my last post, I broke the boundaries of the politically correct and made a statement that mentioned the race of a group of people. Since I have been branded "conservative" my mentioning race is labeled prejudice.
The prejudicial statement I made is that our immigration policy should favor Latinos. I believe our immigration laws should favor natives of neighboring countries.
While I don't think race should be a consideration in most issues, I believe that, by their nature, immigration laws should take racial, political and economic conditions into account. On the economic front, when two developed nations have similar economic conditions, there is likely to be a parity in migration. In such a case, immigration and worker flow between the nations should be loose.
Politically, we should classify people running from a war torn region as refuges, and not illegal immigrants.
When a racial group identifies itself with an area, laws should take that into account as well.
Finally, we should expect a great deal of cross over between borders. Since our nation borders Mexico, we should be expecting millions of people crossing that border.
Origins are relevant in immigration debates. Since the politically correct climate will not let us talk about this important factor, we find ourselves bumbling along trying to find universals on which to base immigration policy.
I believe our policies should be more open to people from Mexico. For that matter, a temporary worker program is often more attractive to people who want to move between the North and South with the seasons than a full fledged immigration status.
By ignoring origins, we dig ourselves holes. We continually find ourselves falling into absurdities like the accusation that Conservatives demand law and order out of racial hatred.
Quite frankly, the reason that I think we need to be tighter on immigration enforcement is to prevent our nation from being trampled by people coming from distant lands, not from Mexico.
Looking at the demographics of the world, we find that there are over six a half billion people on this crowded planet. Transportation is so easy, a totally open immigration policy would bring upwards to 500 million people into the United States.
Even worse, there are countries eager to shed their excess population and who would shove off its problems onto our overcrowded section of turf. IMHO, the growing Latino population is not the primary danger of the cycle of amnesty. The cycle of amnesty creates a climate where any country seeking more world influence would be wise to shunt off excess population in our direction.
It is the recognition of the world population problem that has me favoring stricter enforcement of immigration laws. The fact that it is politically incorrect to mention people's origins that we are forced to treat Mexicans the way we would treat Iranians who sneak into our country.
In watching the debate over comprehensive immigration fall apart, I can't help but think that our attempt to solve the problem with comprehensive reform is off base.
I do not believe that we can derive a perfect immigration law from the aether. Rather than having a comprehensive system, we would probably be better offer addressing the problem piecemeal.