And I can agree with that. So much verbiage, so little action.
If I hear one more politician, news anchor, or talk show host say that the first thing we must do to stop illegal immigration is "secure the border," I think I'm going to be sick. Moreover, if I hear the term "comprehensive immigration reform" again, I'll probably begin to retch with disgust. The reason for my stomach-turning impulse comes from the frustration I feel when I hear meaningless phrases used repeatedly by those who have no plan for their implementation.
And again, I concur with Mr. Weir. Half measures only frustrate or infuriate us. It is like a surgeon stitching up only half a gaping wound. Groundskeepers mowing only half the baseball field. Carpenters building only half your house. Getting only half a slice of cheesecake.
We hear about building a 2,000-mile fence as we watch videos of people climbing over portions of recently constructed fences. We hear about state and federal officers assigned to guard the border while acknowledging that we don't have enough manpower to become 24-hour sentinels, stretching across several states. When U.S. citizens take it upon themselves to organize and guard their borders, they're maligned as "vigilantes" and "hate-mongers" by those who know how to work the system to turn common sense on its head.
So far so good. Well said sir! Now let's finish the work. Let us hear what a retired NYPD Detective Sergeant has to say about the rampant criminal acts being perpetrated on our southernmost borders.
Euphemisms are going to be the death of us because their usage tends to transmogrify reality. If you are a citizen of this country, the United States is your home! When someone breaks into your home, he should be referred to as a lawbreaker, not stroked and coddled like a lost pet that strayed into your yard. Would a burglar, walking along the street with your television on his shoulder, be called an undocumented shopper? By what stretch of the imagination is the word "illegal" a term that describes hatred for an ethnic group? Let's get real! The fact is that these are red herring tactics used by those trying to defend an indefensible position.
Huh? Wha' happen? We went from over 12 million criminals breaking our laws by flooding willy nilly over our borders (Pssst! Bob! Remember the house analogy? Burglars? Lawbreakers? Huh?) and somehow wind up with processing paperwork a bit faster to solve the problem.
So is it a stretch to say that the INS should provide less stringent regulation and allow a greater number people to become citizens? If that amount were to be doubled or tripled, would we have the same problems at the border? The large numbers of people crossing the border illegally are doing so because there are plenty of U.S. employers willing to hire them.
Consequently, it would appear to be a no-brainer that we should expedite those citizenship papers, allow them to become taxpaying citizens, and lessen the burden on the Border Patrol and on those people, who sincerely want to enter legally,
contribute to this country and build a better life for their families.
One of the benefits of sovereignty is having the authority to control your borders. Once you no longer control your borders can you say you are still a sovereign nation? It has become quite obvious that the citizens of a foreign nation now control our southernmost border. Under these or other circumstances this could be called an act of war - an invasion whereby the citizens of another country (armed and unarmed) stream across the border to do as they like. And many of them seem to prefer killing, raping, robbing and stealing. Gee, sounds like an invading army, doesn't it? It is not by accident that a third of all California state prison inmates are not citizens of the United States.
But, using the aforementioned solution, could it be that Mr. Weir is recommending that Poland should have granted citizenship to the 1.8 million Germans who illegally crossed the Polish border on September 1, 1939? Likewise the Belgians, the Dutch and the French follow suit?