Sunday, December 24, 2006

The Benevolence Of Borders

The other day I read an article by Dean Johnson at the well respected Legal News TV web site, which basically said that instead of trying to control illegal immigration, we should simply open our gates, doors, borders and everything else to anyone who wants to come here. Irwin R. Kramer, the well respected writer and editor of LNTV, was kind enough to tone down my quite angry response :-) and edit it into something better than I can ever write. :-)

The article/counterpoint is now available at The Benevolence Of Borders by Imran Anwar. Comments, as usual, are welcome whether you agree or disagree.

---
The Benevolence Of Borders

As a proud, and legal immigrant to the United States, I deeply appreciate the "land of the free" and the contributions that immigrants have made to shape the beautiful society in which we live. But those who would forgive "illegal" immigration, and open the door to everyone that knocks would unwittingly thwart these accomplishments and declare open season on our own liberties.

Apologists for illegal behavior, bleeding heart liberals, and unethical politicians only interested in keeping some voting groups happy are more than eager to sell out our interests. Kevin Johnson's proposal to open up the borders would do precisely the same thing.

In proposing a scheme of "comprehensive immigration reform" on LegalNews.TV, Dean Johnson admits that his open door policy is "radical." In my humble opinion, it is similarly nonsensical.

Ignoring the threat to our nation and economy posed by illegal immigrants, Dean Johnson's radical ideas are presented as an altruistic alternative to the selfish focus on American interests which underlie efforts to secure our borders and our society. Rather than wait for others to invade the United States, the good professor would cut out the middleman by having us do the dirty work to ourselves.

Masked as a humanitarian issue, Dean Johnson's sympathies appear to lie entirely outside of U.S. borders. Unfortunately, Dean Johnson's self-described "radical" ideas are gaining ground. Taking a seemingly higher moral ground to support the benevolent rescue of illegal immigrants, Dean Johnson and others would ignore the economic devastation wrought by opening our borders to those who would take American jobs for themselves. Instead, we are told that "these poor people come across the border to do work that no one else will do," seemingly providing a benefit to our national economy.

Untrue. Businesses and society will pay fair wages to Americans who will do any honorable job if they are paid fair wages. Opening our borders to those who work below market undercuts the market for American jobs, while increasing the burden on taxpayers who must pay even more to provide social services and other support for the invaders that Dean Johnson would invite. If you don’t believe me, read a little on what is happening in California and states in that area.

By letting Mexico and other nations export their societal problems to the United States, Dean Johnson would certainly improve conditions abroad. Rather than give our neighbors any incentive to improve their economies, get a grip on crime and make the rest of the world a better place to live, Dean Johnson seems to believe that the only way to save the world is to invite them in as roommates.

Even if Dean Johnson's plan were somehow adopted into law, his open border plan to save the world is nonetheless doomed by geography. Despite his proposal to abolish the per country caps that limit immigration annually from any one nation, his kind invitation to cross the border would only help those Mexican citizens able to do so. His hospitality will do little to save billions overseas who suffer under the rule of oppressive dictatorial regimes, or billions of African men, women and children suffering from malnutrition.

Even if Dean Johnson could ship a few billion of these underprivileged lives to American soil, the great American melting pot would boil over as an overcrowded nation of three billion residents would no longer resemble the land of opportunity. As we welcome billions of tired, poor and huddled masses yearning to breathe free, we will become a tired, poor and massively overpopulated nation with little room to breathe and few resources to meet their needs. Even the late John Lennon might have trouble imagining all the people suddenly thrust into a single society as Dean Johnson opens the floodgates to an illusory brand of freedom.

When stripped of its altruistic spin, his radical ideas show disrespect for the governing potential of other nations and a total disregard for the interests of our own. While we should do all we can to help our neighbors, building up our borders may be the only effective means of ensuring that they clean up their own backyards.

Admittedly, it takes longer to build up our borders than to tear them down. And it may take even longer before Mexican President Vicente Fox and other third world leaders take true responsibility for improving the lot of their own citizens.

Dean Johnson's radical reform may help to cleanse the liberal guilt of living in the world's greatest society. His benevolence would even be laudable if not for the fact that it would eliminate the greatness of our society by selling out American interests and focusing on others alone -- establishing America as the great savior and other nations as a lost cause.

My radical ideas lack the philanthropic spin of Dean Johnson's. But, in the long run, electric fences, armed border guards, and a commitment to our own national security may be the most benevolent moves of all.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I fully support Imran's point of view. I've been following professors Johnson, Hing's and Chacon's blog and they've never for once ever concerned themselves with the negative aspects of illegal immigration. They're totally committed to the illegal alien and the illegal alien advocacy groups agenda of granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Border crime and the failure of our government to prevent the criminal element from crossing are totally disregarded in any of their arguments, an indicator that the citizen's interest are totally subordinated to the immigrant, legal or otherwise.

Anonymous said...

While I'm entirely in agreement with you in your opposition to professors Johnson's and Hing's proposal, I can't accept that the American people will ever concur with open borders. Such a manifest abandonment of national security that surely must accompany fullfillment of this insanity would be unacceptable to every voting citizen.