Landmines: Not a Love Story

I have been in a few minefields. Some I knew about, some I didn’t. In one case, we conducted a marksmanship range for our companies of the Afghan National Army near Pol-i-Charki. Marksmanship is a rather loose interpretation of sending bullets downrange. I took post as the right-most Safety. All day was spent walking, mentoring, and wondering which Afghan was going to come down with a case of Sudden Jihad Influenza. The day ended like every other day: coated in talcum powder dust and alive. The next day another kandak (battalion) rolled out and used the range. About an hour into the exercise the ambulance rolled out, sirens and lights going off like an FPF.

Seems a kid, maybe 14-17, walked into where I’d stood and walked the day before and got blown up. He lived, minus arms and legs and eyes – the American trainers happened to be EMT and firefighters in their civilian jobs and reacted as true professionals. Louisville, Kentucky – you got real heroes. Thank you. And thank you Mom’s prayer angels.

America has landmines too. And, like every bouncing betty and DPICM bomblet, you KNOW they are there somewhere, but the way forward is through that minefield. Do you get on your belly and probe your way through? You have the rest of your life to get to the other side, though the S-3 may have a different timeline. Or do you go for the gynormulous German mine roller or a tank with chains?

How you go forward matters for this landmine: immigration.

Yes, the system is broken. Not the law, but the system itself. This is by design. We can talk Alinsky, Cloward-Piven, economic slavery, or whatever societal tactic you care to name. The heart of the matter is whether the statement “good can not come from evil” is true or false.

One statement, plea, grito de corazon is “don’t split up my family.” This statement exposes a key tactic to undermining the law: to produce children born in the US whose function in life, whose existence is to be an anchor for two law-breakers. The parents put a legal gun to the heads of their own children and dare LEO to enforce the law. The parents may have married for love, which is good, but the effect was designed to place Americans in a moral hazard.

To make the children orphans by deporting one or more parents is frankly evil. We see analogs in American society of the severely negative impact of absent fathers. Can good come from the evil of making children orphans?

To allow the parents to stay is not just to ignore the law that we require of every immigrant from countries that we don’t share land with. The stresses on the social safety nets and the importation of poverty strains American society to raise the money to support folks who don’t support themselves. This is theft, and that qualifies as evil.  Can good come from evil?

If the law-breakers work and don’t accept welfare, who goes without a job? How can taxes be collected? Whom do we deny a place in America in order to accommodate law-breakers? The Nigerian who follows the rules, or the Indian who follows the rules? Shall we return to discriminating against the Irish and Jews again?

Why are open borders desirable?

Our State Department’s Consular Affairs is stuck with a legally created process that exacerbates the problem. An immigrant plops down $10,000 and then waits, sometime 10 years, for permission to legally immigrate, often without family who must wait longer. Who thought up this system? It is insane and encourage people to break the law. Can the system be reformed? Most assuredly, and it doesn’t take great political capital to do it. The problem is this: the system for legal immigration actively encourages immigrants to go the illegal route. We encourage the poor to place themselves in the hands of economic slavers.

To go the illegal route means putting one’s self into debt (economic slavery) to a courier from a criminal syndicate, and after entering the US, paying back the debt to the criminal syndicate. Our system, which we call good, inspires and encourages evil to happen – so is it good? Should it be changed?

If we deport everyone, we create orphans. We also lose those men and women who genuinely want to be Americans, and are political, economic refugees or escaping from the hellish existence being stuck between a central government and tribes of narco-terrorists who make murder into an art form. Is sending someone back to expected (not certain) death a good thing?

Do we need to bite the bullet and just absorb Mexico and Canada?

If there are open borders, there are no borders. If there are no borders, whose country is it?

In the minefield of immigration, we face the question of whether good can come from evil. If we approach the minefield with a Judeo-Christian worldview, we will seek avoid or destroy evil. We will seek to avoid lasting harm to the innocent, while holding the guilty accountable in a measured, commensurate way. If we go about it with the worldview that Church and State are separate, and that one’s moral quality does not inform one’s public duty, then good and evil are quaint notions and can not be appealed to and  we can haul every last one of them back across the border and let them stew in their own juices.

Welcome to the minefield. We know Bush-43 and Obama seeded the mines, and Trump is on record as promising a compromised solution of just going after the truly criminal illegals. Mistakes will be made, and each one amplified not for the good of the human beings in our society, but strictly for political gain. On the question at the heart of this issue, we can not seem to separate good from evil. So who’s up for getting tossed into the air and losing all of one’s limbs or just taking a bouncing betty to the face?

Über DaveO

Retired soldier, micro-farmer, raconteur and pet owner from the great state of Oklahoma. Wandered in as a frequent commenter and have been enjoying blogging ever since.
Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Constitution, Defending the Homeland, Diplomacy veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.

5 Antworten zu Landmines: Not a Love Story

  1. burkemblog schreibt:

    DaveO–would you consider ending „birthright citizenship“? I honestly don’t know where I stand on all of this, but I am curious about what you think of that aspect of our system.

    Gefällt mir

    • DaveO schreibt:

      MikeB, thank you for asking that question. I will provide an expanded answer in another post. „Birthright“ citizenship is divided into two parts: by parent(s) or by location. Location has given rise to „birth tourism“ AKA anchor babies. That is the evil I talk about above, wherein the purpose of a child’s life is to be a human shield against deportation. I am against granting citizenship by location. American jurisprudence is all over the map, and the IRS has yet another interpretation of citizenship.

      Gefällt mir

  2. Consul-At-Arms schreibt:

    The 14th Amendment adds to the Constitution’s Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 4: „The Congress shall have Power To…. establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.“

    In practice, Congress has passed a number of laws regarding non-14th Amendment citizenship, currently all incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (as amended), U.S.C. Title 8. These are the ones that make (some but not all) children born abroad of U.S. citizen(s) parent(s) into natural-born citizens.

    Gefällt mir

Kommentar verfassen

Trage deine Daten unten ein oder klicke ein Icon um dich einzuloggen:

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Abmelden /  Ändern )

Google+ Foto

Du kommentierst mit Deinem Google+-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Twitter-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )


Du kommentierst mit Deinem Facebook-Konto. Abmelden /  Ändern )

Verbinde mit %s