The Northern Line

By The Lineman

Repatriation of illegal aliens now within the United States will be like sending men to war--mothers will be separated from their children; deserters will flee to Canada and many of our friends will be sent into a living hell--but it''s for the same purpose: American defense, and it will take a conservative president to do it. I''m not sure if our current president can.

Our leadership is appeasing foreign leaders who care nothing about America, trying to forge agreements that will give us "peace in our time," and it''s all a waste. Our president said yesterday that immigration reform can only succeed if we push all his points at once, firming up the borders while coaxing present illegal aliens toward citizenship--two direct opposites, strengthening the law while disgracing it. In a world where everyone is nice and the rules don''t matter, this would be wonderful--but this world has real enemies who are out for themselves and we have a precious democracy to defend. I admire our president for what he''s doing in the Middle East; his vision of the future there and his methods to achieve that dream are spectacular--his bold initiative, commitment of forces, personal defense of the free world''s goals are beyond reproach and beyond the intellectual capacity of the democrats--I would give my life in that effort, having lived in the Middle East and worked in Baghdad. Also, I trudged through those years from ''64 to ''80, from a kid to an adult, praying for salvation, for Reagan to come along, and I appreciate having a Republican president and Republican majorities in both houses. That was hard watching America decline--and now it''s almost as hard watching our chances to build American pride dwindle away week by week, more speeches and no fence being built. I don''t think they really are conservatives, just politicians.

A true conservative president has values in his heart that have guided him since childhood--the political party chooses him, not the other way around. Even if he knows his candidacy has no chance (''64), he sacrifices his career for his values, sticking to them no matter what, amazed that life has given him this chance to represent those values to the American people. If he''s lucky, he wins an election (''80)--but his values never change. They are the immutable, inalienable rights of man delineated in the Declaration and Constitution, a very radical set of ideals in the practical world of politics and money, sort of nutty, really, but rights the majority of us would give our lives to defend--serious business.

The conservative president''s main objective must be, in this age again, defense. Reagan saved us by clearly challenging our enemy and presenting a program to defeat them; he was elected on that sensible platform and carried it out. His leadership was so strong, so apolitical, so human, he would have been elected for a third term but chose to follow the rules and bowed out.

The conservative president we need has the same objective--defense--and a clear program to achieve it is waiting, only, must we wait another 16 years for it to be enacted? Right now conservatives have the majority they need to set America''s direction--do we have to watch this president fumble his chances for another two and a half years before we can take effective action? Good grief. By that time the Democrats may think of something to further delude the masses--and our chance will be gone. If you were there on election night in ''64, do you remember the feeling?

As Reagan became a leader of the Free World, we now need a president to provide leadership for all of North America. How long must we wait?

Next: I will assume a conservative president has materialized and describe what Repatriation will be like, including fences, sally ports, governmental activities, effects on communities, and how it will benefit Latin America to have someone offering leadership and setting the rules, even north of the line.

To discuss this commentary on our Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!

By The Lineman

Some concise replies to my rambling discourse on establishing and enforcing immigration laws demand comment: (1)how can the President propose a North America without borders and, at the same time, propose bringing immigration under control? (2)what constitutes fairness?

The President is able to conceive of two opposites working together simultaneously because he is a baby-boomer who has always had a way out of trouble--typical of his class and generation. As a young man, he experienced the immense political success of LBJ, when 2/3 of American voters actually believed that "we can fight a limited war in Southeast Asia, and a war on poverty here at home." 1/3 of voters knew this was rubbish and, though the President has spent his life among that 1/3, he still has many of the values of the 60''s, that all this has got to turn out good in the end--and he is a politician, too.

He is strongly persuaded by the Mexican president, someone with whom he would dearly love to get along because, like many of us, the President has a very positive image of the Mexican nation and people and this is his chance to show America how well we all get along down here. The Mexican president is a PANista, a product of the conservative Mexican business community--even more reason to make agreements of all sorts, to listen to their insights and criticisms of American law and policy, to try to be nice. Our President''s weakness is that he is at least one generation removed from the poverty and struggle that made America strong--the Mexican president sees it at his door.

So our American President tries to be nice, to be diplomatic, to avoid the tragedies that were common before WWII--famine, epidemics, genocide--and he fails to represent that dwindling portion of Americans who have endured such things, believing,, like on TV, that it must all turn out good in the end--and if it doesn''t you can turn off the set, get a good night''s sleep and wake up to a good breakfast--like he always has. He doesn''t now that tragic human events on a massive scale are only prevented by America''s wealth, and he is dribbling it away.

Our President is a very good man but he is not the hard man his father is. His father corrected the military side of LBJ''s fantasy, that we can fight a limited war, and he put America back on track philosophically.

Until Korea, America had operated under the very radical concept of civilian control over the military, that civilian authorities decide political matters and, if they require military action, civilian authority gives the military an assignment. The military then did its job without meddling in politics. It worked beautifully, allowing our military to make successive conquests without embroiling the nation in too much colonialism. Then along came Truman, the Democrat, and his police action in Korea, refusing to go for victory and dragging his feet politically, dragging us into LBJ''s stupid "limited war" in Southeast Asia, the cost of which no one wishes to face. The first President Bush would not release the military until civilian authorities had agreed on a specific mission, then he gave them their mission and stopped them at a line just above Kuwait, exactly according to traditional American policy of civilian control over the military. This action still confuses a great many internationally and within our borders of every political persuasion, simply because it is so professional, so well thought out, a product of deliberation and action devised by our founding fathers who had experienced uncontrolled militaries. This is a true conservative president: he returned us to our base American procedures after the liberal experiment with "limited war."

Now we face the other side of LBJ''s platform for America, fighting "a war on poverty here at home," the concept of which draws people from around the world and deludes America from realizing that there is a limit to its resources.

Before WWII and shortly thereafter, America and Mexico had successful, controlled immigration relationships that met the needs of both countries. An INS officer who served at that time told me that, back then, he could hand his pistol to the illegal he was apprehending while the agent filled out the paperwork, knowing that the man was so moral and ethical he would never shame himself by breaking a rule--he was just looking for work and had missed a Bracero group.

Now, the nature of illegal immigration has changed. Though most migrants still have deep values, they are coming to America for the chance to increase materially and to "party," in the words of the same INS agent. Standing in the school district headquarters parking lot in Nogales, Arizona, you can watch them pour through the storm drains into America dressed in their party clothes, ready for action, and on any street corner in any Mexican city you can see them ganged up with their buckets and squeegees waiting for the traffic to stop at the red light. When they hear about the storm drain in Nogales they will be on their way--there is absolutely nothing for them to do in Mexico but work hard for a tiny wage, so here they come. They are human, not criminals.

There is nothing to stop them and, as the Chinese say, "hunger makes a thief of any man." Our leaders are people who have not suffered; they are baby-boomers just like the president, intent on doing good, perhaps, but with no sense of urgency. They will negotiate, like Truman in Korea and LBJ in Vietnam, while the third world encroaches and eventually defeats us, a combination of this welfare state drawing people from around the world and the wealthy''s lack of awareness to protect themselves, coupled with lifetime experiences of nothing tragic ever really happening.

Well, talk to the mothers of boys who died in Vietnam for nothing--tragedy does happen, and when no one is there to defend or speak for decent people they get trampled. Life is not a TV program. Witness the Christians in Africa--who really cares? And this is what''s happening here on a very gradual scale.

When we have a defendable border, and when we have leadership that represents the conservative majority who voted them into power, we will have a chance at correcting the errors of the 60''s. Our leadership must know when to walk away from a deal when we are getting cheated--now they don''t; they keep playing politics. Hopefully a correction in direction will be made before we have to do something drastic, like defend ourselves militarily from an enemy which has organized itself within our borders--hopefully that''s a long way off, just a nightmare, but a practical military goal of any modern enemy.

So much for mushy leadership--now, fairness.

A gentleman comments that is it unfair that he lost the ability walk fifteen years ago, and how can laws be made to make his loss fair--what is fair legislation?

"Fair," in rules, means accepting the reality common to all and dealing out suffering in equal measure, not playing favorites.

Fair immigration law accepts that not everyone who wishes to enter the USA can do so, that there will be a great many more people with legitimate reasons to enter than the country can reasonably accept. So we encounter the concept of "reasonability" in immigration law, too. "Reasonability" is based on the ancient, international concept of people taking care of as many of their own problems as possible before asking for help, and accepting the fact that perhaps nobody else in the world should be burdened with that person''s problems. Mexican culture has a beautiful saying about this; "Haga la lucha," which means, literally, "Make the fight."

This concept of "haga la lucha," or "reasonability" in immigration law, is far older than Marxist or collectivist thought, or LBJ''s "war on poverty." It is based in human strength, the same stuff that conquers frontiers and builds nations. Poor people used to have it in spades--now they have leftover Soviet disinformation.

No, it isn''t fair that a man loses his ability to walk; but it also isn''t fair that a stranger is taxed--on penalty of imprisonment--to pay for the sufferer''s medical care.

This is fairness and reasonability in immigration law.

Next (perhaps): Repatriation

To discuss this topic on the forum, click on the title link!

by The Lineman

The United States is a smashing success; it''s a beacon to the struggling people of the world, exactly as intended, and has a responsibility to preserve itself as the homeland of human dignity, the embodiment of mankind''s most liberal philosophies. Immigration law assures national preservation by allowing entry to those who share our dream and preventing entry of those who do harm. With firm control of the borders, there is a chance of enforcing that law--we must make sure it is fair. With such a responsibility, I am not going to discuss half-measures.

The current system works reasonably well worldwide; only our southern border is really in crisis, though visiting the waiting room of an American consulate in Asia is a shock. If a consulate in a Chinese city makes a tiny exception in the rules for one applicant, the entire population is aware by that afternoon and the place is overwhelmed. Consular officers in those positions must hold rigidly to the rule, sometimes seeming pitiless, to be fair to all--and they do a great job with the current set of rules. When our southern border is as impenetrable as the Pacific Ocean the job will be much the same there, too, using the same regulations with regional differences based on our long-term relationship with Mexico.

Because so many families are split by the border, with members living within easy driving distance of each other--because agriculture depends so heavily on labor and produce being able to move readily across the border--because business and industry rely on immediate access to facilities on both sides and the quick transport of goods--because residents of border communities like to do their daily shopping on both sides of the border--because Mexican medical facilities offer a release from the deathgrip of the American medical machine, because citizens of both countries like to vacation across the border--there must be a fair, reasonable procedure that allows a large volume of people to cross readily while, at the same time, identifying and denying entrance to those who would do the United States harm.

The problem is, how do we identify harmful individuals among such a crowd? We can''t--until we have full cooperation from the Mexican authorities, and we will not have full cooperation until mutual respect is established between Mexico and the United States; mutual respect will not be established until we have firm borders. At that time, Mexico will be sufficiently populated with former residents of the United States to have gone through a sea change in political philosophy spurred by people who want honest government, or at least the chance to vote in an honest election, and who are willing to demand it. As long as people of this quality are allowed to easily drift illegally into the United States, Mexico doesn''t stand a chance at reform.

Until then, American immigration law and law enforcement officials will be the bane of the international press because they will have to uphold the will of the American people.

When the traditional liberals of Latin America have established a government of laws in Mexico, when most of their government money is accounted for and Pemex, if not privatized, funds public education and programs for their needy; when law enforcement officers are paid adequately instead of having to depend on corruption to survive, and the strong spirit of Mexican decency, their work ethic, the works of their brilliant philosophers in every field are studied and applied, and their faith in God is openly acknowledged, then our law enforcement agencies on both sides can cooperate to protect the entire region. And this will happen, or the United States will have the option to simply close its borders and let Latin America cook in its own juices.

When escape to America has been denied and Latin America is embroiled in deciding its future, the border will be a living hell of surplus population on the Mexican side. American border regulators will have to concentrate on human concerns in their immediate areas; NAFTA and tourism may fall by the wayside. Many American families have sick and elderly relatives in Mexico whom they care for daily; orphanages in Mexican border towns depend on donations of personal time and material from Americans--these relationships and others like them cannot be immediately severed. The people directly involved, government and church officials and workers, know who must get back and forth and should have access to immigration law to prevent crimes against humanity, but until the people of Latin America have their house in order without making demands on the United States we on this side must be willing to witness catastrophic human events among them without going to their aid. It seems inhuman, but daily events in the third world are already beyond the average American''s conception--the media now picks and chooses which tragedy to emphasize to American taste--and if we are not willing to accept at our present borders third world horrors that we cannot change, they will inundate us, the end product of uncontrolled immigration, and their values will dominate. So much for the land of the free--it will be a free-for-all, like Somalia.

We must be willing to trust in the strength of decent Latin Americans.

America may lose its self-image of the rich uncle but, as it''s said, "America is to the world as Disneyland is to L.A.," the sooner we face contemporary realities the more wealth and opportunity we will preserve for legal immigrants of the future. Like an American consulate in a Chinese city, America will survive like an island with operpopulation and poverty at its gates; international society will scorn us (they do anyway) but if the rules are not rigidly enforced the island will be lost.

This seems rather stupidly dreamy, but remember what the Loyalists thought of the rebels during the American Revolution--and today we live the rebel''s dream. If there are no dreams for the Western Hemisphere the future will be the same as today, a gradual descent into mayhem. As the world wondered for centuries whether the spirit of man would ever be freed, today Hispanic people question whether corruption is inherent in their culture. It seems so, yet the majority of individuals say they are repulsed by it. This is a question for Latin America to resolve, not the United States.

Presuming the forces of decency in Latin America eventually come to dominate (in whatever political form that requires) and American authorities gain faith in Latin governmental systems, Mexican and American law enforcement will share information. Criminals who prey on illegal aliens are themselves often illegal, offending on both sides, and there seems to already be substantial international cooperation to detain them--this will become the standard. Office personnel on both sides will get to know and trust each other; electronic information systems--already amazingly fast--will identify harmful individuals quickly. When criminals learn to defeat current methods, authorities will cooperate for the mutual benefit of both countries in applying new identification methods, always one step ahead as is standard in law enforcement.

When the only points of crossing are those under supervision by authorities of both countries, crowds will file through at a rate that allows thorough inspection, maddeningly slow for vehicles at first--perhaps justifying new vehicle and packaging designs to pass inspection at a profitable rate. Individuals will walk through readily by electronic identification. Gradually, the law will loosen up to allow passage of cultural and human rights exchange, after dignity is restored, and friendship between the countries will grow as never before--after the line is drawn and mutual respect established. The law of supply and demand, the unseen hand, will furnish the details.

Next: Repatriation

To go directly to comments on this piece on the Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!