Monday, 01 October 2007 04:47

Immigration Invasion

Written by 
Rate this item
(0 votes)

Even though I'm a fairly well-entrenched, left-wing liberal, I am so angry at current trends regarding immigration. As a professional strategist, I recognize the purpose that the immigration debate serves. Immigration is a wedge issue.  The issue is very polarizing within both conservative and liberal camps. It is not accidental that this issue is receiving so much attention. It is deliberate and purposeful.

Those that advance a position on the foundation of illegal immigration are advancing a cause that undermines national security and sovereignty.  I do not stand blindly with those that advance tollerant (flexible) immigration positions that are, on net, negative to the maturity of our society, culture, safety, security, and economic.

In the interest of American sovereignty and in the interests of our nation, I joyfully break from the left and abandon most social liberals that can not see the danger in this issue.

There is a moral imperative to insuring the integrity of our nation before we insure the integrity of the world. Soup kitchens, shelters, and churches (here in America) must often turn away overflow. They do this because at some point protecting the needs of the few outweighs the needs of the many. If, as a Nation, we are prepared and capable of feeding, clothing, sheltering, educating, and healing the sick of the entire world then I will be the first to stand in opposition to my own current beliefs. Are we ready and willing to accept those responsibilities for Mexico today? Based simply on my observation that we are not ready or willing to do so for our own citizens...I posit no.

I advocate ZERO tolerance for illegal immigrants (their families, their children, their language, their pets). We can not be flexible on this policy. Flexibility encourages abuse. Permissibility encourages experimentation and challenge. There is a legal framework for immigration. Where gaps exist in the legal framework, they should be addressed. However, illegal immigrants should be immediately deported. If their native land will not accept them back, we reserve the right to send them to anywhere that will have them (that's 193 potential alternatives). If no land will accept them, then more extreme consequences must be applied, such as drafted into national service (forced labor) or even potenitally execution. ZERO tolerance. It is simple economics and game theory. Risk vs. Reward. Very few would risk the journey if the destination or the potential consequences at the destination were more severe or grave than from where they begin or consider the journey.

Our nation is now OCCUPIED by foreign nationals from a country whose leadership has publicly stated that where stands a Mexican citizen so there is Mexican soil. When did it become acceptable for foreign flags to fly prominently in place of American flags--on American soil? This is not a free speech issue...it is a national sovereignty issue. This is completely unacceptable and grounds for the use of deadly force if necessary to insure our sovereignty. The alternative is to annex Mexico and be done with it (see above).

Spanglish is not an acceptable alternative to English. American culture is a melting pot culture. Unfortunately, the disproportionate influence of Spanish speaking immigrants (legal and illegal) is placing an unacceptable strain on American culture and has begun to shift it disproportionately in favor of Spanish culture. Accommodation is a reasonable expectation; however, to borrow a phrase... "when does an apple become an apple core?" At what point does accommodation become so pervasive that the need for immigrants to learn English and melt into our culture is removed. At what point does the culture stop being a melting pot and become silos of disparate cultures. We need a firm national declaration of English as the only official, national language. English must be the standard language of American business, governance, law, and justice. Anything less is a crime against a America and all those that have worked for generations to melting to become American.

Zero tolerance may be too extreme for some people to accept. But the truth is, it is far, far easier to review and enforce LEGAL immigration policy than it is to defend against ILLEGAL immigration. Some might be inclined to call me hypocritical for my views on cultural defense... but I think I am consistent in my belief systems. I am not an advocate for certain changes to our culture that some might expect me to champion. It is also important to understand that my faith is in conflict with my view on immigration. I accept and embrace this conflict. My faith is insufficient to feed, clothe, shelter, educate, or heal the world, There are those things I can change and those things I cannot. Unless we have a radical shift in the paradigm, this is something I cannot change.

This is not an issue of race. I will accept that it is an issue of discrimination. I am discriminating against those who would violate the law. I discriminate against the population of illegal immigrants that, for no other reason than being part of a specific demographic and with or without specific intention, harm this country and undermine its sustainability. A handful illegal immigrants are not noticeable and are absorbed by the vast expanse of America. Millions of illegal immigrants is an invasion...they are an assault on our national sovereignty and culture.

I am willing to accept a multi-generational plan that permits society to shift and adapt with the times (as it is want to do anyway), but the current pace of illegal immigrant corruption does not advance our civilization or it's institutions...the current trend undermines our culture and the fundamentals of our society. It is a divisive issue built upon a heritage of non-enforcement that is simply unnecessary.

I've written my Congressional representatives three times in the past month and called each of their offices twice. It's very easy to do on the internet... Where do we go from here? As Americans, do we care enough yet to do something about it?

Read 1126 times Last modified on Sunday, 01 April 2012 13:48
Rich Wermske

My pedigree and bona fides are published elsewhere. That said, I respect that a few may wish to learn more about the private person behind the writing.  While I accept I am exceptionally introverted (tending toward the misanthropic), I do enjoy socializing and sharing time with like-minded individuals. I have a zeal for integrity, ethics, and the economics of both interpersonal and organizational behavior.

The product of multi-generational paternal dysfunction, I practice healthy recovery (sobriety date December 11, 2001).  I am endogamous in my close personal relationships and belong to a variety of tribes that shape my worldview (in no particular order):

☯ I participate in and enjoy most geek culture. ☯ I am a practicing Buddhist and a legally ordained minister. I like to believe that people of other spiritual/faith systems find me approachable.  I am a member of the GLBTQA community -- I married my long-time partner in a ceremony officiated by Jeralita "Jeri" Costa of Joyful Joinings on November 18, 2013, certificated in King County, Seattle WA. We celebrate an anniversary date of February 2, 2002.  I am a service-connected, disabled, American veteran (USAF).  I am a University of Houston alumnus (BBA/MIS) and currently studying as a post baccalaureate for an additional degree in Philosophy and Law, Values, & Policy.  I am a retired Bishop in the Church of Commerce and Capitalism; the story arch of my prosecuting and proselytizing the technological proletariat is now behind me.  I am a native Houstonian (and obviously Texan).  At 50 years old, I am a "child of the sixties" and consider the 80's to be my formative years.

As I still struggle with humility, I strive to make willingness, honesty, and open mindedness cornerstones in all my affairs. Fourteen years of sobriety has taught me that none of "this" means a thing if I'm unwilling, dishonest, or close minded.  Therefore I work hard on the things I believe in --

  • I believe we can always achieve more if we collaborate and compromise.
  • I believe that liberal(ism) is a good word/concept and something to be proud to support.  The modern, systematic corruption of liberal ideas is a living human tragedy.
  • I believe in a worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The pragmatism of this site and my journey is rooted in both classical and social liberalism.
  • I believe in democratic elections and institutions including a media free of commercial and governmental bias.  Liberty and equality perish when a society becomes uneducated and/or ill-informed.
  • I believe in diversity of life and ideas.  Life and ideas can only flourish when the gene pool is vast and abundantly differentiated.
  • I believe in advancing balance in civil, social, and privacy rights such that all of humanity is continuously uplifted.
  • I believe in separation of church (spirituality) and state (governance) -- with neither in supremacy nor subjugation.
  • I believe in private (real or tangible) property explicitly excluding ideas, knowledge, and methods; such non-tangibles, by natural law, being free for all humanity and emancipated at conception.

While change and the uncertainty of the future may be uncomfortable, I do not fear the unknown; therefore:

    • I believe I must be willing to make difficult choices, that those choices may not be all that I desire, and that such may result in undesirable (or unintended) consequences;
    • I believe we must be willing to make mistakes or be wrong; and I am willing to change my mind if necessary.
I undertake to abide the five precepts of Buddhism; therefore:
  1. I believe it is wrong to kill or to knowingly allow others to kill.
  2. I believe it is wrong to steal or to knowingly allow others to steal.
  3. I believe in abstention from sexual misconduct.
  4. I believe it is wrong to lie or to knowingly allow others to lie.
  5. I believe in abstention from non-medicinal intoxicants as such clouds the mind.

Suicide, major depression, borderline personality, and alcoholism are feral monsters ever howling at my doorstep. However, despite my turbulent and tragic past, rare is the day where I have to rationalize, defend, or justify the actions of that person I see looking back at me in the mirror...

Website: www.wermske.com
Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days. It is this neutrality that has allowed the internet to innovate and grow. Without equal access the internet dies.