An Immigration alternative

With the recent arrest and deportation of Elvira Arellano, the discussion has once more been engaged with regard to federal immigration policies. One key issue, illustrated by Ms. Arellano’s story, is the difference between "immigrants:" those seeking to immigrate to the US and become citizens; and, "economic refugees:" those coming to the US for economic reasons related to profitable employ or socio-economic benefits that are wholly unrelated to any desire to become a citizen of this country.

A convenience to confuse the issue, used by open boarder advocates, is lumping together all foreign nationals: foreign students, migrant workers, technical guest workers, those sincerely attempting to immigrate and integrate as US citizens, and self-acknowledged economic opportunists (such as Ms. Arellano), --and proceed to use a straw-man approach to argue against any kind of control of our national boarders.

Ms. Arellano, came to illegally to the US as an unskilled laborer. She was convicted of identity theft, which is a felony in most states. She was then deported and again illegally re-entered the US, which is a federal felony offense. She was convicted for both and was ordered to again be deported. Her stated reason for coming to the US, and again returning after her initial deportation, was for the available social-welfare benefits offered here that were unavailable to her in Mexico. Prior to execution of the deportation order, she sought and obtained "sanctuary" at the Adalberto United Methodist Church of Chicago.

This brings up a very interesting issue hypocrisy.

Many communities are concerned about the growing number of illegal aliens, and would like to stem the tide. Some liberal politicians, along with self-styled "civil-rights" advocates, have set up "sanctuaries" and "sancturay-cities," enacting state and local policies designed to preclude local law enforcement from working with the Immigration & Customs Enforcement.

Many liberals, engaged in defeating the enforcement of US immigration laws, see their activities as a "cause celebrity" form of civil-disobedience, romantically envisioning themselves as part of a 21st century "under-ground rail-road" -- just as long as the last stop on the rail-road isn't in their own neighborhoods (except of course as inexpensive lawn service, nannies, day-labors, maids & pool-boys).

I advocate a compromise solution. . .

Cities and states not wanting to deal with the cost and problems of illegal immigration simply give non-violent "undocumented workers" a choice: 1) a one-way bus ticket to the "sanctuary city" of their choice; or, 2) immediate criminal/civil prosecution and deportation.

Simply become a way-station facilitating safe-passage to the "illegal alien safety zones" our liberal politicians have openly established.

I’ve been told this idea is prohibited by law—but hypocritically, the objections always come from liberals that aren’t at all bothered by other violations of our immigration laws; they tacitly condone identity fraud, and other "petty crimes" related to "undocumented immigration." I don’t see how "pro-immigrant" politicians and activists have a logical or moral basis to complain about other communities not respecting immigration laws governing transportation of illegals to the very cities set-up to circumvent US laws for deporting these individuals.

Either immigration laws need to be universally respected --or they don’t. We are a nation of laws, or we aren’t.

I don't see why conservatives continue to permit liberals to demand certain laws be enforced while, at the same time, allow them to openly abet the violation of other laws not to their liking –-and without consequence. Those cities that don’t help deport illegals, have no basis for complaint against a community helping illegals get to their city intent on frustrating immigration enforcement.

I think its about time we let the politicians & activists advocating open boarders deal with a larger portion of the cost, crime and infrastructure headaches they have attempted to shift over to the rest of us–-we should no longer permit them to have it both ways.