Just Say No to Border Legislation

by Roger L. Simon

To begin with, mixing what purports to be a solution to our open southern border with financial backing for wars in Ukraine and the Middle East is ludicrous.

It is everything that is wrong with our legislative system.

Real decision-making means addressing issues this large one at a time, not making them pawns in political horse-trading.

But obvious as that is, the solution to what to do about the border is even more obvious.

Shut it first.

With 10 million, possibly even more, illegal aliens having crossed over since the beginning of the Biden administration, for the sake of our republic, we cannot leave it open a minute longer.

Only by closing the border down can we really figure out how to open it up again—needless to say in a different and, hopefully, somewhat rational way.

This has been a political football for far too long—with the American people the football to be endlessly kicked around by their leadership, the vast majority of whom are completely out of synch with the wishes of their voters.

This is reprehensible and is responsible for the insanity we are currently witnessing—everything from police being stomped on by organized alien gangs, who are engaged in a crime wave, to kids sent home so illegal immigrants can sleep in their schools while the same illegal immigrants are given free healthcare and, in New York, pre-paid credit cards at a cost of $53 million to the taxpayer.

Does this sound crazy?

Well, it is.

And now we have before us this ridiculous legislation that would continue to allow 4,999 illegal aliens to enter the country per day. That would add up to a possible 1.8 million entries per annum.

Talk about kicking the can down the road. This would be like kicking it in the air and letting it fall down where it started.

How about this modest proposal? How about making all our immigration actually legal?

Outrageous, huh?

Besides legal-only-immigration, there could also be regulated work permits.

Our legal immigration has long needed fixing. To begin with, we should be admitting more people and more rapidly, but with every one of them thoroughly vetted.

Assimilation into our culture, the culture of our Founders, should be emphasized and even made mandatory to the extent possible.

The message of current illegal immigration couldn’t be more obvious: We are telling these people we are not really a nation of laws and our vaunted Constitution, to the extent they even know about it, is “just for show.”

In essence, we tell them you can do what you want once you get on the inside. We’ll even financially and physically support you above our own citizens.

What a terrible message.

As they say, you reap what you sow.

And what we are sowing here is the end of our constitutional republic.

Apropos, to the extent I understand it, much of the proposed legislation involves the definition, or redefinition, of political asylum. What is it exactly and who deserves it, who should be admitted to our country.

What is left unsaid is what has happened to us. We are still assumed to be a good, democratic place, “the land of the free,” where those in totalitarian regimes can seek rescue (asylum).

But is that true any longer?

Certainly there are worse regimes like China, ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, or Iran, where the theocratic mullahs crack down hard (see Evin Prison) on those who sway.

But what about us?

In recent years, we have grown into a virtual surveillance state with little personal communication unobserved by our government that is often in cahoots with multinational tech companies.

The weaponization of our justice system continues apace.

The unconscionable incarceration of January 6 protestors smacks not just of a banana republic, but more of the actions of Stalin’s Soviet Union, known for its infamous Purge Trials.

So it might be time for a little self-examination during this border crisis. Who is coming here and for what purpose?

“Political asylum” no longer seems to be exactly the appropriate term. It’s almost comic these days.

Stuffing future ballot boxes would be more accurate.

Thankfully, this new legislation seems to be dead on arrival. Let’s keep it that way.

First published in the Epoch Times.