Every now and then, a spate of stories will come out that all touch upon one of my "hot buttons" and I'll tie them all together in a bit of a roundup. This morning, it's illegal aliens.
First up, Elvira Arellano is still in the news. She's back in her home country of Mexico, but she wants to return to the US. Having sneaked across the border twice, been caught twice, and deported twice, this time she wants to do it differently: she's asking the Mexican government to appoint her an "ambassador for peace and justice." I'm not quite sure if the Mexican equivalent of our State Department has the paperwork to commission such an emissary, but that's her notion.
The obvious response is simple: as she has been convicted of a crime here in the United States and deported twice (and has shown not only no remorse, but a sense of pride in her deeds), we simply declare her persona non grata and refuse to accept her diplomatic credentials. At which point she sneaks back across the border a third time, flashes her fancy diplomatic visa when she gets caught again, officials notice that it has no entry stamp indicating she came across the border legally, and we toss her out a third time. Repeat as necessary.
As I said before, I'm personally willing to make Ms. Arellano an offer. I think the United States should offer to set aside her conviction and her two prior expulsions and allow her to pursue a valid visa to enter the United States -- as long as she obeys all the rules, follows all the proper procedures, and does it strictly legally and by the book -- in short, gets in line, follows the rules, and waits her turn. I feel safe making this offer for two reasons: first, I have absolutely no authority to make it, thus it's an utterly meaningless gesture; secondly, from everything I've seen and read about her, she wouldn't accept it. She doesn't want "fair" treatment, she wants special treatment, and the offer of fairness would be utterly unacceptable to her.
Next up, we have the story of another "hard-working migrant." 17-year-old Francisco Santos has come down with a particularly virulent form of tuberculosis. Now, TB is a nasty disease, but it's readily treatable -- IF one will accept treatment. He won't. And under law, anyone who has certain contagious diseases can be detained to protect the public.
He refuses to accept treatment, and four people living with him have also tested positive for TB. None of them have symptoms, but they are being treated anyway.
Mr. Santos has also admitted to being in the country illegally, and officials are planning to return him to his native Mexico. But this raises an interesting question: can Mexico refuse to accept him due to his tuberculosis? Are we stuck with him as long as he's contagious?
It's a valid concern of theirs. I'd have to respect their decision, if they did that. Public health ought to be an issue that transcends any political concern; bugs don't care about borders and laws, and neither should we in fighting them. It's one of the reasons I don't have a problem with emergency rooms not questioning immigration status when treating true emergencies; it's those who use ERs for less-than-critical matters that get me most aggravated.
If that's the case, I suggest we give him a choice: accept treatment until he's cured, or total medical isolation and NO treatment for ANYTHING until he either accepts it or dies. At which point, we sterilize the hell out of his cell, cremate his body, and offer his ashes to the Mexican government.
Finally, we have a story out of Boston. Immigration officials recently held a series of raids, focusing on illegal aliens who are members of the MS-13 gang. Literally dozens of these dangerously violent thugs were busted and will be deported.
But that isn't as good news as one would think. Officials say that it'll only be a temporary fix, as they fully expect them to return to the United States in short order.
In law, there's a saying that "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man suffer." Or maybe it's a hundred. I don't recall. But the gist of it is that our legal system should err on the side of mercy.
That seems to be the principle governing those who oppose fortifying our southern border, but it doesn't hold up. ALL those crossing the border illegally are violating our laws, and the idea that "better ten felons cross freely than one petty criminal be bothered" is, frankly, absurd.
Also, a big source of revenue for MS-13 is in smuggling people across the border. Cut back on the traffic, you cut into their income -- and reduce the number of people who are willingly placing themselves in the gang's hands.
And yes, I did specifically say "southern border." That's where the biggest problem is. When one is hemorrhaging from a slashed arm, one does not put a tourniquet on the uninjured arm as a preventative measure. If we start having the same kind of problems with the Canadian border as we do with the Mexican one, then we can start protecting that one, too. Hell, maybe the hosers will loan us some polar bears for border patrol, if becomes necessary.
America is a nation of immigrants. We have the most open, most accepting immigration policy in the world, and that is (and should be) a matter of pride. But no nation should ever surrender its right to determine who can and can not enter its borders, and how they may do so. That is precisely the demands of the "pro-immigrant" crowd, who pervert that term every time they open their mouths and spit on those people who ARE here legally, who have followed all the rules, obeyed all the laws, and in general shown respect for our nation.
I consider myself far more pro-immigrant than all the "immigrants' rights" activists put together, and deeply resent their hijacking and perverting the term for their own agenda. At the same time, they are desperately trying to cast us as "anti-immigrant," choosing to ignore the fact that I -- and many others -- are partly motivated out of a sense that we need to defend legal immigrants from being lumped in with the illegal ones. The "immigrants' rights" people are essentially spitting in their faces, saying that they are fools for trying to "do it right." That is a gross insult, and it should not be tolerated.
Some day those of us who are truly "pro-immigrant" ought to take that term back from the ones currently abusing the hell out of it.