Notes on the Border: A Hawkish Opinion

Capping it off at 12 million, living in the United States of America, illegally. For anyone who fails to be shocked enough, those numbers are from the year 2004. So honestly, the question has to be, has the nation had enough? Sure companies ship jobs overseas, but allowing more undocumented workers to come into the country doesn't solve that problem, even if they are deputized as American citizens. In reality, what we really need to do is stop selling governmental control to the Mexican border conflict and start where the real problem is: freedom of passage.

I've spoken at lengths beforehand about my blatant disagreement with President Obama's reckless decision to amend border security laws in a such a manner that cuts off general funding for the ever so necessary fence to protect American citizens, and in this piece my view is no different. Regardless of George Bush's election in the swing year of the change in centuries, it still took almost 60% of a decade for his party to address immigration reform, resulting in the slow start of a process to complete the line of defense against those disrespectful of the laws.

In the 21st Century however, we have to take a different approach. No longer are new immigrants simply pursuing the American Dream, as they might have years ago. With many states offering healthcare and social benefits as lucrative welcome presents, illegally entering immigrants now have more incentive than ever to break the rule of justice and decency in our good nation. Critics of my viewpoints often argue that these people just want new opportunity like my own ancestors who arrived in the States, yet they miss the huge elephant in the room that summarizes neatly their logic: the availability of government benefits. Perhaps there was less of a downside to immigrants arriving illegally generations past, as they could not waltz up and claim food stamps or unemployment--all while not paying taxes. And in the social democratic mindset of today, our nation must care for, first and foremost, all of its citizens.

For these reasons I can see no better policy than a hardened mentality which seeks to deport all discovered illegals for their crimes. Much like in the country of Italy, we should hold little regrets about doing what is right in the best interests of American citizens of all races and creed.

Of course these decisions may divide families, yet people must come to terms with their own actions in life. America is a melting pot; not a swine's trough, and her riches must be protected at all costs. To those who feel that tough immigration policy is discriminatory towards Hispanics, view this link, which explains how Latinos have become regular targets of crime from illegal immigrant hands.

People have the right to be angry that families are broken up, or that the legal immigration process takes so long, yet this does not justify their actions against international and American law. The end should certainly not justify the means, and the insistence by modern political scientists to apply the reverse of such a tenet to immigration policy is irrefutable evidence of confused logic over the issue.

Indeed we must stand together, and in the defense of something greater than ourselves.


Gene Schilling

Writer--Our America Blog

How to Fix the Budget Deficit

Even the most optimistic observers have to admit that America's present budget deficit is both an unsustainable and irresponsible creation of governments unwatched and unregulated by voters in the past 30 years. With national debt at a staggering $13.4 trillion, even the least engaged should wonder at just how further generations are expected to deal with the overwhelming challenge of negative intake versus spending for the depleted coffers of Washington.

Raising taxes is always a possibility, but one that hardly guarantees real change. Essentially Congress would need to raise income tax rates to 15% at the minimum, driving families into further destitution while failing to fully secure a change in revenue. And of course there is no mandate forcing Congress to use those taxes for the budget deficit; they might easily add it to their own means of extorting earmarks or championing district spending projects.

No, while taxes are an option, they aren't the first factor of the equation which we must consider. The real solution to America's troubling financial instability is the dramatic cutting of spending, across the board, to foster a steadily decreasing budget issue. Most figures show that the HHS Department and Social Security make up a massive majority of the total spending in America, trailed only slightly by the Department of Defense. These programs all promise good intentions, yet at east small fractions of their total cost could be eliminated in order to fix our revenue and spending dilemmas.

Initially, the closure of unneeded military installations in Europe would be a start for the Department of Defense. Several positions are generally unnecessary, and so shutting them down would benefit the country. In fact, transferring stationed troops to the border of Mexico would be enough to combat the rising drug problem between our countries, which could help eliminate casualties and save money from the largely less than stellar DEA. To be clear, no funding should be cut from the troops themselves, yet many of these bases are simply a drag on our budget clarity.

Some smaller alternatives also exist. The Department of Commerce has turned into a useless organization that makes plenty of briefs and presentations yet hardly has a beneficial impact on our nation's economy. Thus I would move to propose that Congress pass a 5-year mandate on the agency, allowing workers time to gain new employment or even start their own companies before its dissolving. In branching off of this, the departments of labor, personnel management, housing, environmental protection, and homeland security should all face similar mandates, thus cutting preliminary articles down to a more realistic budget condition.

Pushing forward, Congress must also make the hard decision of cutting parts of social security and Medicare coverage. As my colleague Ayla Samadi noted in her article Long-term Security, the government has a duty to create an umbrella factor for both those reaching retirement age and citizens of lower income levels in order to prevent a dramatic fallout from lack of support. Yet at the same time, the middle class should be transferred into 401K savings plans, which, while insecure in their own way, will draw off a huge section of the budget deficit by eliminating it largest spending target.

Finally, the government should cut the proposed healthcare plan of the Obama Administration, which promises to only add more jeopardy to our financial future, and certainly that of our children.

Difficult choices often seem like infectious diseases to the average politician; sending them running fear if one crosses their path. The truth is, we cannot continue to deceive ourselves over their dramatic issue of trust and financial security. Only a decisive move to curb spending will allow us to continue transferring prosperity to the generations to come, and it is the government's duty to do so.


John Lai

National Alliance Treasurer and Comptroller General