Barker's Bottom Line on Immigration Policy and "Reform"

When it comes to the issue of U.S. immigration policy at present vs. what I would consider to be true, rational, reasonable reform... Here's my bottom line:

No "path to citizenship" for those who have entered our country illegally. None!

While I'm open to - indeed, comfortable with - a policy that would not seek (proactively) to identify and deport upon identification illegal aliens who have not "otherwise" broken our law, it seems to me that allowing such people a "path to citizenship" is a "reward" these people don't deserve.

Here's the sticking part though: It's one thing to "tolerate" illegals working in our country; it's quite another to provide them with educational, medical, and other "social" services (above and beyond basic police and fire protection) on the citizen (and legal resident) taxpayer dime.

Sorry... but while Jose (or if you'd rather, Igor, Woo-Chang, or Sean) might be deemed a "tolerable" presence if he freely accepts exploitation of his illegal labor here in return for what he perceives worthwhile personal reward, but I've got enough trouble caring for (financially) my own kids and the kids of fellow citizens; I don't need - nor do I want - to support the children of illegal aliens.

WHICH BRINGS US TO...

Anchor babies.

I've done more than enough research to be absolutely certain that Congress has the Constitutional authority to untangle the mess they and the courts have made of the whole "automatic citizenship" issue as it applies to the American-born children of illegal aliens.

In short, Congress has the power to end the practice of considering a child born on U.S. soil to a mother who is not "subject to the jurisdiction" (is a foreign citizen with no formal allegiance to) of the United States as an automatic citizen.

In addition to severing the wrongheaded "anchor baby" lifeline to legal status for parents, I'd also sever "chain immigration."

Listen... an American citizen marries a foreigner with minor children that's one thing - the spouse and kids get to become Americans. But grandma and grandpa...? Aunts and uncles...??? Nieces and nephews...??? Three words: No frigg'n way!

Listen... immigration should serve our national interests. Period. Perhaps we do need some number of migrant farm workers... perhaps... but by and large the last thing we need is to add to the poor population - the poor unassimilated population - of the United States.

Nor - politically incorrect as this assertion is - should our policy be to allow further "cultural" transformation of the United States. If a degree of "mass" immigration is deemed in our national interest I say we return to traditional "Euro-centric" metrics. I'm not hesitant to say that I want America to remain a "Western" nation with deep and abiding links to our Anglo-Saxon history and culture.

Does this mean "non-whites need not apply?" Certainly not. But it does mean we favor English born English... Canadian born Canadian... Australian born Australian - et al - immigration applicants.

(Notice... nothing about color; it's CULTURE I'm concerned with.)

Japanese...? Sure. Bring 'em on! The Japanese have a long history of assimilating as immigrants. Other Asians...? Again... it depends upon what particular nations/cultures we're talking about. My concern is that second (and definitely third) generation "Whatever-Americans" are culturally in sync with "Anglo-Saxon" American culture in the same way that second and third generation Irish, Italian, and even Greek and Russian Americans are.

Putting this whole question of "mass" immigration aside... back to my original assertion that the purpose of American immigration policy should be first and foremost to benefit AMERICA... while looking for "hard workers" may have a nice ring to it, my greater concern is that America attracts the best and brightest from overseas - those who are ready to hit the ground running and contribute magnitudes more in immediate value (tax revenues, making sure we stay ahead on R&D, etc.) than their presence could possible "cost."

All in all, let's call the Barker Policy... er... "Compassionate Self-Interest."

Finally... some (apple!) pie in the sky fantasies:

1) We CHARGE - bill... invoice... charge-back - the nation of origin (the nation of the illegal alien's citizenship) for reimbursement of all costs incurred should our local/county/state/federal government's have to "deal" with an illegal alien in such a way as where calculable expenses can be ascertained.

Say Juanita - citizen of Mexico - crosses the border illegally and has a kid in a U.S. hospital.

We CHARGE Mexico for the costs of that hospitalization! Send 'em a frigg'n bill...!!!

Hey... how do you suppose Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements happen in terms of the paperwork...?!?! Instead of a bill going to "Medicare" it goes to... er... Mexico.

Of course the Mexican government would refuse to pay, but... hey... remember the good old days of "gunboat diplomacy?"

(*HUGE FRIGG'N GRIN*)

Seriously... at the very least such a policy would pressure Mexico (and the other hemispheric nations which flood us with the vast majority of our illegal aliens) to cooperate with us in ensuring that their citizens don't illegally cross our border and become a potential drain on MEXICAN as well as AMERICAN financial resources.

2) Let's say you get a re offender; Jose Igor Kelly of "Country X" has been deported once and has now been caught - again - illegally present in our country.

I say before we deport him AGAIN we tattoo the words "NOT WELCOME IN USA" right on his forehead; perhaps also on his arms!

I gotta tell ya... I'm sick and tired of my government screwing around with these people.

And that's my two pesos worth...