What real immigration reform would look like

More politicians than ever are talking tough these days on the issue of illegal immigration. Ordinary people have been talking about it for many years, but even in this age of instant messaging, it takes a long time for information to reach Washington, DC.

Senators, Representatives and Governors from states a long way from our southern border have shown a passionate interest in the subject recently. Even our President has noticed that the people seem a little agitated. With all this national attention, you might think that the solution is, at last, close at hand.

You would be wrong.

Oh, I’m sure new legislation will come out of Washington. Our elected officials will tell us (ad nauseum) that they have responded to the will of the people, which is why we should re-elect them. But, we don’t need new laws. Laws already exist. What we need is LAW ENFORCEMENT.

If you’ll listen very carefully, you will notice that most of the solutions being proposed include some sort of assurance that the illegal immigrants that violated our existing laws won’t be punished too severely. After all, even though they broke the law, we need their labor! So, the new laws will guarantee work visas for people who have been working here illegally and the promise that they will eventually be offered citizenship. Of course, we are discouraged from calling this an “amnesty” program, because they offered that before and it didn’t reduce the flow of illegals as promised. Whatever comes out of Washington this time won’t work either.

And the reason it won’t work is because the border remains porous. No immigration program can be effectively regulated if we don’t know who is here illegally. No laws can be successfully enforced if we cannot control our borders.

A guest worker program may have merit, but it cannot work until we have secured our borders. Since it would be impossible to administer until we have gained control of the flow of people entering our country, it should not even be discussed at this time.

But it will be. The President has made it clear that he will not sign any law that does not include a guest worker provision. Contrary to what you may believe, politicians are not stupid. They know it won’t work, just as many people know it won’t work. They don’t want it to work. They would be quite content to let things stay the way they are, if ordinary citizens would only stop complaining.

So they will make a big show of compassion and understanding by passing new laws that promise to address the problem, knowing full well that they won’t, hoping that the voters will believe in their sham compassion and keep voting for them.

If you want to see change, tell your elected officials this: Close the borders FIRST! Enforce the existing immigration laws FIRST! After you have proven your willingness and ability to uphold the Constitution, THEN talk to us about a guest worker program.

But another problem exists.

What has not been discussed is the law that grants automatic citizenship to all children born on US soil. It should be a part of the discussion.

Imagine this scenario: An American couple is vacationing in Italy. The woman gives birth in Venice. Would any reasonable person think of the child as an Italian citizen? Would the child have the right to enter the United States when the couple returns home, or would it be considered “alien” or “undocumented”? Would it be necessary to apply for US citizenship for the child?

The obvious answer to all three questions should be a resounding “No”. The child should be considered an American because his/her parents are Americans. Any law that proclaimed otherwise should be seen as foolish and unenforceable. So, why doesn’t a child born on US soil inherit the citizenship of its parents?

The antiquated law that grants US citizenship to a person based on the accidental location of his/her birth must be changed. The time to change it is now, while immigration laws are being rewritten. If this issue is not addressed, the resultant legislation cannot properly be labeled “comprehensive”.

The real problem with immigration

Recently, some high school seniors were asked where this statement came from; “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Sixty-seven percent thought it was from the U.S. Constitution.

It is not in the Constitution.

Actually, the author of the statement was Karl Marx, who is known as “The father of Communism”. It is the basic premise of Socialism and Communism.

What does this have to do with immigration, you ask? Well, let me explain.

My grandparents came to this country when they were in their teens. They did not speak English. They were farmers who were barely able to read and write! This was the land of opportunity for people who were willing to work hard, and given their lack of training and experience they had to work hard at menial jobs in factories, in order to survive.

But they had entered the country in accordance with the laws of the land, intent upon becoming Americans. They learned the language of their adopted country and eventually became citizens. They raised their children as Americans. My parents were bilingual. I have always spoken English only. I am an American who happens to be of Italian descent.

For many years, our nation prospered in part through the efforts of people like my grandparents, who aspired to earn a piece of the American Dream.

Compare their experience with that of people who sneak into this country for a chance to make more money than they could hope to earn in their native land. Many of them send much of their earnings “home” to their families. They themselves return home from time to time. Because of their illegal status, avoiding capture is their American Dream.

Even those who have legal status demand that we speak and print everything in their language! Their culture is too precious to them to surrender it to the ways of the land that feeds them. The melting pot must reverse itself, so that we may become more like them. “Diversity” is the new American Dream.

People form governments to protect its citizens from anything that threatens their way of life. Our government and those of many European nations are doing nothing to stem the tide of immigration. Do you wonder why?

It is because Nationalism is considered passé. The New World Order requires the abandonment of borders. The justification is that everything that defines us as different is bad. The way to raise the standard of living for people in Third World countries is to do away with countries! If we were all one people, peace would prevail and everyone would thrive in a single economy. Those of us who have enjoyed the good life must, through a sense of guilt, give up what we have worked for, so that other less fortunate people can catch up. It is a nice theory, although a bit naïve.

In reality, the result will more likely be a slight increase in the living standard of some former Third World people, and a much larger decrease in the standard of living once enjoyed by the First World.

It is also likely that the Middle Class will cease to exist.

The existence of a large middle class is evidence of a prosperous society. It exemplifies the American Dream. Socialism claims to be a classless society in which everyone is equal. The truth is there are always at least two classes: the ruling class and everyone else. Communism, which is essentially a socialist ideology, has failed everywhere it has been practiced, partly because there is no middle class to which to aspire, therefore there is no incentive to excel. Capitalism is what has allowed the citizens of the United States, Canada, Japan, and to some extent even China to enjoy a better standard of living than people living in Third World countries.

But wherever the people share wealth and power, those who would govern must obtain the cooperation of its citizens. Democracy can be hard to control. The New World Order and uncontrolled immigration will reduce us to a two-class society, one that is easily manipulated.

We could call the new form of government “Capitalistic Communism”.

Karl Marx would be proud.

Government and the Law of Unexpected Consequences

Wisdom is the ability to see the long-term consequences of our short-term solutions. It is easy to find a path from “A” to “B”. It is but one step, but the wise person visualizes the inevitability of “C, “D”, “E”…that must follow once we have taken that first step.

Our compassionate legislators have helped the poor by reining in the costs of buying a home. Under the new rules, closing costs are not allowed to exceed a certain percentage of the loan amount. This has no effect on large loans, but is designed to prevent low-income buyers from paying “too much” to buy a low-priced home.

I’m sure that sounded good to the folks in Washington, DC, but in the real world (where the rest of us live) closing costs are a conglomerate of fees charged by several separate entities – not just by the lenders.

For example, before a lender agrees to make a loan, they order an appraisal. The appraisal is prepared by someone unaffiliated with the lender. This protects the buyer from an unscrupulous lender claiming the property is worth more than it actually is. Of course, it also protects the lender from accepting an over-valued property as collateral for the loan. Anything that protects both parties is a good thing, right?

The effort involved in appraising a $40,000 house is not really much less than the effort needed to appraise a $400,000 house. The fee is part of the “closing costs”.

Likewise, the company that researches the title and issues Policies of Title Insurance must exercise the same due diligence, regardless of the actual dollar value of the property in question. It doesn’t cost less to research the title for a low-priced home. Another fee that’s part of the “closing costs”.

In other words, most of the costs that comprise “closing costs” are not related to the purchase price or to the amount of the loan. And, most of the costs are not exorbitant fees arbitrarily set by greedy bankers.

By insisting that those costs cannot exceed a percentage of the loan amount, the government has made it economically impractical to issue loans under certain amounts, since the allowable closing costs are insufficient to cover the actual and necessary costs. As a result, most lenders will not offer a mortgage of less than $45,000 to $48,000. They can’t do everything that should be done on loan packages of less than that.

Now, here’s where the unintended consequences come in…

There are many properties on the market that are available for less, but, thanks to the government, people who can afford those homes can’t get financing to purchase them. These are the same people Congress claims to want to help.

The homes are still being sold, but only for cash. In a cash transaction, there is no loan so there is no restriction on the closing costs.

People who can only afford homes in this price range usually don’t have enough cash to buy them without financing, so these homes are being bought by investors who will rent them out. The rents will be considerably higher than the costs of home ownership, but low-income people will have no choice but to pay the higher rent.

Sometimes I wish government would stop helping us!