By Ken O. Eldib email@example.com
In an obvious abuse of power, late last month His Majesty issued executive orders protecting millions of illegal immigrants from deportation stating, "there are actions I have the legal authority to takeÖthat will help make our immigration system more fair." Obama implied that heís preventing families from being torn apart but itís really a scheme to allow millions who will overwhelmingly vote Democrat to become citizens and help the Obama revolution destroy America as we know it.
It's wonderful to have compassion for people who want to become Americans but Obamaís decimation of immigration policies is cynical and damaging to the country. America is between a rock and a hard place and the skilled agitators whose motto is, ďnever let a crisis go to wasteĒ, are doing their best to frame the debate so that the outcome will be in their favor. Americans want to be compassionate but they don't want the U.S. to be drastically changed demographically, which is inevitable if tens of millions of poor unskilled immigrants continue to come here.
We are at a crossroads and must decide if America will be a republic and a meritocracy or a welfare state. Unfortunately the American republicís been slipping away for a century and Ben Franklinís quote, ďÖa republic if you can keep itĒ, in answer to a question about what form of government the revolution would give the people, has proven prophetic.
Historically immigrants came to America for opportunities unavailable in their native lands but increasingly many come here primarily for social welfare benefits. Such policies are unsustainable and foolish in this age of intense economic competition. It would be wise to base immigration policy as much on increasing our competitiveness, as on compassion for the needy. An immigration system similar to the college admissions model is more appropriate than the 19th century method now in place. Colleges admit applicants based primarily on their academic records but also admit a smaller number of people with lower grades who bring various desirable attributes to the student body. Similarly, America should admit immigrants based on what they offer this society, while also admitting a smaller number of people for humanitarian reasons. It would be different if we lacked unskilled workers, in which case we would want to admit more of them but what we lack are highly skilled workers, so they are the ones to admit in higher numbers.
There should be a formula based approach to evaluating immigration applications so that we admit people with the qualities required for our countries continued success. Like university admissions, the formula should be subjective enough to consider intangible attributes but it should primarily be merit based. When it comes to undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. any possible admission process should include an essay question or two, so applicants who have made the effort to learn English are rewarded compared to those who havenít made that effort.
Self-deportation which has been ridiculed should be one of the cornerstones of immigration reform to help expatriate the millions of immigrants who have disobeyed our laws and abused our welfare system. At the top of the deportation list should be criminals, followed by serial exploiters of our welfare and legal systems.
Simultaneously the American welfare system should be reformed and the millions of able bodied people receiving benefits should be compelled to get off the dole. This would discourage unskilled immigrants from violating our borders and lead to wage increases for Americanís currently working for the minimum. Welfare recipients who return to work would become net contributors to society and hopefully escape the multi-generational cycle of poverty perpetuated by the welfare system. Admission of highly skilled workers on the other hand will make the U.S. more competitive with other developed nations.
Low skilled immigrant workers pay little or no income tax, get tax refunds via the earned tax income credit and often rack up huge hospital bills ultimately paid for by American taxpayers. Conversely, highly skilled workers who are needed but not allowed to immigrate are likely to put more into the system than they take out.
Itís a matter of supply and demand and if America supplies opportunities for hard working people it will attract hard working immigrants, but if it supplies easy welfare benefits it will attract people seeking those. Itís time for the American people to decide they will offer opportunity not welfare, because that is how our country was built.
Our borders should be as impenetrable to illegal immigrants as it is to foreign armies and technologies exist to make this goal attainable, if we have the will to do it. We are foolish if we allow special interest groups and loud lobbyists reduce the question of border control to an emotional issue. People coming here to have anchor babies, or seek public assistance are quite aware they are breaking the law and exploiting American tax payers and as such they should bear the burden of guilt, not us.
Regarding people in the U.S. illegally, their cases should be evaluated based on what they have done since their arrival. If an undocumented immigrant received benefits and went on to start a business and employee others, he or she should receive preference over immigrants who flagrantly exploit the social safety-net or committed crimes.
America should try hard to minimize inconveniencing immigrant children even though the real culprits are the parents who brought, or sent them here illegally. These transgressions must not be paid for by law abiding Americans. If we foolishly allow activists and agitators to inflict a guilt trip driven immigration policies on us it will harm all Americans in the long run.
U.S. immigration policy should not be based on righting past wrongs, or on placating guilty consciences. Itís humanitarian to consider these but just as your children didnít commit past injustices, immigrant children arenít suffering from those nearly as much as from their parentís current mistakes. Likewise there must be no shame in stating that America should be an English-speaking nation and while itís great that immigrants can speak other languages, learning English should be the higher priority.
Letís not be duped into allowing agitators to succeed in Balkanizing America and turning it into something contrary to what its founders intended. The agitators desire to transform American into a weak welfare state should be resisted by all Americans regardless of when, or how their ancestors arrived on these shores. In this century, countries that attract skilled immigrants will succeed and countries that allow; activists, social engineers and benefit seekers to mandate their immigration policies will failÖ I hope America chooses the wiser model.
A path to citizenship shouldnít be a free pass and we should decide that role of this country isnít simply to absorb people from troubled countries. Such people would be doing their families and countrymen a greater service if they stayed where they are and fixed their own societies. Inevitably a sizeable number of immigrants from countries ripe with; violence, bribery and corruption bring those entrenched habits here instead of abandoning them on their own shores. We must determine that from now on, this country is for the people who are here and for a reasonable number of immigrants who intend and are able to contribute to American society.
Itís no longer feasible for America to base immigration policy on reuniting people with family members who intentionally crossed our borders illegally. Being duped or guilted into accepting the ďreuniting familiesĒ argument will lead only the U.S. continually being flooded with unskilled workers and people more interested in welfare than in work. The future belongs to countries that offer opportunity, not hand-outs and that insist on supply/demand, competition based immigration systems. The presidentís cynical scheme to import millions of future democratic voters must be stopped or Americaís famous but dwindling, silent majority will suffer irreparably from Obamaís "Change we can believe in" plan for America.
Ken O. Eldib is an Indiana resident, New Jersey native, graduate of Oklahoma State University, president of Global Trade Consulting Co., and writer for the Society for the Rational Study of Religion. Ken has traveled the world, published articles in dozens of magazines and written seven books including Criticizing Ben published in 2014. The authorís hobbies include; photography, metal working and outdoor sports. Ken and his wife enjoy traveling and spending weekends in Brown County, Indiana.