Understanding Long Term Consequences Requires Overcoming the Laziness of Immediate Gratification

In many ways we have become a lazy society, and that laziness means that, amongst other things, we do not use our minds to consider the many consequences of our actions.  Rather, we do what feels good or right at the moment without pondering or even anticipating the long-term effects of what we do.

Laziness is defined as “the quality of being unwilling to work or use energy.”  The laziness I am considering in this writing is the unwillingness to use the energy to work one’s brain.  

There are two issues at the top of the news these days where this laziness is readily apparent.  In both we see people readily willing to take actions, but they do so without exercising the mind and thus fail to realistically become aware of the consequences of their actions.

One is in the area of abortion.  My previous blog addressed that issue, so here I will only briefly state that if individuals about to engage in sexual intercourse would first take the time to consider the possible consequences of that act and whether or not they are willing to take on the responsibility that comes with the consequence of pregnancy, then we would not have women claiming that their right to choose comes after the pregnancy has occurred rather that at the time they decide to engage in sex.  Taking the time to think about this fact and when a woman can freely choose what to do with her body (before there is a second individual within) might significantly change the abortion debate.

Today, however, I will write about another issue:  Immigration.  Specifically, I want to address the calls and the actions to assist those individuals who have entered the country illegally.  This is often the part of the immigration crisis that is referred to as the “humanitarian crisis.” 

We have all heard the cries from those who have crossed our border with nothing but themselves and their families; the cries for food and clothing, blankets and the basic necessities of existence.  We have all heard the admonitions that as Christians or other believers, or simply as Americans, it is our duty to help the needy. 

To some extent this is true.  But, if we would use our energy to work our brains, we would know that there are many ways in which we can generally help the needy and in this instance the hordes that are seeking a better life in this country. 

Of course, if we pass out food or donate clothing or simply write a check to those who will do so for us, we get some sort of immediate gratification:  we have done our duty; we see the smiles, we can say “they like me!” 

But let’s take a moment to consider the consequences of believing that this is enough; that this is the only, or even the best, way to help the needy.

As the caravans descend upon our border and as we take everyone in, feed them, clothe them, and perhaps give them the better life of which they dreamed, we create two clear consequences.  One is that knowing that this is the result upon their arrival at the border, more and more will come.  Those who take advantage of those coming, either monetarily or in more ugly criminal enterprises, will feel emboldened to continue and increase their practices.  That is, we are encouraging some serious criminal behavior and we are also encouraging more and more families to place their children in the many dangers that come with the long journey to the U.S.   

The second clear consequence is that at some point we will no longer be able to help – not anyone – not those who have entered nor our own citizens who need our help.  We are already diverting funds from our own impoverished citizens, our homeless, our veterans, our schools and our children, all here legally, to help those who have chosen to bypass our laws and enter illegally or to make a questionable at best claim of asylum.

America cannot sustain the whole world.  And much as we might like to help everyone everywhere who is in need, we simply cannot do so.  In the real world we must put limits on our generosity, and we must realize the consequences created by our failure to do so.

But that does not mean that we must ignore those peoples who are truly suffering and are seeing this country as a better place.  There are far better ways to exercise the duty we feel to help those in need than to simply throw money or goods at the individuals whom we see.

Of course, it is easier to reach out to those who touch us emotionally – the pictures on the news of the hungry child, the suffering mother, the father begging for work.  But, while an emotional response that provides goods to those we see may help those particular individuals, it does not help those who arrive tomorrow and it certainly does not solve the problem.

Instead, let us ask why so many are fleeing their homes.  What is it about their country or their life style that makes them feel their life is not tolerable there.    What can we do to fix that situation so that they do not feel the need to flee? Perhaps it is education that is needed – maybe they need teachers.  Maybe they need to learn how to improve their farming or business practices.  Maybe the money that we give to particular individuals might better be aggregated and donated to improve infrastructure in the individuals’ home countries.  These are just thoughts off the top of my head; I am sure that there are many many ways that we could help those in need within their home countries.

By simply giving money and goods to those already here we effectively encourage more individuals to leave their home country and seek entry here.  We encourage them to put themselves into the many negative circumstances of a migration caravan.   And, perhaps most importantly, we encourage them not to improve their home country, an act that would better serve not only them but all of their countrymen as well, both now and in the future. 

As we continue, through shortsighted acts of kindness, to encourage untold thousands to cross our borders seeking help, we are creating a situation in which, at some point, this country will truly be full.  It will no longer be able to help those who seek entry or its own citizens.  It will no longer be the country that so many are now seeking.

So, yes, helping those in need is certainly aspirational.  The easy way to do that is to hand out goods to those who touch our sympathies.  The more difficult way, the way that requires work and energy, but, the more effective way to help is to discern how to permanently help these and future seekers to improve their own living conditions in their own homelands and then to give our energies to those forms of assistance. 

Of course, there are always those who will seek America and there will always be legitimate asylum seekers.  We are a generous nation when it comes to legal immigration and we will welcome a reasonable number of immigrants who meet our statutory requirements.  But to welcome all out of some shortsighted view of the duty to help those in need in reality and in the long run helps no one.

Every act has consequences.  Sometimes an act provides us with immediate gratification.  But, that gratification can turn to heartache, dismay, and crisis if we do not overcome our laziness and look to the long-term effects of what we do.

Without Facts a Nation will be Lost

In today’s world everyone seems to think they are an expert on everything.  What is troubling is that people are expressing, asserting, and voting based on opinions that are woefully uninformed.

Take for example illegal immigration.

A recent Harvard-Harris Poll of 1,536 registered voters (conducted between April 30 and May 1) revealed that only about 13% (less than 2 of 15) Americans could answer correctly about the number of illegal aliens arriving at the US-Mexico Border when asked “About how many people do you think are caught trying to enter through the southern border each year?”  76% of respondents gave answers well below the current levels which are between 250,000 to 500,000 border apprehensions each year; instead, more than 75% incorrectly stated there were between 0 and 250,000 apprehensions. 

(The full results  of the Harvard/Harris poll (which deals with other topics as well as immigration) can be found HERE; the questions relating to immigration begin on page 155) 

In the same study, when those polled were told there were more than 100,000 apprehensions in the last month, 52% said they supported the Presidents declaration of a national emergency at the southern border.

Now, this poll can be found on some major media sites (e.g. The Hill), but not those that are primarily referred to as the main stream media– the media from which most people get their news (e.g. ABC, CBS, NBC none of which, at the time of this writing, had reported on this poll – perhaps they were still considering how to spin it, or were simply embarrassed since it reflects the lack of information that they are providing to their audiences). 

Yet people are vociferously voicing their opinions on the border without any or with only incomplete facts.  Facts that are incredibly relevant and very likely might change the opinions voiced.

For those who are interested in basing their positions on facts, here are some to get you started:

·        109,144 individuals were apprehended at the border in April alone.

·        103,492 illegal and inadmissible aliens were apprehended during the month of March alone.

·        76,325 apprehensions occurred in February.

·        Border arrests have reached their highest point in 12 years.

·        February numbers showed a 1,744% increase in asylum claims.

·        Family unit apprehensions by Border Patrol jumped 311% during the first five months of this fiscal year over the first five months of last fiscal year.

·        4,117 migrants were apprehended on a single day in March.

·        Just 6% of the people crossing the border are expressing a credible fear and requesting asylum in one sector, according to an immigration official.

·        A recent survey found that one-third of Guatemala’s population wants to come to the U.S.

·        There are at least 1.9 million known criminal aliens sitting in U.S. jails.

·        Human smugglers are running radio ads in Central America, according to a Border Patrol official.

·        ICE is having to reallocate resources to deal with “fake families” trying to manipulate border policies.

·        Now Border Patrol reports that children are also being rented and “recycled” to defraud immigration officials.

·        Border Patrol agents in Texas over just the last week apprehended 5,500 migrants per day.

The assault on our southern border is flooding our country.  Catch and release polices result in illegals along with questionable asylum seekers being released into various locations around the country.  While the border states are suffering most, the release locations are moving further and further north.   (Interestingly, 66% of the survey respondents answered that those with questionable asylum claims should immediately be turned back to Mexico for staging).

The survey shows that a slight majority of respondents view the border as a growing humanitarian and security crisis.  Let me suggest that the humanitarian aspect of the crisis stems from the refusal of many to acknowledge that there is a security crisis and the Democrats refusal to work with the President to control our borders.  With the knowledge that many within this country will assist those seeking entry in thwarting our laws, why shouldn’t more and more arrive at our borders with the belief that they will easily gain entry, whether legally or illegally? 

As a result of the ignorance of what is going on at the border, and in a false belief that the immigration laws should not be enforced, more and more children are placed into the humanitarian crisis that even some Democrats will now acknowledge.  Then we are told that we must take tax dollars and benefits from American citizens and give them toward helping these people in the humanitarian crisis that our own refusal to enforce our laws has created.  

            (One example:  4-H clubs of New Mexico have had to cancel two annual events normally held at the State Fairgrounds so that the dormitories that they had reserved for these events can be used to house migrants seeking legal entry into the U.S.; while the Democrat governor of New Mexico and mayors of the state’s major cities state that there is no border crisis, tax dollars are allocated from programs that would help impoverished or otherwise suffering legal residents to help transient migrants instead.)

Those who are ignorant of the actual statistics relevant to the border, further show their ignorance as they try to shame those who would enforce border laws and security by claiming that the Bible requires everyone to “help their neighbor.”  While that is, indeed, a Christian directive, there are many ways to help one’s neighbor, including perhaps not encouraging our southern neighbors to enter the dangerous migrant caravans with false hopes for what their life will be in the U.S.  

One must also wonder whether helping one’s neighbor, as interpreted by those using that phrase to shame those who oppose open borders, means ignoring your actual neighbors who live here legally in order to help others who may or may not have the best intentions for you or your current neighbors.  Yet we see many regularly giving a political interpretation of Biblical phrases and using that interpretation to shame those who do not agree with their political agenda.

The point is that there are too many people who use only the facts that are convenient, sometimes even twisting those to their purposes or using them out of context, while remaining ignorant of all the facts about a given situation.   Ignorance may be bliss, but only if one keeps that ignorance to oneself.  When one begins to advocate a position based on incorrect or incomplete facts, then the rest of us potentially suffer. 

It is more difficult in this day of overwhelming information to not be misinformed.  Being well and fully informed is a key duty for those who live in a democracy.  What we often hear called fake news is really news that is empty of key facts. 

It is crucial that everyone be aware of those voids in the news and if they care to be involved in important issues (which means if they care to exercise their civic duty to vote) then it is essential that they take the time to discover what is and is not being reported to them by their usual sources and take the time to fill in the missing information from elsewhere.  Only then can we have realistic discussions and proper solutions to problems and crises, including the crisis on our border, that are facing our Nation.

The Bottom Line

It really doesn’t matter how one looks at the arguments, the bottom line is that the Democrats support illegal immigration.  What this ultimately means is that Democrats support violating the Laws that they have sworn to uphold.

The Democrats oppose the wall.  The wall is a barrier to stop migrants from entering our country illegally.  Walls, both those that do exist on our southern border and those of other countries, have been shown to be effective and to significantly reduce the influx of illegal aliens into a country. 

The wall will not change the ability of those seeking to enter the country legally to do so.  Our immigration laws will still be in place, and while there are many problems with those laws, the wall will not fix those problems.  Revision or complete writing of the immigration laws is a complex task that must be addressed by congress, but that is a separate question from the wall.

The wall simply helps to stem the flood of illegal migrants into this country.  The Democrats pre-Trump have acknowledged this; they have supported a barrier.  Now they do not.

So, either the Democrats have decided that they support illegal migration into this country, or they are simply opposing the wall for political gains.  Either way they are violating their oath of office in which they “do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Democrats like to cloud the issue and change the focus by attacking those who support the wall.  They claim they are racist, etc., or that they are immoral.  First, morality is not something that the government dictates in this country, so, even if they see behavior as immoral they must tolerate those who have differing moral standards. 

But, I would ask, using their apparent standard of morality, how moral is it to encourage families to take the arduous trek across many countries to get to our border where they face being caught for illegally crossing and then sent back?  How moral is it to encourage those who fund and organize caravans to use the migrants for their own political gain?  It encourages people to turn themselves and their children over to smugglers who are known to put the migrants into the most horrible and inhumane conditions both during the journey and once they arrive at the destination. 

Human beings are crammed into trucks in conditions worse than cattle; those who are walking in caravans are subject to the less than humane behaviors of ill-intentioned members of the caravan including sexual and other assaults; upon arrival at the border, human beings are placed  for days by their smugglers into holding pens of one sort or another that have little if any food or water and inadequate (if any) plumbing.  These things are all documented, although specific numbers of instances or individuals involved remain estimates.  But actively allowing this to happen to even one human being is, in my opinion, inhumane. 

That the Democrats' actions encouraging illegal immigration essentially encourages and tolerates this behavior is indeed inhumane.  It is the heighth of hypocrisy for these Democrats to claim that those who seek to stem this tide of illegality and its resultant treatment of humanity are the ones who are inhumane.  Their claims are nothing more than a distraction; a distraction aimed at having us ignore that they are encouraging such behavior while at the same time violating their oath of office.

The big question that we need to ask is why do the Democrats support illegal immigration, not why do they not support the wall.  Their act of opposing the wall is a statement that they do support illegal entry into our country; that they do not support our laws, enacted under our Constitutional form of government – the very same Constitution that they swore to uphold.

Let me underscore:  We are not talking about legal immigration when we talk about the wall.   The wall will stem the tide of illegal entries.  Those entries, in addition to promoting many inhumane situations for the entrants, also create problems as well as unthinkable tragedies for those legally in this country. Those impacts include such things as: loss of jobs; higher taxes to cover funds needed to deal with illegals on a number of levels; shortages of resources; strains on communities and social services; rises in homelessness; drug problems related to illegal drug smuggling; victims of various criminal acts perpetrated by illegals; and many others. Certainly, some aliens who enter illegally will not be the source of such problems beyond whatever resources are initially expended to address their act of illegal entry (border agent resources; legal resources; etc.), but the more negative impacts listed above are all also documented.  To encourage the negative impacts on our citizenry, whether that impact is economic or criminal or other, is to fail the promises of the oath of office.

Those who are seeking to enter illegally, who subject themselves and their families to the horrendous conditions associated with illegal migration and who then subject our country to the consequences, sometimes minimal but also sometimes severe, of migrants whose very first act upon entering our border  is to break our laws, all of those people have the opportunity to seek legal entry under our immigration laws which include temporary and permanent visas, pathways to citizenship, and provisions for asylum seekers.  The illegal migrants are simply choosing to break rather than follow our laws.

The Democrats are supporting this illegality.  Perhaps because they support law-breaking, but more likely they are supporting law-breaking as one more weapon in their arsenal in their war against President Trump.   That war seems to be born of an irrational hatred and intolerance of anyone who disagrees with their positions or who keeps them from power.  They are still refusing to accept Donald Trump as the President.  And, opposing him on the wall is another way of opposing him now and in his likely bit for reelection in 2020.  The people should stop falling for these tactics which place Democrat power above the very oath that such power requires.

To summarize:  A barrier such as the wall stops migrants seeking to enter the country illegally.  It does not stop legal migration.  Those who oppose a barrier must admit to the fact that they are supporting illegal migration into our country and all of the consequences that illegal act entails.  The Democrats only took this stance when Donald Trump sought to do his job and stop illegal migration. 

Do not fall for the Democrats' distractions.  At this time their position is to support illegal migration.  That would seem to be the bottom line.  Ask them why they support and encourage the breaking of our laws.  If they are honest, they will tell you it is simply because they hate Donald Trump.  And that is the bottom line.

Border Reality

Recently someone asked me why I haven’t written on immigration lately.  There are 2 main reasons for this. One, it is in many ways too complicated a topic for a short blog, and, second, it seems that this is an area where most all minds are made up already, though often not based on rational evaluation but rather on political point of view.  Nonetheless, let me try to add a few thoughts to the conversation.

Essentially, there are three approaches a country can take to its borders:  open borders, controlled borders and closed borders.  Standing for or against one or another of these forms does not necessarily mean one is racist or holds any other positions that various sides of the debate like to attribute to their opponents.  We might be more successful in resolving the immigration issues if we would focus on immigration itself, rather than on name-calling of those with whom we disagree.  That is, immigration should not be used to settle political scores.

A border is simply an outer edge that delineates where something ends.  In this case we are talking about the defining edge or boundary of a country.

An open border is one that allows free movement of people across with little or no restrictions.  Essentially there is no border control.  This may be by design, or due to lack of resources.  The borders between the states of the United States are open borders.

A controlled border is one that allows movement across but places some restrictions on that movement.  It may require a visa or a limited period of entry without a visa.  A controlled border will have some method of recording people’s movements across the border and for checking compliance with the restrictions and limitations on crossing.  Controlled borders will usually have some sort of barrier, either natural (e.g. a river) or man made (e.g. a wall) and will usually have designated crossing points for legal crossings of the border.  Most international borders, including the United States, are controlled borders.

A closed border prevents movement of people across the border with few if any exceptions.  Examples include the Berlin Wall and the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. 

Our immigration debate seems to primarily involve the following positions:  arguments for open borders; arguments to keep a controlled border with essentially the same restrictions and criteria for entry as we now have (keep the current immigration laws) and have a controlled border but rework the restrictions and criteria (rewrite the immigration laws).

Most of the open border arguments are humanitarian or idealist in nature.  They argue that migrants coming from developing to developed countries can, by earning higher wages, not only improve their own standard of living, but in the process reduce world poverty.  Additionally, is the argument that it is inherently unfair for people to be treated differently or live differently simply based on which side of a border they were born.

The arguments against open borders are more pragmatic and realistic.  Open borders can create a drain on available resources in the country to with the people are migrating.  And, it can deprive home countries of the people necessary to improve those countries (both laborers and educated professionals), especially when they are developing nations. 

The arguments for open borders can be quite compelling.  But, in my opinion, they are not very realistic, especially when taken to their logical extreme. 

America is a great country.  It has natural resources and it has a form of government beginning with its Constitution that is the envy of people around the world.  It makes sense that anyone would like to come and live here.  But, realistically, this country cannot support the whole world.  Nor should it. 

America has always been very generous with its legal immigration as well as its humanitarian aid to developing nations.  Legal immigrants have brought much to our country and we have given them much.  But one key to past legal immigration is that those who came appreciated not only the resources available here, but also the government and way of life in America.  While keeping their ancestral identity and culture they also have been willing to become Americans, to support the basic values upon which this country was built and which allows it to be both enticing and welcoming.  These legal immigrants truly gave up their home country for ours and became full participants in our society.

There are many today who also seek legal immigration into America as a way to become Americans, who will both take what America offers and give what they can in return.  But there are others who seem to seek this country for what it has to offer them, but who would rather not become Americans; they would simply move their country into our land and reap its benefits.  In many cases these are those who begin their entry by disrespecting our laws and entering illegally. 

It is these illegal border crossers to whom many controlled border advocates object and whom many open border advocates welcome.  But one must ask: if you allow everyone in, what will happen to this country?  There were at least 6000 migrants in the most recent group that arrived at our border.  We likely could in some way absorb that number, but what about the next 6000 and the next?  If most of the world sees America as better, then why shouldn’t everyone come here?  And then what?  Abundant as our resources are, we do not have enough for the entire world.

Those who would allow open borders play on our emotions with pictures of mothers and starving children, try to shame us based on our humanitarian values into opening our borders to all.  Of course we want to help.  Those against opening our borders to everyone show us pictures of gang members who are rapists and murderers.  In reality, those attempting to enter our country include both and more. 

The focus should not be on who exactly is climbing the wall, or storming our border, or even seeking legal entry, but rather on should we or should we not open the border, and if it is not open, then what should be the criteria for legal entry.  In the meantime, we should enforce existing laws equally and against anyone who violates them, regardless of their emotional appeal to us or lack thereof.

We are a country, we are not the keepers of the entire world.  We are indeed fortunate to live in this blessed land.  But we have also given blood and treasure to build and keep this country.  Compassion for those less fortunate does not require us to open our borders to all or to give away that which our people have worked hard to build.  There are many ways to express compassion.

Our immigration laws need to determine the criteria for legal entry.  These criteria should include an understanding of why the applicant wishes to enter and how they will in some way contribute to our country.  Perhaps they have a skill we need; perhaps they will learn here and take what they learn back to their country, sharing our compassion in that way to make a better world. 

Of course we must take in those who seek asylum (though there may also be limits on that number).  But a refugee is not simply someone who thinks it is better here than in their home country.  A refugee is someone who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.   If they simply don’t like the economy or policies of their country, it seems a better plan for them to work to change those problems and make their own country a more livable and better place.  We can perhaps give advice or training or monetary assistance.  But we cannot simply open our doors to everyone who sees America as better than where they are now.    

Opening our borders to everyone requires that we be willing to give up our country, for a country without borders is no country at all.   We see many of the illegal immigrants that enter our land still holding the flag of their home country while defacing the flag of the new country they would call home.  They choose not to learn our language or our customs or our values.  It is those things, held in common, that are the basis of a country and not simply a geographic area filled with competing tribes.

A controlled border allows us to have laws that insure that those who seek to enter have a true desire to become a productive and supportive participant in America.  Those laws also allow us to exclude those who attempt to enter illegally or with purposes that are not in the best interests of this country.  With such restrictions we can enjoy the gifts and talents that immigrants bring with them while ensuring that those of us (immigrants and current residents) who choose to be here will continue to have the country that we have chosen.

Of course, we’d all like to believe that if there were open borders everywhere, we would all just get along fine and the world and everything in it would be wonderful.  But the world is inhabited by imperfect humans and it is highly unlikely that would happen.  We can open our borders, but we must be prepared for a loss of our way of life:  a loss of resources, a loss of shared values, a loss of our cultural identity as a nation. 

In the real world, open borders are a bad idea.  Controlling borders means creating clearly defined and protected borders, not allowing illegal immigration (and not rewarding it after the fact), and having clearly defined requirements and procedures for legal immigration and appropriate penalties for violations of those rules.  It is time that people get over the emotional and unrealistic arguments and stop using immigration as a political weapon and simply focus on making America’s controlled borders the best they can be.