Your Moment of Zen
columnist: Kishi

Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Huckabee's Platform: Part 2

---

The ongoing quest for this columnist's political enlightenment. This time, it's a talk about immigration... wait, weren't we just here?

---

by Kishi
(Centrist)
Sunday, January 20, 2008

Well, part two is Huckaberry's stand on immigration as a whole. I probably should have merged these two together, but frankly he looks at these as two separate issues. If I want to understand how he thinks, though, I feel I should approach these issues in similar fashion.

So. Immigration. The act itself, legal or not. I'm going to do my best to approach this without the typical sentimentality of ‘We were all immigrants once! Let's let ‘em all in!' I don't think that's realistically an option. So what does the man say, exactly?

We already know he wants to secure the borders. He's actually for spending $3 billion to do it, which in turn is supposed to produce 23,000 agents, 700 miles of fence, 300 miles of vehicle barriers, four new drones, and 105 radar and camera towers.

He views immigration as an issue of national security. Furthermore, he reiterates his dedication opposing amnesty. He will permit no sanctuary for IIs. He will give no driver's license to an illegal. Those cities who are facing legal issues for attempting to follow his vision will be granted a cessation of hostilities.

No economic integration for illegals. Companies will be fined, and cities will be punished. There will be no open border policy.

Hear that? You will not be assimilated. We will not add your national or ethnic distinction to our own. Resistance is welcome.

Unlike the Secure America plan, I see more ideas that I can sympathize with. These days, immigration is a question of national security. This is because countries are more and more likely to embrace a certain ideal, and it is expected of people living in these countries to follow it. If a person immigrates from a country with an ideology hostile to our own, they could start something bad. You all know what I mean, I'm sure.

I also think that the preservation of sovereignty is a good idea. My inner science fiction geek loves the idea of an American Empire spanning the three countries. On the other hand, I'm just barely smart enough to grasp how bad an idea that is. If we totally opened our borders and integrated with the other countries, it would lead to us having to fix the infrastructure down south and figure a middle way between social and private medicine up north. At the very least.

What I don't agree with is the rejection of amnesty. I know it's just sentimentality – families trying to reunite, and how the government shouldn't be interfering with that. I just don't get it. There are so many reasons that people decide to come here. And it's not always employment and drugs. This is another one of the things that this policy doesn't take into account. The majority of our illegal immigrants – Hispanics – believe very strongly in familial bonds and in going to live and be with family. Given how fragile the family unit actually is in these days, how can a conservative interested in the preservation of that unit endorse a resolution that endangers it?

I mean, given that their ideologies correspond so strongly with our own, why are we so eager to break them up? Why are we stopping them? It just makes no sense to me.

But I'm claiming no expertise here. It's nice to be able to be wrong.

Comments can only educate me.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
2 thumbs so far

2008 Kishi, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, January 20, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, January 20, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Kishi only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Kishi is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Kishi of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.