Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Sunday, November 4, 2007

Hard Ball with Ultima

ULTIMA: This is a continuation of our discussion of the illegal alien and excessive immigration problems with Senator Martinez. Senator, if we turned the job of apprehending, detaining and deporting illegals over to private enterprise, how would the cost plus a profit be recovered?

MARTINEZ: I visualize five potential sources: First of all is the illegals themselves. If they could afford to pay a coyote or pay for the other costs involved in entering this country illegally then they certainly can afford the return fare. Second, the employers of illegals must bear at least a portion of the burden. Third, the State Department should be required to negotiate bilateral treaties with the homeland governments of the illegals to enable the recovery of a fair share of the costs of apprehension, detention, and repatriation. Fourth, if this effort fails, we should reduce the foreign aid extended to these governments by the amount necessary to recover a prorata share of our costs. Fifth, if the above fail to cover all of our costs, we must apply a tax on all remittances to foreign countries.

ULTIMA: We often hear the “family-separation” argument against roundup and deportation of illegals. What is your take on this?

MARTINEZ: This argument is obviously a red herring. There need be no family separations. Parents who are deported must take their minor children with them. To do otherwise would make them guilty of gross child neglect or abuse.

There may be some legal issues involved where the children have birthright citizenship. That is one of the problems of the 14th amendment. This problem can be resolved by delaying the award of birthright citizenship until the child reaches his majority. I also favor an interpretation of the 14th amendment that considers the child to be “…under the jurisdiction of the United States” only if at least one of the parents is a citizen.

ULTIMA: Some believe that citizens who favor open borders, amnesty or legalization of illegal aliens, a relinquishment of our national sovereignty, language and culture are being disloyal to this country. Do you agree?

MARTINEZ: No one likes to be considered disloyal so it is useful to see how that term is defined. A common definition of disloyalty is “being false to one’s allegiance or obligations.” To me, allegiance or obligations means giving precedence to the laws, flag, culture, and language of one’s country. It specifically denies any allegiance to foreigners or foreign interests. Good examples of this can be found in the various wars of our country in which relatives have ended up on opposite sides. Many Americans had relatives in England, the Confederacy, Germany and Japan who fought for the enemy. Any citizen who sympathized with our enemies, because of that or for other reasons, was considered traitorous or disloyal. “Hanoi Jane” is one example. Although never prosecuted she was certainly ostracized in certain quarters and apologized belatedly for her actions.

Today we have the immigration wars. Those who favor the interests of illegal aliens and/or their countries of origin are certainly skirting with disloyalty and treason. Citizens, regardless of ethnicity, have an obligation to seek solutions from the point of view of their country, not that of interlopers, illegal aliens, or their fellow travelers.

ULTIMA: That is a very strong statement. How do you think it will be received in the illegal and immigrant communities?

MARTINEZ: Of course, that depends on where their loyalties lie. If they take the long view and want to preserve whatever standard of living or quality of life they currently enjoy, then they will see the truth in what I have said. If, on the other hand, they believe that America can accommodate the downtrodden masses from all of the impoverished, disease-ridden, crime-infested neighborhoods of the world, they undoubtedly will disagree with me. They then must be prepared to accept the consequences of their myopia in terms of a standard of living at equilibrium with that of their homelands. This will be an equilibrium no American citizen will like.

ULTIMA: A final question for this session: some folks believe that it is inevitable that a flood of illegal aliens and immigration’s unarmed invasion will re-create the very conditions they fled their homelands to escape such as poverty, crime, and joblessness. Do you agree?

MARTINEZ: It does not necessarily follow that aliens and immigrants will re-create the poor conditions of their homelands. It depends on the numbers and on their social integration and linguistic and cultural assimilation. Nevertheless, this is a serious issue and a serious threat that warrants some careful thought by those who support: the illegals, the present level of legal immigration, and the present interpretation of the 14th amendment. The outcome will depend on actions we take now to resolve the immigration problem once and for all with the objective of preserving everything we know and love about America.

No comments: