Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Borders, immigration, land management: Does America want to let someone else do it?

If someone doesn't do their job, who is going to do it? Some say it’s too hard to manage the immigration issue. Maybe they would rather let someone else do it.

Land management isn’t simply about asserting the right to destroy it. It includes the responsibility to maintain it, safeguard it, and ensure it remains a viable place to live. We shouldn’t be surprised why there’s a problem in Iraq – America isn’t interested in its own land.

What Americans seem to be saying is that they are a super power, but do not have super borders or super management. The question is: Who is in a better position to do what American isn't interested in doing?

Or should the states independently get support from overseas? [ Click ]

* * *

The immigration and border issues are percolating. One thing I’ve heard is the excuse to do nothing. Senator Feinstein is reported to have said that controlling the borders – and this entire immigration deal – is too hard.

Perhaps she is saying that the United States has a hard time managing the land within its borders. That’s understandable. But it's a mistake to push this issue aside.

Feinstein's approach doesn't solve the problem: Why has the issue gotten this much out of control; and what's needed to really manage the borders, immigration, and land. I'm all for priorities, but if you can't manage your land then what does the nation have other than a piece of paper that's currently ignored?

It’s not as if the border is new, nor is it news that there are people moving back and forth. The United States has had access to – and management of – California since the 1850s; perhaps Senator Feinstein has another approach in mind.

If the US can’t manage the situation, and it has “other more important things to do,” is there something that could be done? Maybe there’s another way to address this issue. Perhaps someone else has a different idea. Maybe there is a group of people that are more interested in how the land is managed.

* * *

If the US is not interested in managing the border issue, what’s really stopping the United States from turning the land over to people that are perhaps more interested in the land: Spain or Mexico.

If someone has a good reason why Spain shouldn’t retake control of California, maybe you’ve got a good reason to justify why you’re serious about managing the border and the immigration situation.

But if the only reason for “not giving the land away” is “it is ours” – then Americans need to start thinking seriously about how you manage what you have. You clearly can’t mange new things you acquire as you show in Iraq; nor can you effectively address land issues in land that is near water like Louisiana.

So why does America think it can do a better job in Iran?

Maybe America should think about giving up. Let the Spanish have a go at it. That way American could have more time to focus on the real mess that needs the most attention: The cess pool inside the Beltway: Congress and the United States government.

Americans don't want to do it at home. But they want to invade other countries and make the same mess abroad.

Isn't that kind of irresponsible?

* * *

What's more curious is that those who cannot vote seem to carry alot of political sway in DC. That's fine.

Maybe DC should admit what it's doing: Putting off issues that voters are concerned about -- impeachment -- and facing issues that aren't related to votes -- the "rights" of illegal aliens to set the agenda. They show up, uninvited to a birthday party, and tell everyone else they would prefer to swing for candy, not satisfied with the cake.

Why bother with the rights of those along the border. Washington doesn't do anything about the rights of those in the US subjected to illegal monitoring by the NSA. So why the double standard on whether rights are or are not important; and whose rights are or are not protected?

The excuse of "what will the voters think" doesn't appear to be of a concern when it comes to giving the land back to Spain If DC isn't really making decisions about real voting issues, what's stopping DC from doing what it should be doing – doing something that would really annoy the voters?.

* * *

It seems odds that when it comes to American citizens Congress doesn't care about rights getting violated; but when it comes to illegal residents, Congress pays attention.

These are issues of leadership, governance, and sovereignty. DC isn't interested in doing what should be done -- enforcing the law, protecting the Constitutional system.

Isn't the US government effectively saying it has no legitimacy: It refuses to enforce the laws in areas it controls; and it ignores the laws in areas it has no power to control.

It remains unclear stopping the American states from appealing for assistance from abroad These are issues DC shows no interest: The law, Constitutional system, or honoring their oaths to solve problems. California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas might consider asking for assistance from abroad.

Maybe Spain has a better approach. What would Spain do, or has nobody asked?