Managing Our Southern Border

David:
It's about time that the federal government take some serious efforts to prevent people from crossing our shared border with Mexico. And it's high time we made sure that deportees, especially convicted felons,  don't bounce right back to commit more crimes.

Doug:
I don't think you mean to just prevent people from crossing, right? You mean that you want to make sure that only USA Grade-A approved people are crossing, right? Ok, that sounds reasonable, and probably pretty close to what we currently have.

But if you're are going to spend billions of dollars of tax money on this plan, I guess I'd like to see how we prioritize it with our other national goals, such as education, healthcare, etc.

David:
So, you believe that the only people who are crossing our Southern border are all "USA Grade-A approved"? You don't believe that there are any people crossing the border without going through the legal immigration pathway?

I believe the President himself has discussed the mass influx of unaccompanied children causing a "humanitarian crisis".

http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompanied-children

Controlling the flow of immigrants through the immigration system allows us to prioritize our spending for things like education, healthcare, etc.   When you have an uncontrolled flow, it creates a crisis that swallows up dollars to provide emergency shelter and boarding.

Doug:
I'm trying to understand your goal for the federal government to prevent people from crossing our borders, but yet an insistence that the federal government only do what is in the constitution. Unless you consider people crossing the border an "invasion" then the constitution doesn't talk about borders at all. How do you square that?

David:
The Constitution provides for the Federal Government to provide for our security. I assume you lock your doors at home and your car when you are out. Why? Security. You control who has access to your computer. Why? Security. The government controls who comes into the country. Why? (you get the idea…)  The Constitution also provides Federal control for paths to naturalization, which includes immigration laws, as written by the Congress, and reviewed by the Supreme Court, and enacted by the President. ( Article I, Section 8 creates the authority of the Congress, “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Thus, from a Constitutional stand point, it is the responsibility of Congress to establish all laws and rules of naturalization or immigration.)

Doug:
"Provide for our security" is a pretty vague phrase. That could be used to defend of all kinds of 1984-like activities. Are you sure that is the basis you want to use to stop people from coming into the country?

David:
Yes. 

The government is tasked to screen those who wish to come in to the country to make sure they are not bringing in dangerous infections, weapons, or any thing else that may be a threat to the country. These people are not US citizens. We want to be welcoming to those who wish to immigrate to our country, but we have the right, and the federal government has the duty,  to make sure this process is orderly. The president created a "humanitarian crisis" by his words and actions, leading to a chaotic and dangerous Southern border. As mentioned in an earlier blog, Congress would be foolish to send immigration reform to this president, because we both know he'd enforce parts he likes, and toss the parts he doesn't. 

Doug:
Sounds like a "war on immigrants" to me. Count me out. I'd rather focus on getting those "dangerous weapons" out of the hands of the people that are here legally. Count me in for the oxymoronic "war on violence" or the "war on guns." 

David:
If you refer back to our initial blog post "Ground Rules",  I believe you will find you requested we screen all of the comments before we post them. Why? So that we can manage the comments for content and language. I would not consider that a "War on our readers" or a "War on internet commenters".  Managing the border is not a war.

Doug:
I didn't suggest that we needed "some serious efforts to prevent people from [commenting]" (as you did for border control. Comment screening is free and effortless. I am in favor of managing our borders. But I am also in favor of putting that into perspective with our other goals.

David:
And a "War on guns" means that you wish to change the Constitution. Go for it. But for someone who has repeatedly claimed that the police in this country are dangerous racists, it seems strange that you would like for them to be the only armed people in the community.

Doug:
One can do a lot inside what the constitution allows. A little gun safety surely couldn't hurt. I would also like to get the guns out of the hands of the dangerous racist cops, too. So, at least I am consistent.

David: It seems we agree we should address the violence in our current culture. This is a multifactorial problem that deserves it's own series of blogs. It also will require you to examine many governmental policies that have led to the destruction of the family unit, single-parent households, a disastrous public-school system that favors unions over education, poor care of the mentally ill, and failed programs for the poor. All of these things encourage crime and violence.

Should make for some interesting reading. I can't wait!!