Category: foreign politics

CHANGE IS FORTHCOMING

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Team Trump is on the march. The political-socio-cultural nuances of society, as well as the enterprising wherewithal of business in America is about to take an abrupt turn to the right. The regulatory machinations of the governing progressive über-left are being lined up for thoughtful revision or outright repeal. China and Russia are on notice: The Obama doctrine of mistaking cooperative appeasement as leadership has ended.

While Obama’s foreign policy twists and turns to the beat of “mother may I,” China and Russia have successfully been playing a very weak hand; they have appreciated the artfulness of bluffing into their strategic policies.

China is the world’s largest importer of oil. In other words, if the importation of oil was embargoed via a Saudi-USA agreement, China would be depending on Russia, Venezuela, Libya, and other odd sources to feed their navy. 15% (and rising) of Chinese exports are sold to the United States. Factually, the US purchasers generate far more profit on Chinese goods than the Chinese enjoy when selling their goods to America. The Chinese accept US$ as payment and invest such monies in US infrastructure, real estate, debt instruments, and equity. China is wholly dependent on a strong and vibrant USA. If China ever posed a military threat to the United States, we would enforce an oil embargo, initiate a naval blockade, and seize all of their US assets. 

Economically, Russia is death warmed over: As goes the price of oil so goes the cash influx needed to satisfy domestic demand. Imposed trade sanctions create trade limitations. The combination of import/export restrictions on consumer goods and vital financial services, expenditures of Russian treasury and blood onto Syria and Ukraine are not only costly; but such efforts, saving the Assad regime and enabling conflict along the Ukrainian border is of zero benefit to the Russian people.

The country is a plutocracy. Interestingly, even the wealthiest members cannot trust the Number One plutocrat. Those with wealth and power within Russia are subject to a whimsical Putin. Acting on a whim; the Number One plutocrat could confiscate their wealth, destroy their families assets, and terminate their being. For Russians with business and governing responsibilities it is understood that fear is on the one hand the glue that binds fealty and on the other the knowing that such binding of fealty is wholly tentative. The question is: Sustainability, how long before a competing plutocrat or some grievous financial necessity forces a change of control? 

Over the last eight years, Putin’s strength was in direct contrast to Obama’s weakness… that is obvious fact. A fact that on the 20th of January will abruptly and blatantly contrast the former president from the newly empowered.  

“Draining the swamp” requires definitive means. If one believes (as I do) that the degree of corruption is proportional to the size of government. That corruption is a constant and steadfast component of governing. That it is impossible, under common terms and conditions, to stop the growth of government. And that the sole alternative to impeding government growth (because growth requires money, and all government income is derived from taxes, fees, and borrowed funds), it is self–evident that to stymie the growth of government one must decrease the quantifiable of tax revenue by abating the percentage of taxable revenue.

Trump’s ability to legislate his policy through the morass of congress is as true a test of governing agility as G. Washington’s term as president. The challenges are certainly as perplexing as Gordian’s Knot: according to legend, Alexander circumvented the anticipated by pulling out his sword and cutting the knot in half. Well, a few thousand years later, let’s see how Trump responds to the multiple of knots coming his way.

THE ELECTION BEFORE US

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

In the year 1781, adjoining Yorktown, Virginia British General Charles Lord Cornwallis surrendered to General Washington while tradition recalls the British band playing an English ballad, “The World Turned Upside Down”. This American military victory was unbelievable.

The election of 2016 is a shining reflection of wanderings amiss, another unbelievable: Two wholly unqualified candidates are the electorates’ choice. In this election, innuendos, rumors, and factoids have suppressed the normalities of voter concerns, policies, and issues. The only pertinent question is: which one of the two nominees is the worst?

Long ago, American individualism was forsaken for the opaque assurance of personal security. The prevalent idea that government knows best has prompted a domestic policy wherein amoral secularism has inspired a predisposition to further — no matter the empirical evidence to the contrary — the outright dismissal of competitive ideals. Liberal progressivism has engulfed and is chocking the vitality out of the credo of American exceptionalism.  Congress and the Constitution: Be damned! Progressive leadership favors depositing American foreign policy decisions to the feckless United Nations; multilateralism and the internationalism of European socialism is their ultimate goal.

In today’s complex of technological options the means and power to influence thought is mighty. The media, all types and varieties, have extraordinary power over voter behavior. In this election cycle a lie, a purposeful misdirection, a circumvention of the truth in the interest of conflation or befuddlement has been lethally weaponized. 

An overwhelming amount of television and news print media has taken as a mission of consequence the political defeat of Donald Trump. They equate Trump as a bête noire, a person that is irredeemably a hundred times as dangerous as Nixon.

As a standalone Trump is contestably far from the average presidential hopeful. However, compare the two: Trump’s faux claims, his past disgusting unsolicited sensual advances toward women, his inability to disguise his narcissism, and his instinctual self-destructive behavior versus Hillary Clinton’s unabashed persistence of lying directly to the American people, her decisions regarding Russian engagement, the Iranian deal, her disastrous approach to Libya coupled with her unforgivably incorrigible acts and non-acts regarding Benghazi. Trump is no prize — but his actions never killed people! Hillary, in concert with President Obama, is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands.

Hillary is an ideologically dedicated progressive who will undermine this nation’s constitution. Donald is not Hillary… and the world has turned upside down; given the choice before me I will vote for Donald.

NO MATTER WHAT: THE ONLY CHOICE IS TRUMP

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The peripheral, the outer edges of principal are the media’s emphasis of and for this election’s Republican protagonist. Although awash in hypocrisy and outright duplicity, The New York Times enunciates Trump’s wholly legal 1995 tax return as some kind of moral insight. Pronouncing Trump sinful for adhering to (while benefiting from!) the tax laws of the land, interestingly, the management of the (NYT) did not in the same article report that the newspaper acted in exactness on its own tax returns and accordingly benefited.

In the present, the radio and televised media is shocked, even traumatized and of course offended, by an eleven-year old crude locker-room type recording of Trump and Billy Bush’s stupid apathetically delivered fabrication of their imaginative thoughts on the general behavioral instincts of women.

 I am in my 73rd  year of existence; I can assure my readership that, no matter their station in life, just about all men have said stupid, insensitive untruths about their counter-gender. Seemingly, to be male is to be born with a debilitating software defect. Compared to females, males are slow learners and take forever to mature. I present this debility of my gender not as an excuse for the ridiculous idiocy of Trump and Billy Bush’s recorded conversation but to note, in the scheme of electoral importance, its irrelevancy. 

There is no justification for this sort of stupid. Nonetheless, even when armed with the cognitive knowledge to know better and when the truth of the matter is palpable, we all have been practitioners of stupid comments and behavior.

However, as a voter, one’s analysis of Hillary Clinton’s ideological persuasion, her mantra of liberal progressive declarations and her determinative Machiavellian approach to politics defines the ethos of her personal reflective representation. Measure Clinton’s transgressions against the misbehaviors and indiscretions of Trump’s:

Benghazi: because of a pending election she collaborated with the Obama administration’s deceit and patently lied to the American people while Trump was wasting time and energy, striving to prove that President Obama was not born in the USA. As Secretary of State she perpetuated a policy of deceit and ignored the rescue of Americans fighting off a terrorist attack she defined as the result of a nasty video. Trump on the other hand was busy with the benign silliness of striving to disprove a Honolulu, HI issued birth certificate.

The Iranian deal as negotiated, affirmed, and touted by Clinton is an exemplar of definitive absurdity. An incongruity of good sense, rated above the stupidity (upon our withdrawal from Iraq) of not leaving in place a viable contingent of fighting forces supposedly because of the lack of a “status of forces agreement,” noting we presently have thousands of military in Iraq and these troops are operating without a “status of forces” agreement. In 2010 Biden wrongheadedly assured the American public that the withdrawal from Iraq “is one of the greatest achievements” of the Clinton-Obama administration, but another instance of innocence blatantly applied. One can objectively conclude that the Iranian agreement, as with the withdrawal from Iraq, is the result of an administration adrift in naiveté. The sum of facts founded on deductive deduction persuades one to believe that Clinton’s progressive Democrats lack a commonsensical understanding of world affairs. While Trump tweets nonsensical jabs of blank importance that fundamentally injure only his own persona, Clinton and President Obama’s policy decisions have actually caused death and destruction. They have, with the aid and assist of a dedicated cadre of liberal progressives, advanced otherwise unnecessary Diaspora of refugees and general mayhem throughout Europe. Conclusively, Trump is the only possible choice; Hillary Clinton is an anathema to a conservative America.

ENGLAND’S INNATE SENSE OF SELF-DETERMINATION CHOSE SOVEREIGNTY

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The economic system of a nation state defines the direct, indirect, and lasting effect upon the veracity of individual, institutional, and cultural freedom. A democratic republic will not function (as intended) without freedom. The contractual legalities between buyer and seller, a nation’s legislative and regulatory principles, the nuance of statutory laws and the interpretation thereof defines a nation’s economic system. 

There is a definitive relationship between the endeavors of an economic dynamic and the political wherewithal of the governing entity. The relationship is synergistic. The EU, founded on the righteous premise of “one for all and one for all,” is now, unworkable ideals better wrought within the confines of the theoretical.

In the beginning, Europeans, suffering from “shiny objects syndrome”, considered the idea of EU unity a continuum of egalitarianism; therefore a necessary cultural, political, and economic precursor to moral congruency. Well, they were wrong in their initial assumptions/presumptions because the basis of their indoctrinated belief once implemented proved intolerable and inoperable. After twenty plus years of EU experience, the fact united with the truth of faceless EU domination. An act of self-determination aggregated into an act of pure democracy; by choosing sovereignty, Englanders chose freedom and the blessings of individual liberty over the pretentious offerings of a top-to-bottom hierarchy of socialistically inclined EU omniscient pretenders. 

Donald Trump is a contentious persuader. A bellowing initiator of belligerent rife with tints of paranoia and exaggeration as part of his mix; a media artisan who has, heretofore, weaponized populism. Instigated by prompts of irrational and unreasonable hyperbole a populist requires no deductive analysis or empirical evidence. It is as if the only requirement of a populist’s persuasion is the efficacy of Google keywords and the unlimited ignorance of the audience.

However, one should not deduce that populist themes have no merit. The concerns of Trump supporters are real. Our government has strayed off the course set by the constitution. The leadership of both political parties are to blame for the obtusely disingenuous, non sensible-indiscernible tax laws and the creation of an unrecognizable-unmanageable-wholly ungovernable Byzantine–style bureaucracy whose primary function is to interpret and enforce the laws of the land.

To lose our republic to the theoretical nonsense of progressivism, to the concept of globalization, and the utopian ideals of socialism is sinful; we should mimic the English and reject. Unless the spirit and meaningfulness are adhered, a law is nothing more than an artful collection of words.

“Not ever Hillary”… these embroidered words fly on my ensign. Unless the Republican Party can man-up and actually find a substitute, Donald is the choice.

HOPE IS AN ILLUSION

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

The Obama government is much more comfortable with the concept of “Hope” than the “take no prisoners” truth that defines this apathetic, “could-give-a damn” Darwinian survival of the fittest world. Even when evidencing what one deems as critically threatening to American interest, the president insists on “Hope” as the viable alternative to a persistently menacing problem.

The philosophic basis of today’s liberalism is one of hopefulness. As a liberal thinker President Obama presumes that man is rooted in good; therefore, all discerned exceptions to “good behavior” are the fault of some societal deficiency or Republican brainwashing.

The crux of the progressives’ political message is to point out the unfairness of the economic system. Directly and obliquely, Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders contend that unfairness derived from and perpetuated by the one percent is the significant cause of economic discontent. They imply and express that the elimination of unfairness is their raison d’être for seeking elective public service. Noting that after almost two terms of a democratic presidency the central issue of concern for Clinton and Sanders persists. Irrespective, the battle cry for elective office by democratic contenders remains a slight variation of “Change We Believe In.”

Firstly, I assume, Clinton and Sanders, in every instance, will define fair. Secondly, they will ultimately define fair in keeping with their ideology and the terms, conditions, and timing requirements of their political resources. However, differing only on the amount of tax dollars needed, these two presidential candidates have summarily agreed on the solution. They have promised to cure what ails with the dispensing of other peoples’ cash. “Spend more money” is the steadfast progressive solution — a solution the president whole-heartily indorses.

Premised on a naïve, fragmented, even incoherent displacement of deductive logic rest the founding principles of President Obama’s foreign policy. He thought that he could declare peace… in fact, he did declare peace and withdrew armed forces from Iraq while underfunding the entire U. S. Armed Forces. His administration now dances around the use of the word ‘combat.’ The man of hesitancy is bewildered, confused, and befuddled, all the while holding his breath until next January.

Domestically, his factious rhetoric has given cause to the disruptive actions of “Black Lives Matter.” He is the reason Secretary Clinton’s indictment for her email malpractice remains a republican dream.

Of course, no worries: we Americans have “Hope.” We will continue to believe that a good defense is superior to an aggressive, relentless offense. Surely, our enemies will realize Allah’s call to arms is a ruse enacted by evil beings. Thematically Obama’s belief is, if we treat Islamic fanatics with respect, they will embrace, in time, a secular’s sense of human values. Convincingly, there must be moderate Muslims who understand that those who cut off heads, enslave women, and burn people alive in the name of Allah are bad people.

Certainly, the immediate preceding is a descriptive of “Hope.” I prefer to believe in faith rather than hope: I have faith that our armed forces will destroy ISIS because our mission statement is explicit. Our planning is in place and our resolution assured because our nation state accepts nothing less.

Hundreds of years ago a Roman general said, “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” — “If you want peace, prepare for war.” Nothing has changed; the world is not any safer and Humankind is just as behaviorally dysfunctional as 1st century Rome. “Hope” is a wish-it-was-so, but it is not reality. Reality took down the Twin Towers. To think otherwise will lead to the end of liberty and the beginning of subjugation.

PRECEDENCE DOMINATES THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Comforted by the president’s natural inclination to pretense hesitation as intellectual contemplation, precedence has — once again — routed ingenuity. Because President Obama will NOT define the enemy or admit policy mistakes, the initiative of redefining strategy in the interest of inventive tactics are set aside as counter-precedent, thus non-compliant. Therefore the president discards ingenuity and inventive for the ineffective policies of precedence. All of these presidential theatrics symbolizes a befuddled, overwhelmed, and rudderless presidency. As an example of policy priority, whiles Kerry and Obama discuss climate change, chaos dominates and ISIS plots and plans.

There is an existential Jihadist menace to the hearth of humanity — therefore a real viable threat to the homeland. Irrespective, the subjects of security and preparedness (for the Obama administration) are collateral instead of central. After several attempts by Jihadist to kill Americans, in San Bernardino, ISIS combatants attacked innocents attending a company Christmas party. Applicably, for many Americans the fear of more such attacks has triumphed reason. To calm the fearful the president expounds on the merits of gun control. In response, the fearful purchase thousands of guns…

The president and secretary of state preside in a fairyland of unicorns, rainbows, and wish-it-were-so delusion. These two Ivy League intellectuals cannot envision the “real world” other than as the predisposed liberal progressives they are.

Can the United States, can the free world contain ISIS long enough? Alternatively, will ISIS attain a chemical or nuclear weapon before the free world forcibly ends the Syrian War and eradicate the ISIS threat? Will more Americans be gunned down in their own country… when is enough, enough?

America is at risk from within and without, by enemies such as ISIS and liberal progressives with the best of intentions.

Nonetheless, issues of domestic concern are far worse than a Jihadist threat to the homeland. Abated and delegitimized by a republic adrift, liberty and personal freedoms accordingly suffer. The constitution as construed is no longer the basis of law. We truly have become a land of men instead of law.

In our world, information is voluminous and consistently inaccurate. Ideology has captured the free press and the press is subjected to ideological preferences. For our politicians assisted by a compliant media and an increasingly promiscuous culture, lying is accepted as a means to an end. Distortion and misdirection are interpreted as simply utilities of convenience.

Well, the electoral game of musical chairs is entertainingly afoot and of course there is always the positive perspective; so let us all be hopeful: after all, it is a joyous time of the year…

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S RESPONSE

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Fear is an innate human stimuli, a chemically induced reaction to even the perception of endangerment. There are three distinct responses to fear: The immediate deployment of ill-conceived and ineffective counteracts. The freezing of mind and body, a “deer in the headlights” syndrome often coupled with a nervous bafflement that prompts an emission of oral disarray and/or a flickering of disjointed discombobulation ultimately resulting in a temporary loss of command and sensibility.

Our president’s most recent news conference and subsequent addresses displayed his personal reactive state of fear: The realization that his strategic policies employed against the ISIS threat are wrongheaded is the president’s greatest fear. This fear of being dead wrong has overwhelmed his progressive ideology. His response to his wrongheadedness was to double down on the very same strategic policies. He spoke with all the bravo he could muster but instead of his speech instilling confidence, he came across as combative, dismissive, and weak.

The threat of wanton killings prompts (for all at risk… those of us without armed bodyguards) the need for certitude. Nevertheless, instead of strategic and tactical certitude from leadership, we citizens receive (from politicians and their staff) complexities of linguistically designed misdirection, ambiguities of declared purpose, and professorial pomposity delivered by President Obama in the form of a (I know best) sagaciously spoken spanking.

For us of common and generally uninformed stature the lack of a definitive military, diplomatic, political plan to eliminate the ISIS, ISIL, Daesh, threat creates an anxiety that pugnaciously infiltrates rational thought. When confronted with the probability that these fanatics will hit soft targets within the United States the president’s professorial pomposity lacks a moat, high-thick walls, and an aggressive martial offence. The result is the potential for a continuance of irrational thought and if this nation suffers a Parisian-similar attack, irrational thought will incite irrational behavior. 

These Islamic terrorists have demonstrated the thin veneer between the sanely civilized and the insanely primitive. Aside from the, as described by Lenin and Stalin, “useful idiots”, the devout root of these followers of Mohammad is a distinctive belief strengthened by a known quantity of theocratic truism. This is literal belief founded on the words of the Prophet as stated in the Quran; guided by the Hadith these Muslim terrorists faithfully believe their Jihad is morally sound. They will not be persuaded otherwise and foolish to try; these disciples of “the word” are way beyond the power of rational persuasion.

This is total war. Before these crazies harness nuclear, biological, or chemical weaponry, as Rome conquered Carthage in the Third Punic War, America must annihilate the means to which these Muslim fanatics can threaten, terrorize, or intimidate Western culture. Yes, that means killing them. 

President Obama is in office until 2017. Other than intensifying his present strategy he will not act. However, we do have the infrastructure of Congress and the will of the American people to pressure the president to offer a definitive solution to the ISIS crises.

Please, not Hilary, the socialist, or another liberal progressive… elect a Republican conservative, who would start to solve the biggest problem this nation faces: The problem of leadership, domestic and international…

PROGRESSIVE-MINDED SILLINESS

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Executed by Islamic thugs bent on bloodletting, the Paris killings, for the sole sake of inciting terror, committed the mass murder of Parisian innocents. These murderers were not provoked; they were not undereducated young unemployed men disenfranchised by a malevolent regime. No synthetic drug numbed their humanness; their baneful behavior was purposeful. They are the followers of Mohammed. Their mission was to murder as many people as possible. Their intent was death. Ordered to kill infidels, dutifully they obeyed.

Focused on the coming glory they aligned their sights and squeezed the trigger indiscriminately killing one innocent person after another, these martyrs, by deed and fact, were comforted in the knowing that soon they would ascend and sit amongst the Saints of Islam.

For the western democracies these protagonists of terror embody the meaning of evil. The eradication of their existence on earth is worth the cost of blood and treasure. However, our president hesitates. Despite the empirically obvious evidence that confronts him, he is cautious; the President insists that the inimical nature of the dastardly “bad” Islamist, once contained by his policy of restraint, will reject the radical interpretation of Sunnism and embrace rational modernism. In the end of all this chaos, the President believes that the bad people will be defeated; goodness will advantage badness and peacefulness will ultimately prevail.

Just like Icarus did not figure on the sun melting his wings of wax and feathers, the president’s political advisors underestimated the vitality of radical Sunni determination. The cautious President Obama has personally cost the lives of tens of hundreds of peoples, facilitated the bondage, raping, pillaging, and torture of thousands, and caused the migration of millions from their homelands. Incredulously, the president and his progressive clan of intellectual elitists wants to blame the invasion of Iraq as the cause and effect of the present.

The president is incapable to lead or follow yet he insists on getting in the way…

Certainly the bad ones are plotting a version of the Paris killings in an American city near you. It is impossible to stop this type of terror and so eventually American innocents will suffer. The only real, true alternative is to attack these Sunni radicals in their place of origin and placement — it matters not where this leads us.

Kill them all. Every single one of these cowardly bastards…

WISHFUL THINKING

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber

Mindboggling, bewildering, amazingly dumb, and downright ignorant is the concept of peace at anytime; much less peace in our time. The very idea that peace (as a foreign policy goal) is an attainable probability is an absolute absurdity. Realpolitik dismisses peace as outright naiveté — a dangerous strategy and a silly forethought. Yet, although, and still the intelligentsia unapologetically touts peace as its ultimate goal, the raison d’être of a nation state’s primary obligatory, and most profusely, those who profess to know just about everything (wonks of the department of state for one) pronounce peace as the moral-ethical priority of an enlightened society.    

For those of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton legacy, the very ones that underwrite, regulate, and administrate the workings of the government dismiss the available volubility of documentation to the contrary and continue to profess peace as feasible. After all, they who behold MBAs and JDs have degreed that peace is the rational extension of humanness, of intellectual enlightenment; conclusively therefore, these of Noblesse Oblige lineage (the ones that run the show) have confidently surmised: Rational deduction reasons that peace is reasonable thus attainable.

I say that peace is mythical as well as a convenient illusion void of all empirical evidence as to its attainment; further, peace as a stated policy goal is nothing more than a rhetorical utility extensively used as a reason for violent conflict; an excellent example of such rhetorical utility is WWI: “The war to end all wars.” Since humanoids learned to fashioned and bound stone to stick, millions of humans have died directly or indirectly from the purposeful misdirection of establishing peace in the name of war.

The intrinsic behavioral dysfunction that prompts one to rob, deceive, murder, and lie on an individual basis is the same — although exaggerated dysfunction that prompt nations to, under the ensign of manifest destiny, xenophobia, theocratic intolerance, ideological incongruity, or a myriad of other such ‘causes to act violently’ predicaments that render the idea of peace as a foreign policy goal impossible.  

Amongst nation states the great persuader is not kindness, personal niceties, nor offers of understanding and friendship. The great persuader is power coupled with the will to act. Power if uncoupled from the will to act disadvantages the nation with power; such a disadvantage eventually disables the persuasion of power rendering the nation in common denomination with the not-as-powerful.

The choice is self-evident: America is either the most powerful nation on earth or not. If the choice is “not” then another nation will take its place; the weaker will either submit or conflict. Prudence and analytical reality compel America to be the most powerful nation on earth. Therefore a foreign policy that is as unrealistic as the ridiculous notion that peace is an attainable goal only misdirects costly efforts, wastes resources, and corrupts time spent. Further, when one accepts peace as an attainable goal one expends treasure, resources, and blood in the hope that the particular counter-party will be converted to civil sensibility, rational deduction, stop the violent behavior, and act reasonably. The key word is hope. Hope is not a tactical or strategic policy; hope is emotional wishfulness.

My assumption is that peace as a goal is so impeded in the American psyche that my thoughts will be dismissed and disregarded; nevertheless, I have expressed my thoughts on the subject and found accordingly satisfaction in doing so. Obviously, my concern is that as Secretary Kerry and President Obama seek compromise with America’s enemies and pseudo-allies in the interest of peace the result will be diminished U. S. power while eliminating this nation’s will to act from its quiver of steal-tipped arrows.

OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH

InTheInterestOfSensibilityLeave a comment

Authored by William Robert Barber  

This immigration issue and proposed legislative solution(s) that’s being bandied about by the Senate is traversing from confusion into lunacy. I can’t seem to discern what these senators are legislatively contemplating: The conservatives and the Republicans want to “secure the border;” the liberal progressives and the Democrats favor a more or less open border policy. Each inference has a sort-of creditable source that evidences or at least renders sufficient intellectual comfort and political cover so each perspective can affirmatively bellicose the wrongheadedness of the counterparty.

There are those that suggest that because our nation has millions of illegal/non-documented immigrants within its borders (roughly 60% from Mexico) in a practical sense amnesty already exists. There are others who have reams of mathematical calculations bequeathed from the Congressional Budget Office proving, well, estimating that legislative amnesty would be a financial plus to the nation.  In sympathy to the idea of granting legal status to immigrants from south of the border Catholic institutions present moral maximums — of course the majority of these immigrants are Catholic and God knows the Catholic Church needs more worshipers. In alignment with such sympathy is the Democratic Party; like the self-serving inclinations of the Catholic Church their reckoning is that the super-majority of these people will vote liberal-progressive.

 Marco Rubio and the coalition of Republicans who favor the current rendition of “a path to citizenship,” have been pushed and pulled, cajoled, manipulated and yes, I believe tricked, into collectively justifying an unworkable solution for a problem that is incorrectly assessed. Firstly, if I was born poor in Mexico I would by whatever means available (knowing that expensive and time consuming legal means are not an option) venture north into the United States. Secondly, no fence nor any other kind of physical challenge would stop my need to improve the lives of my family. I do not think I am unique in this regard.

Legislators have been kicking this issue around the corner and past the bend in the road forever or at least so it seems. The newest proposal is to spend billions of dollars — not pesos, dollars! — to keep one of Mexico’s most profitable exports (its people) out of the U.S. The idea of spending billions to keep people south of our border is ridiculous. It so stupid that one could just as ridiculously suggest: Instead of building a fence, hiring thousands of guards, and installing mechanisms for surveillance monitoring the USA should simply pay each Mexican that earns less than $3,000 USD a year an annual fee for every year they can document they have never left their country.

The Mexican government imports valuable dollars into Mexico from its blatant, professionally marketed promotion of aiding and abetting the illegal trafficking of their citizens into the United States. Why we do not charge Mexico a fee for every Mexican illegal found trying to cross the border and for everyone deported back to Mexico is beyond my comprehension.

As previously stated, I believe the problem has been assessed incorrectly; whatever the number of undocumented people there are in our nation and no matter where they came from because we are an open society, a rich, and a free country, the mechanism to track down and ‘capture’ an undocumented immigrant is limited. No matter the rudiments of any particular legislative “path to citizenship,” the fact is, America is a favored destination and will always have millions of noncompliant immigrants within its borders. Whether there is a guest worker program, E-Verify, or strict ICE enforcement — there will always be those that choose not to comply.

 Obviously, Mexico and Canada are prolific highly profitable trading partners. These countries are our friends and allies. Canada to the north and Mexico to the south; both countries are intimately engaged by family, western values, and years of commercial interface. Consequently, as with Cuba, our immigration policy for these neighbors mandate a specific differing than others. Our immigration policy as to our closest geographic neighbors should be simple, precise in scope, and wholly manageable; therefore, America requires a minimum of standards that are consistent with our national interest. 

The answer to our neighbors’ illegal venture north is not a fence but a bilateral agreement permitting American companies to own controlling interest within Mexico’s commercial infrastructure and property. If Americans could invest into Mexico as Mexicans can invest in America there would be few Mexicans interested in leaving home and hearth to venture north. Presently, this normal course of business investment is denied to American citizens.

Whatever the result, nothing will stop a person from striving to improve their life and the lives of their family members. Instead of building a fence we should be investigating ways to open our arms.