Getting it Right

I know a secret about American government today. It's a secret that if it doesn't surprise you, you probably have heard everything I am going to say before.

Our government is run by a small minority of citizens.

Yep, it's absolutely true. The governor of our state was chosen by only a handful of people. (Most of the people who voted for her didn't even know what they were doing.) The city council is selected by even fewer people. And the school board is in the same ball park.

I can name the handful of people that chose Ed Barney to get re-elected. It was due to these people's efforts that he got so many votes, just barely enough to beat his opponent.

Were they double-, triple-, or even quadruple-voting? Of course not. But they have a network of friends and associates, and know how to work the political controls to such a degree, that they can arrange for people to win and lose elections.

Would you like to be one of these people? I can tell you exactly how much you have to pay to join this club of political "elites". A few hours a month is all it takes. Of course, as the elections get nearer, if you're serious, you'll put in more time, maybe even take a day off of work or two. I can guarantee you that if you put in just a few hours of work, you'll find yourself part of this group of people, and frankly, on par with their political power.

Alexis de Tocqueville noted that Americans are surprisingly apathetic about politics in their own country. I know why. It's because things work well enough that there's really not much reason to spend some of your own time to get involved when there's money to be made or things to be bought or TV to watch. I can't blame you for feeling this way. After all, truth be told, if YOU refuse to participate, we'll still get along fine. But the only reason this is true is because of a handful of people willing to put in the time necessary to cover for you.

If everyone put in a little more time, we'd probably find ourselves far more powerful in this state that Seattle. Of course, getting everyone involved isn't likely. But adding a few more people to the cause of conservatism is far more likely. And the more people we have involved, the more powerful the effect is. If you're in business, you'll know why. If you're not, let me explain way.

There is an economic principal called Comparative Advantage. It says, basically, that people should do what they are best at doing, by and large. If they do, then everyone will be better off. Let's take this into the political realm. Let's say we have one person doing all of the conservative politicking in Federal Way. With his spare time, he can post 100 yard signs or knock on 65 doors, or any combination of the two. Now, if we add another participant, someone who is a novice in politics, he could probably only post 20 signs effectively and knock on 15 doors. He is roughly better than first fellow at doorknocking, because it is a little easier for him than signs.

Now, if you do the math, you'll note that together, they can post 120 signs, or knock on 80 doors. That's not bad. It's when you start trying to find the best combination that something interesting happens. The most optimum combination is to have the first person post signs and the second knock on doors.

In short, working together, they can get more done than by working alone. That's because each can do what they are comparatively better at doing.

My point is that you're probably a political novice, or you don't have much to offer the conservative movement. That's fine. As long as you join your efforts with the others, and do what you are best at doing, it will free up others to do other things. Thus, your efforts, however small, will have a multiplicative effect. 

So, don't stand on the sidelines. Get up and get to know the conservatives in your area. And do what you are best at doing, however little that is. It really does add up. 

I'll be honest. I have three children, with another due in a few weeks. I have a wife who came from a country and culture where owning a weapons that can be used to kill people was not a right, not even a privilege. But I grew up with guns. I shot all kinds of guns. Whenever I have an opportunity, I go out to shoot with my church group or friends.

I own land now. It's not a big parcel. But it's real land. I am worried for the first time about someone intruding on my land, in my home, with the intent to hurt me, my wife, or my children, or my property. Sure, I can call the cops. But even if they had a patrol car in the area, it would be several instants before the cop could sort things out and make a wise judgment to protect me and my family and my property. And what's worse, it seems like protecting my property is not a priority of the justice system anymore.

I know that owning a gun is a right, but it is also a terrible responsibility. With the pull of a trigger, I am making an irreversible decision, one with ever-lasting effects. Under proper training, practice, and maintenance, I can be sure I'll make the right decision at the right moment. If I wouldn't commit to getting trained and keeping myself trained, I wouldn't even consider owning a firearm.

I admit, I have fantasies about pulling out a shotgun to protect my family, blasting away an escaped prisoner on death row, and saving my family and the taxpayers from harm. I understand that chances of me actually encountering a situation like this are very, very low. And if I ever do find myself in such a situation, I would surely wish I had never encountered it. That's not what motivates me to own a weapon.

Owning a gun says something very political. It says, "I know what makes government, and I am keeping a tiny part of that safe here in my own house." Others, especially immigrants and youngsters, are all too happy to put the most critical thing they have–their security and freedom–in the hands of an uninterested and uncaring government. By owning a gun, I signal to myself and those around me that I am a citizen who takes responsibility for myself and refuses to put any burden on my neighbors, however slight.

So I plan one day to own a gun. I'll probably start with a shotgun, get trained, understand the law, etc… Then if I feel comfortable, I may invest in a handgun, purely for hobby. (The shotgun has a much better chance of helping my family if we are in trouble.)

It's the new strategy of the Bush administration. Or maybe it's just the final parts of the strategy put into play. We know one thing about the Bush administration: They play for keeps. We also know something about President Bush himself: he's a fine poker player.

The War in Iraq is turning out to be justified, after all. With new evidence pouring out that Saddam did indeed plot to blow up American assets, even domestic assets, and evidence that he was pursuing weapons in violation of the U.N. resolutions, it's becoming clear that Bush was right, and he saved countless lives. Expect this to peak right about the time people start casting ballots this year.

More importantly, he has found a useful ally in Iran. President Ahmedinejad  doesn't realize he is playing into Bush's trap. He is puffing up like a blowfish, trying to prove himself dangerous to America. Which, if history is any guide, is the exactly wrong thing to do to the American people. "Don't tread on me" was a close contender for the national slogan. ("Slogan", by the way, derives from the Gaellic "battle cry", I believe.)

If President Ahmedinejad can convince the American people that he is a dangerous opponent to our interests, he will be nailing his own coffin. President Bush, if not able to send troops in before the elections, will most certainly be riding a tide of patriotism and sentiments surrounding Iran. With even more seats in the house and senate, he'll be able to steamroller Iran into submission.

President Bush isn't a liberal, by any means of the word. It was the press who made the accusation, and feebly attempted to portray him that way. Emphasizing the liberal aspects of his policy and spending (always future spending, not current spending), and relying on projections based on conjecture and not fact, he does appear to be a drunk-happy sailor home on leave.

But the reality is that spending is down, revenue is up, the economy is roaring, and we are stronger today than we ever were, even in the 80's. His policies, if you think carefully, will actually lead to reduced spending in the future, something which projections cannot correctly describe because of their new approaches to the problems.

The Bush strategy now is "Shock and Awe". Expect to see the immigration bill from the house pass the senate under the hammer of Bush. And expect to see a super-majority of Americans suddenly calling themselves "Republican". 

The republicans would be smart to take the other side of this issue. These are the things they need to fight for in the next few months:

 1. Close the border! Immediately deploy the military (at least the national guard, at best, the Marines) to secure the stretch of land between us and Mexico. To be fair, we can secure our Canadian border as well. In the long term, build fences, tall fences. The border should be guarded by soldiers, not bureaucrats!

2. Deport the illegals. Yes, we can do this. Yes, it must be done. No amnesty whatsoever. You know what is better? Take names, and explain in no uncertain terms to the illegals: "You've been caught, and you know what? You're never coming into our country again." That would drive them all south of the border, especially if we meant it.

I hear about the agriculture industry who is going to complain. You know what? They should all be in jail if they are hiring illegals. Throw them away if they complain. There is no reason we should tolerate illegal activity from anyone, citizen or not.

If the crops rot in the fields, we'll eat other foods. What is really going to happen is the price of food will increase slightly as farmers find other people to do the work, at an increased wage. There are other foods, staple foods, that do not rely on illegal immigrants and these will be ever available. 

3. Increase legal immigration, while increasing scrutiny. Bring in as many as we can, as long as we scrutinize them and make sure we know where they are at all times. If they commit a crime, send them back home, like we do now. I wouldn't be ashamed if we forced them to wear ankle bracelets, or report to an INS office once or twice a year. (The ankle bracelets would be far less intrusive.)
4. Clamp down on illegal voters. Require that voters must present documents proving (a) that they are citizens and (b) that they really have residence in their voting district. And lastly, prosecute people who have registered to vote illegally. Kick them out, I say, and never let them back.

5. Deny all government benefits to any and all immigrants who are not citizens. Those that aren't here legally that apply are deported for good. Those that apply for benefits that aren't citizens are deported without benefits. It's simply, really. If you want food stamps, you have to show me proof of citizenship. If you're an immigrant and can't afford food, we'll ship you back home free of charge. Go be a burden on you motherland, not us. 

If you haven't noticed, Rome is burning. We are in a crisis mode! If something is not done soon, a whole heckuva lot of people are going to take matters into their own hands, and that is going to lead to bad things. Rather than play around with the issue, take a real stand, clamp down on illegal behavior, and secure our nation!

I could list a few benefits for the Republican party if they stand strong on illegal immigration. This is an issue that even Sen. Clinton was crowing after. Why? Because the vast majority of Americans want the federal government to perform its primary duty and secure our nation. But more importantly, removing the illegals will remove a lot of votes for democratic candidates. And denying anyone who comes here for government aid any claims means we won't tolerate a future generation of government dependents. 

Scene: A quiet city park. There is a rich man (R), well-dressed, sitting on a bench reading a newspaper. There is a cop (C) minding his own business in the background.

A poor man (P) walks along the path and spots R.

P: I got rights, you know.

R: (Ignores him)

P: Hey, I got rights, you know! (He pulls the paper down.)

R: Excuse me, but would you bother someone else?

P: No, I got rights you know!

R: Alright. (Obviously perturbed.) What rights do you have?

P: Give me your money. I'm poor, and your rich, and I got rights, you know. So give me some of your money.

R: Well, I got rights, "you know", too. You can't have this money, it's mine. If you take it from me, it's called stealing. And I'm sure the cop back there wouldn't mind dropping you in a cell to cool off.

P: Well, I'm poor so you have to give me money!

R: Look, maybe you don't know this, but I already spend a great deal of money to help people like yourself. Just down the street is a soup-kitchen, financed by me. And beyond that is a community college, where you can get a proper education on my buck. And beyond that is my factory, where I hire the poor and pay them well. So if you want my money, why don't you just accept what's already being offered by myself?

P: No, I DEMAND you give me money! I got RIGHTS, you know! 

C: (Now interested in the conversation.) (To R) He has rights you know.

R: You've got to be kidding me! What about my rights to own property? What about my rights to free enterprise and free trade? You can't force me to give him money!
C: Just give him some money.

R: Alright, fine. (He pulls out a large wad of cash. He takes a single bill and gives it to P, then motions for him to move along.) 

P: I got rights you know.

R: What do you want? More money?

P: I want more.

(R looks at C. C nods. R starts handing out more money.)

R: Say when. (He keeps handing out the bills, more slowly now.) Anytime now.

(Eventually he hands it all over.)

P: Thanks mister.

R: Wait a minute! I got rights too, you know!

P: Huh?

R: I'm poor now. That was all the free cash I had in this world. I needed it to pay my employees. But now that I'm poor, and you're rich, you've got to give me money too!

(P is obviously confused.)

R: Look, we can do this all day. So just give me half.

(P splits the cash into roughly equal chunks. He gives the smaller chunk to R and walks away.)

[End of scene]

Scene: The next day. Now the rich man doesn't look so rich. He is reading an old newspaper that is somewhat dirty in the same bench. C is still in the background. P approaches R again.

P: I got rights you know!

R: Not this again. I gave you a tremendous amount of money. I gave you practically half of what I own. Thanks to you, I had to close the soup kitchen, shut down the college, and fire half my work force. It's going to be some time before I am rich.

P: I got rights you know!

R: Look, you probably have more money than I do at this point. You can't possible ask me for money. I mean, you haven't… (he begins to realize) spent it all… did you?

(P nods slowly.)

R: How could you possibly spend all that money! It was enough to feed you for several years! You could've bought a house and the value would appreciate faster than a normal man's salary! What could you have possibly spent it on?

P: Stuff.

R: Stuff like what?

P: You know, things.

R: Can I see some of the the "things" you bought?

P: Well… (he is obviously ashamed)

R: You could've gambled it all away I suppose. (He is joking. But then he begins to realize) Oh no. Did you gamble it away?

P: Well…

R: I can't believe this. Haven't you ever wondered where the gambling houses get all their money from? I'll give you a hint: It's not from the drinks! Have you ever once considered that maybe, just maybe, the reason you are poor is because you waste money!?!

P: But I got rights, you know.

R: There is no way I am giving you more money! You're better off without money and begging for food than money!

P: But I got rights you know.

(R looks back at C. C nods at R. R's face droops in sadness.)

R: Do you understand what this money was meant for? It was going to pay the meager workforce I had left. We were going to finish up another shipment and get paid. Not a large profit, but a profit nonetheless. If you just let me hold on to this money for a month, I can make back all that you lost. But if you take it from me now, there won't be any money next time. Do you see this?

P: I don't care about you. I got rights, you know.

R: Fine. Have the money. Go ahead and take half, or two thirds. I don't need it anyways. What's the point when any poor schmuck like yourself can just steal it from me while the cop looks on!

P: I got rights you know!

R: Screw your rights! Tell you what, take it all! (He throws the money at the poor man.)

P: I got rights you know!

R: What could you possible want more? I gave you all the money I have in the world. My company is ruined, my family is ruined, and I'm ruined.

P: I want a job.

R: Oh, so NOW you want a JOB! Well gues what? Without money, there is no job! And if I did have money, why would I hire an ungrateful little-minded lazy gambler like you? I pay people to work because it makes me more money. Otherwise I wouldn't hire them.

C: (Now interested) He has rights you know. Give him a job?

R: WHAT JOB? There are no more jobs to give! Can't you get that through your head? We're done!

C: In that case, you're going to jail buddy.

R: What for? What crime did I commit?

C: Why, you violated that fellow's rights!

R: Oh really? Well, let's see about that. (Turns to P) I got rights too, you know! I want a job! I want your money! I want food, good food, and a nice home in a nice neighborhood without schmucks like you wandering about demanding things from people who don't have them! And I want free medical care anytime I want it, I demad you give this to me right now! I got rights you know!

C: (To P) Well?

P: Well what?

C: You either respect this man's rights or you're going to jail too.

[End scene]

Scene: A jail cell. R and P are sharing a room. R is busily making a rope into a noose. P is watching R out of curiosity.

P: (Out of the blue) I got rights, you know.

R: Well, we're going to solve this once and for all. (Finishing the noose, he swings it up over a bar near the ceiling. He begins fitting his head through it.)
P: I got rights, you know. 

R: Goodbye. (He jumps off his bed, committing suicide.)

P: I got rights you know. (He watches the corpse swinging in the air.

Let's play a little game. Let's suppose you lived in a city with all the normal trappings of a typical city. With one exception, to make this game interesting. There are no doctors, no nurses, no dentists, no chiropracters, acupuncturists, hospitals, practices, or medical services of any kind available. You can't go to the grocery store and buy Tylenol. You can't get anything anywhere related to medical services.

Now, someone out of the blue yells out, "I have a right to medical service! I demand that someone fix my broken leg!" This is all the more punctuated by the fact that his leg is horribly mangled.

With no one to petition, he is never going to receive medical service. He's left to set his own leg in a splint and hobble home, or spend the rest of his life on that street corner where he got his leg mangled.

That's the problem with so-called "rights" to medical service. You don't have a natural right to it.

A way to think about natural rights is to imagine yourself as the last person in the world. What can you do? What can you not do? You can say whatever you like. You can't demand someone else make you a birthday cake. This thought experiment will help you understand some of the basic rights. (The other rights are discovered as you add another person to the equation, with the constricting factor that whatever natural rights the one has, the other must have as well.)

One right we do not have is the right to demand someone do something for us or give something of theirs to us. What you can do is negotiate a trade, ultimately one that should benefit both parties. But even then, you don't have a right to negotiate. The other party may refuse to deal with you altogether. And if you do negotiate, you don't have a right to force a deal.

So it is with medical care. I can ask for medical services. I can bargain for medical services. But I cannot demand it. It is not a basic right.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that you did have a natural right for medical services. What does that mean? I can walk into a hospital and demand treatment? What about other buildings? Can I walk into a general practioner's office and demand treatment for free? Can I walk into a doctor's home and demand treatment?

What if I walk into a hospital and demand treatment and no one is there? Do I go to City Hall and demand that they find a doctor and put him in the hospital? Or what if there are people but they are all busy? Can I say, "Doctor, stop that brain surgery and treat my broken leg!"

Or what if a doctor sees me and decides he never wanted to be a doctor at all? Can I demand that someone be a doctor even if he doesn't want to be?

What about someone that was never a doctor? Let's suppose we have so many patients demanding treatment that all the nation's doctors are working 24 hours a day and are unable to meet the demand. Can we draft people into becoming doctors? Can we grab an 18-year-old kid in engineering school and throw him into medical classes, forcing him to become a doctor?

What if we decide that it's bad to force doctors to work. We must convince them to work. So the government starts paying them to see patients. Well, what if all the doctors decided that it wasn't lucrative anymore to be a doctor and they all retired or became software engineers. What then? Do we have to raise their salary? And how high is the limit? What if they formed a union and every year they went on strike until they got a 100% pay raise?

Who is going to pay the bill anyway? That money comes from taxpayers. We are in essence stealing from taxpayers so some guy can get medical care. Is that fair to the guy we are stealing from?

Do you see the inconsistencies? We can't force people to work. When we do, it is called a draft and the only reason we do that is for national emergencies, like war. We can't force people to pay people to work. That just isn't right to steal from one person to pay for someone else to get something. We can't allow people to walk around demanding anything from anyone else. That is the root problem.
We must remove the requirement that medical services be offered freely.

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts is set to sign a bill practically forcing everyone to get health insurance.

If I were living in the state, I would be faced with a decision: Buy health insurance, or pay fines.

What is the big deal about health insurance? Why do people think it is so important?

The question isn't, "Are people getting adequate health insurance?" The question is, "Are people getting adequate health care?" You don't need insurance to get health care, folks.

The insurance industry, in any sector in essence is buying risk. They are saying, "You can pay a monthly fee, and be reassured that if anything really bad happens, you won't owe anything. But if nothing bad happens, you don't get your money back." I understand why people would like to get rid of risk in their lives. It brings stress. When the dice fall on the wrong numbers, you get hurt.

But there are really two kinds of risk. There is unavoidable risk, and avoidable risk. Let's take for instance health care. I could spend my spare time skiing, rock-climbing, and parachuting. Or I could spend my spare time on a safe hobby like basket weaving, oil painting, and piano playing. In which scenario am I likely to require more health care? Obviously, the former.

An insurance company can dictate to a certain degree which activities it covers and which it doesn't. But you can only micromanage your policyholders so much. Eventually, someone has to start making decisions. "Should I do X or Y?" And eventually, that someone should start evaluating the total cost of the actions versus the total benefits, and be prepared. It is always best to have that decision maker be the person who is set to gain or lose the most should a good or bad decision be made.

Because I don't sell my risk, but keep it to myself, and am set to gain or lose if I make bad decisions, I end up being more careful than the people around me with health insurance. I spend a great deal of time evaluating decisions that affect my health. For instance, I limit my fast food and processed food intake because I know that doing so will help me avoid a variety of diseases down the road. I also am careful to make medical decisions that keep the cost down. For instance, I stubbed and broke my little toe. I could've gone to get it X-rayed, but the net benefit is zero. I'd still have to wait four weeks instead of two for it to heal, and nothing would be different except I would see the broken bone. So I didn't get the X-ray. I saved the medical industry several hundred dollars, and that ended up in my pocket.

I like absorbing some of the risk of living. I don't want that choice eliminated.

Now, why on earth would a reasonable person think this is a good idea? Simply because, as a society, we have decided that we will foot the bill for people that won't or can't foot their own bill. As long as we require hospitals to treat patients that can't pay, we as a society have to find a way to come up with that money. A far better solution would be to allow hospitals to refuse treatment.

Yes, this is cold-hearted. But it is reasonable. Here's why. When a patient walks into a hospital, he is asking for someone to put in some time and some resources into fixing his problems. By what right does he demand this? None. He has absolutely no right to demand anything from anyone. Yes, as those who are able to provide these things, we have a charitable duty to actually provide it. But this is charity work my friends, and government is incapable of doing charity. (It's that part about being the one entity able to use force morally that makes it incapable of charity. Charity has to be done willingly without coercion.)

If we removed the requirement that hospitals treat patients, poor people would not go without medical care. Instead, people would willingly donate money and resources to treat the poor, much as they do now in community medical centers. Yes, the poor won't get the top treatment. Yes, some poor people will get turned away. And yes, some doctor will have to decide whether to give the last dose of antibiotics to one person or another. But, we as a society wouldn't be liable for giving away free medical treatment to anyone who asks for it.

And that would remove the requirement for insurance on everyone. Since no one has a right to medical care, no one needs to provide the means of medical. All is done optionally, and only with the consent of the two parties involved. 

The democrats have bought a phrase with their political capital: "Culture of Corruption". Apparently they are trying to label the republicans with it, but doing so awkwardly.

President Bush's new tone is actually an old philosophy modernized. If you read the beatitudes of Christ, you'll see what President Bush is trying to practice. There is no need to point out the faults of others, when there is so much to be done in improving yourself. So don't expect a coordinated republican campaign to point out the real culture of corruption.

The political landscape will appear odd indeed in 2008. The democrats, whose platform becomes "We hate them" will be faced against a Christian party, whose platform is, "We move forward".

It certainly sounds better than, "You're corrupt and evil!" "No, you are!" "No, you are!" "No, you are!"

I see a republican victory in '06 and '08. 

Here are the facts of the case:

Tom DeLay was charged with crimes. Tom DeLay claims he is innocent. Tom DeLay resigns, claiming he is doing so to help the party.

People seem to jump to conclusions, without examining the facts completely. There are those who think him resigning is evidence of his guilt. People may resign for a number of reasons. One of those reasons are that they are guilty of a crime and they wish to make amends by resigning from their office. But they resign for other reasons. One of those reasons is that by resigning, you are helping your colleagues do better.

In my experience, I have seen both. I have seen a variety of other reasons, too. Maybe the official isn't able to devote enough time, and they would rather have someone else serve instead. Maybe they are no longer popular and don't want to delay the inevitable. Maybe they are just tired of fighting the good fight.

In Tom DeLay's case, we can't assign guilt until he admits guilt or we have proven he is guilty. In our society, we judge people with a jury of peers. We have yet to hear the verdict of this case, and he has never even hinted at his guilt.

His reason of helping his peers actually makes sense. He has been the target of relentless character attacks and insinuations. The "K-Street" project seems to be synonymous with "Enron" nowadays, yet no one has explained what exactly is wrong with it. (Convincing lobbyists to become more republican friendly because republicans are running the show is hardly a crime.) Perhaps he knows that he will be used as a straw man for the democrat's "culture of corruption" campaign. Better to deprive the democrats of a somewhat productive target than to fight it out in a world where he is constantly misrepresented.

Logically, let's examine the immigration issue.

What makes us a nation? Our borders. These borders are physical, they are cultural, and they are also linguistic.

We identify ourselves as Americans in part because we live in America, we practice the American culture, and we speak American.

(Interesting side story: In the Korean culture in America, they speak an Americanized Korean language and have a distinct culture that is very different from Korean Korean. They consider themselves no longer Korean but Americans who happen to come from Korea.)

Where does immigration come into this?

As a people, as a nation, we have decided that we have the right to control who can become American. Each person who joins our nation affects our nation as a whole. We want to make sure only the right people become American.

First, we require that you live here. Second, we require that you learn the culture, at least the governing part. Third, we generally require that you speak the language. These are not all requirements set in law, but remember that there are people who are citizens that we do not consider Americans, and people who are not citizens that we do.

The government merely formalizes this process. You want to be an American? Apply for permission to come visit us (a visa). Apply for permission to live with us (green card). Then, after you've been here, and after you've learned about our system, you can apply to become one of us (citizenship). This is the process of immigration, or more specifically, naturalization.

Where do illegal immigrants fit into this? They are here, but they haven't received formal permission to be here. Now, we as a people have a choice: Do we want these people here, or not? If we do, then we have to give them permission. We are granting them amnesty, in other words. This means, "You came here by some other method than the legal one, and we're okay with that." If we don't want them here, we kick them out and take their name so that we won't let them in again.

There is a minor quirk in this process. We have granted amnesty regularly in the past. In fact, we have been so regular, we have given de facto permission to sneak in our country, work here, and be illegal. As a people, we have been okay with this. This is not good, because we are telling people around the world that they should try and sneak in and break some laws and it's okay. We should be sending the message that the law is superior to men, and that frankly, we don't tolerate law-breaking, even if your intentions were good.

So, every time we grant amnesty, we tell people that illegal immigration is okay.

We want to grant amnesty. But we don't like the nasty side-effect. What to do, what to do?

People are slipping into our country because it is easier to do that than to fill out the paperwork and wait for a response. If we want people to do things the legal way, we make it easier than the illegal way.

So we start by securing our borders. We put scary guys with guns out there. We put up fences with sharp pointy things. We start kicking out people we catch sneaking in, and giving them punishments.

Then we make it easier to get in here legally. Lower the costs; lower the time limits; increase the quotas. Can we assimilate so many people at once? We are doing that right now, whether we think we can or not.

Then, we give those who want amnesty a choice: Either you go through the legal process, starting at the back of the line, or you get amnesty. But amnesty is much more expensive and much more difficult than the legal way, so we strongly suggest you come in legally.

I think that is the fair way.

The last topic I wish to write about is people who come here to work versus people who come here to be Americans. Frankly, I welcome both people, and I don't want to distinguish between the two. If you're valuable enough that people want to pay you money to be here, then I think you are valuable enough to be a citizen in this country, when you have assimilated enough.