Close the Borders? No Way! ... That Would Be Intolerant
Much ado is being made about Schwarznegger’s statement that we need to
close our borders. O.K., so that’s what he said … let’s get past it.
He’s admitted he doesn’t know the English language well enough and
didn’t really mean what many thought he should have meant. But he
didn’t, so cut him some slack. We need to start learning how to show
some courtesy to the immigrants amongst us who are doing their level
best to come up to speed in a new job. And, after all, The Arnold is
only a governor of a state and a mistake like that is only likely to
matter if he were something like, say, the President and misspoke a
term like “Nuke ‘Em”. Since that would never happen, let’s move on to
something more interesting, like the fact that he retracted the remark
at all, leaving us with the notion that we would be doing something
wrong if we were to close our borders. This raises interesting issues
like, if we have borders, what are they for? Surely, they are not to
keep people out who won’t comply with our laws (like crossing the
border illegally, for example) are they? If they were, wouldn’t that be
really exclusionary, and so, really … like … intolerant? And that’s not
who we are, is it? For sure, man, are we not a people who refuses to
exclude anybody or anything they may want to do? Sure we are.
So maybe this is what The Arnold was getting at by his “close the
border” retraction. Wasn’t he really saying that if Americans stand for
anything, it is inclusivity and tolerance of everybody and everything,
and so, in fact, we are proud to be a people who insists upon standing
for … nothing? So why the uproar? The solution is easy. We only need to
redefine the term “border”. Surely not a difficult task for a society
that can define the new Pope as “anti-family” because he is intolerant
of both gay marriages and the taking of human lives that even Senator
Kerry has declared start at conception. I mean really … can you imagine
such intolerance? Yet, we digress.
The point here is, if we are a people with the character, integrity
and, can we not take pride in claiming it, the moral rectitude
necessary to redefine terms like “marriage” and “life” -- which prior
to our present state of secular enlightenment were claimed by some to
have been held fast for thousands of years in the bondage of traditions
some would say emanated originally from … again, can you even imagine?
… a God – certainly to redefine the term “border” cannot possibly be a
task that lies beyond our society’s amply evidenced abilities. The only
question is, should the definition be kept simple or should it be
inclusive of those things about which we have come to be tolerant? You
know … simple things … like the joy experienced by California, Texas
and Arizona taxpayers by having the opportunity to shoulder an
estimated $14,000,000.000 annually to host a population of guests
heretofore referred to as illegals. That doesn’t even include the
pleasures that emanate from the hidden costs we embrace derived from
such things as their income tax fraud, social security fraud and
worker’s comp fraud they bless us with. After all, what’s a little
fraud among amigos? And, even beyond that, should we include in the
definition the dozens of emergency room closures and the bankruptcy of
counties across the land? Additionally, lest we forget the fact that
they’re here without first getting their papers … should the definition
of border reference our duty to give ‘em driver’s licenses? Oh … why
not? At least then we will have photos of the uninsured motorists who
cream us on our roads and then sue those of us who are insured, not to
mention photos of those who murder some of us before fleeing back
across the “border” to obtain asylum in Mexico from extradition back
here to stand trial for murder. Oh … you say such protection from
extradition for murders already exists in Mexico? Well … never mind …
details like these should not be allowed to distract us. But, wait a
minute … wouldn’t such a protective sanctuary for killers actually give
them an actual
incentive to murder anyone unfortunate enough to witness the crimes
they commit here? Yes … but we’re tolerant and surely the benefits
derived from our tolerance outweigh such minor inconveniences, and as
an added bonus at least we’ll have a copy of their license photos here
to keep as mementos of our tolerance. So here we go. Let’s try.
Border, bor-der, noun,: A porous, yet when appearing on maps
decorative, margin surrounding what historically used to be an affluent
sovereign nation prior to its enlightenment that makes it possible for
money and murderers to be sucked in a southerly direction never to
return, while simultaneously allowing a massive population of people to
be sucked to the north for purposes of maintaining some semblance of a
harmonious balance reflective of our compassionate inclusivity and
tolerance. O.K. I’ll admit it. It could use some refinement. But while
we’re at it, don’t we also need to start reworking the definitions of
terms like “sovereignty”, “rule of law”, “citizenship” and “United
States of America”? Oh, heck … this is getting out of hand. Why doesn’t
The Arnold just propose making Mexico our 51st state and get it over
with? Wouldn’t that be easier and, who knows, it just might make him
popular enough to run for President some day. Let’s just hope that by
then he has a better handle on using our nation’s language, which may
cause him a bigger problem then than it is now due to the fact that at
some time in the foreseeably near future that language may no longer be
the English he is working so hard now to learn.
