For the majority of traditional Americans, the issue of immigration is pretty clear-cut.
It’s not one of those complex dilemmas requiring years of study, culminating in Capitol Hill hearing upon hearing, to the point of outlasting everything from congressional terms to constituent attention spans.
Rather, the solution is easily grasped, an almost overnight change-for-the-better type of fix-it that goes something like this: Secure the borders. Punish the infractors. Decline benefits for illegals. Enforce the laws equally.
We get it. Decisive action, problem solved. Law-breakers gone, good prevails, moving on to something more involved, like salvaging the Social Security or social services systems from even further abuse.
That’s the perfect world scenario, of course. Add government to the mix, and the reality is this logical progression of events is replaced by a complicated web of political double-speak, politician pandering, and politically correct ideals that have little to do with the real wishes of Americans, or even with the true benefit of America outside of congressional and White House halls of power. And that’s just summarizing the state and federal governments’ involvement.
Now add the global, and the issue takes an even greater foreboding tone.
In a May 25 gathering of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues — a bureaucracy created by the monster of all bureaucracies, the United Nations, to address immigrant matters but under a different name — the drumbeat was steady anti-America.
"No human being is illegal," said one, characterizing the U.S. debates over immigration as unfair talks that drew "thousands and thousands of people … (to) the streets calling for just legalization for all," a UN release read.
Just legalization? In America that phrase brings forth such constitutional standards as equality in the eyes of the law, due process, a government of, by, for the people, and so forth. But in UN-speak, where everything is couched in tame language or hidden among official-sounding acronyms and even invented words, the phrase "just legalization" takes a different tone. It means quite the opposite, in fact.
It means for the "Permanent Forum to intercede and demand that the United States repeal recent legislation aimed ostensibly at protecting the country’s borders against terrorism," continued the release.
This speaker was among several who reportedly called for the global body to take a more proactive stance on issues of indigenous peoples — defined, by the way, in the loosest of UN manner, as individuals who are "native, innate, inherent or natural" to a particular region or country. For America, the interpretation would pretty much open borders for all.
But why should our sovereign nation care?
Most importantly, the United Nations finished its forum with a pledge to incorporate indigenous issues into the Millennium Development Goals. This measure is a global pledge to eradicate poverty by 2015 that is upheld by policy, legislation and related commitments from individual and participating nations — of which the United States is one.
Logic stands that if indigenous issues are incorporated into these goals, then the United States would be compelled to abandon Millennium Development principles in whole or part — and face the negative political fallout that would surely ensue — else address, explain, argue, agree, compromise, what have you on a matter that should, according to constitutional principle, remain within sovereign borders.
The United Nations, it’s interesting to note, also concluded its meeting with verbal agreements to carry out its help-the-immigrants work via a formal human rights approach. This is clear warning of what’s around the bend: More pressure from around-the-world governments for the U.S. to, say, grant amnesty based on pity for the hungry, unemployed or poverty-stricken. And any hope the pressure will lighten is misplaced.
The meeting finished with a brief song and ceremony from the Indigenous Youth Caucus, a UN-sponsored group with a name that speaks volumes. The global body is preparing the youth of the future to carry this latest torch.
The dilemma is that predicting how the America of 2011 or 2032 might react to all this worldly pressure is near impossible.
But from the constituent perspective, the analysis is simple. If mainstream America cannot bid its elected government now to carry out its wishes, just think of the resistance that’s on the way from the United Nations.