ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION AND THE U. S. MILITARY.
--Robert Klein Engler
 

CHICAGO--(29 May '07) At a Memorial Day barbecue where the issue of illegal immigration is an inevitable topic of discussion, I ask the woman sitting next to me at a garden table, "How would you feel if the military took over the country?" She displays her liberal perspective and wit when she asks back, "Haven't they, already?"

I sip my beer and decide to remain speechless. Nevertheless, two thoughts go through my mind: Is a military coup possible in our age of divisive politics, and will a military coup be accepted? When I return home and do more research, my answer to both these questions comes to be a reluctant, "Yes!"

The blogosphere is already charged with anger from both left and right about a possible military takeover in the United States. It seems, too, that worry over the proposed immigration bill has charged much of that anger. In such a context, most of the debate centers on a recent comment by Thomas Sowell.

Appearing in the NationalReview.com, Sowell writes, "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can't help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup."

Commentators from both left and right mull over Sowell's words. A man writes, "This is one of the most concise statements of the Western crisis I have seen." Still another argues, "Why not through a military coup? Less blood and chaos than civil wars or popular revolutions."

"Scratch a conservative, wound a fascist," was how someone who disagrees with Sowell expresses himself in Patrick Drum's blog, Political Animal. Another writes. "It's one bullet point in a long series of dyspeptic observations about how liberals have ruined the country." And in a reference to the missteps in Iraq, yet another says ironically, "I hope Republicans are the ones to decide how many troops they're going to need."

 
A Military Coup May be Possible in the United States.
 

Military coups happen in many nations. Why should the United States be immune from them? Chile, Fiji and Argentina are a few contemporary examples. In his article, "Politics, Professionalism, and Peacekeeping: An Analysis of the 1987 Military Coup in Fiji," Andrew Scobell discusses a coup that took place in a relatively small nation state. The complexity and scale of U. S. society may mean that structural conditions prevent a similar type of military coup from taking place here. Yet, structural conditions do change.

This change seems to be one of the points made by Gerard Alexander's Policy Review article. In "Making Democracy Stick," Alexander writes, "...there are compelling reasons to believe that certain structural conditions threaten democracies in ways that cannot be overcome simply by a desire for self-rule."

Is it possible that structural conditions are changing in the United States? If so, then a military coup is not out of the question here, given these changes. Certainly, the addition of 40 million new immigrants from nonwestern cultures constitutes a radical structural change for any society.

Another large scale terrorist attack in the United States could be the precipitating factor that would trigger a military coup. If our troops are brought home from Iraq by the Democrats who also win the next Presidential election, then combat tested soldiers are at hand.

The troop surge planned by President Bush most likely will not work in Iraq, but neither will a withdrawal proposed by the Democrats. What will work in Iraq is a growing awareness that the problem there is really Iran and Islam.

The exhausted metaphor of "a war on terror" cannot carry its own weight in Iraq, anymore. Furthermore, the mistake President Bush makes in Iraq is the same mistake he makes in regard to illegal immigration and amnesty: cultures cannot be changed as easily as currency.

Although many Democrats may not admit our problems with Islam in Iraq, when it comes to immigration, the tables are turned. Many Republicans are blinded by the light of cheap labor and the gauze of compassion. A worsening military situation in Iraq and 20 million illegal aliens given amnesty may be the two straws that break the camel's back in the ranks of the officer corps.

By voting against funding our troops, both Senators Clinton and Obama have set themselves squarely against the institution of the military. If either of them were elected President, a few career minded junior officers probably would have no qualms removing either of them from office by a coup.

Given structural changes brought on by uncontrolled immigration, some of these junior officers will start talking in secret and among themselves about doing the unimaginable. For these officers, their pledge of duty, honor and country will leave them with few choices.

There are some who argue that, "The armed forces of the United States, in the normal course of events will not engage in a coup or insurrection. The sacred duty of our military is inculcated so deeply in their hearts they would rather die than bring dishonor on themselves or their forebears." If this were always true, then we would not find General Robert E. Lee commanding Confederate forces, nor would we have suffered the Civil War.

Here is one dilemma for some junior military officers recently graduated from West Point or tested in the crucible of Iraq: How can they be fighting abroad for U. S. interests, while at home politicians are using immigration to dissolve the U. S. Constitution in favor of a North American Union?

The tide may rise on this dilemma, or the tide may fall. It is possible that something along the lines of what Samuel P. Huntington calls a "Breakthrough Coup" may be just around the corner. If these junior officers carry on with their career and do nothing, then the country they are sworn to defend may disappear into the hands of a tyrannical, multicultural majority.

The possibility of a military coup in the United States will emerge as an issue where the ideal versus the practical. To what degree will the ideals born from the Declaration of Independence and the U. S. Constitution give birth to those who conclude that the only practical way to preserve those ideals is by suspending them?

Many of our military bases are in the southern states. Many of our professional military personnel are also from southern states. It is from these bases and with these members of the military that a coup could begin.

It is not difficult to imagine how a military campaign will move the army up from the south, to take first Washington, D. C., and send the Congress and the Senate home. The President will either go along with the coup or be replaced. The Supreme Court will be ignored. Then, the new military leaders will occupy the broad conservative middle of the country, isolating the liberal east and west coasts.

Some military planners argue that the traditional rivalry between branches of the armed services is a safeguard against any branch effecting a coup like the one imagined here. Yet, if enough air force officers go along with army and marine officers, then they will neutralize any reluctant naval officers at sea. Such a military coup has a high chance of being successful.

Once Texas is brought in and the border with Mexico is secure, deportations will begin. Some larger cities like Chicago may offer resistance, but they will eventually fall in line to the military's demands. More difficult will be New York and California. Isolated from each other by thousands of miles, it will be just a matter of time before they surrender. You can imagine that in about six months the military will achieve practical control of the continental United States.

 
Would a Military Coup be Accepted
 

Who would resist a military coup in the United States? Not some of my friends at this suburban garden party. If the malls stay open, then they will keep their mouths shut. Certainly not most intellectuals and academicians. Many of them are self-serving cowards.

Would the fringe left man the barricades? Perhaps in some of our major cities already controlled by anti-American minorities they would, but they would be no match for a well organized army of occupation.

Would the labor unions in the United States hold a general strike against the military occupation? I doubt it. Most unions are ineffectual to begin with, and others are obstacles to success. Can anyone imagine the Chicago Teachers Union closing the public schools in opposition to a military coup? Some parents in Chicago would see it as a blessing. Their children would probably learn more away from many of Chicago's schools then they do attending them.

Would the mainstream media resist a military coup? Most likely, not. Many members of the media are simply talking heads. Few in their audience imagine Katie Couric as Delacroix's "Liberty Leading the People."

Many Americans are so weary of politics they would prefer to stay home and watch their new HDTVs then protest in the streets. Other traditional Americans, hungry for immigration justice, will welcome the troops as liberators and wave American flags for them.

There are untold numbers of Americans who are disappointed with Congress and the Senate because of proposed legislation that will give millions of illegal aliens amnesty. These Americans may accept a military coup as a necessary evil to save the nation they know from being overrun by cultures they do not know.

If a military coup means Americans could make a phone call in English, without having to hear "oprima dos por Español," these Americans would look the other way when the military rolls into town.

What would other nations think about a military coup in the States? Maybe the British and French would for once think it is good to imitate Americans. Perhaps the ironic Germans would say, "See, we were right all along!" Others, however, may begin to worry.

If you were planning a military strategy for China or al-Queda, then how would you look on the military seizing power in the United States? First, you would have to know if the military chooses socialism or fascism. If it is a multicultural socialism, then a Chinese or al-Queda world victory is assured. No need to worry, then. However, if the U. S. military chooses fascism, then you begin to worry.

Policy analysts in China, al-Queda and the coming Sino-Islamic alliance may worry most about a military coup from the right, similar to what happened in Chile, happening in the United States. Chinese foreign policy and al-Queda's terror policy is directed to making sure the United States becomes weak through multiculturalism. Anything else could be a harbinger of defeat.

Caught up in the day-to-day trivia of life at a suburban barbecue, it is almost impossible to imagine a future world without the United States of America. Safe for a time on a metaphorical latifundia, the new Romans dip crusty bread in olive oil and look out to the horizon where the sun sets behind a row poplar trees. The small chaos of the day falls into the great chaos of night.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.
 


 

 


.MAKING ENDS MEET ON IMMIGRATION REFORM.

--Robert Klein Engler


CHICAGO--(23 May '07) In 1922 the Spanish playwright Jacinto Benavente y Martinez published Los malhechores del bien, or "The Evildoers of Good." The irony of this play about those whose bad actions unintentionally produce good is still lost on some, today. Likewise, is it not possible to imagine another drama where Los bienhechoes del mal, or "The Do-gooders of Evil" with their seemingly good intention, produce bad results?

The new immigration law being discussed in the U. S. Senate may be a case where men who want to do good will eventually do evil. How could supposedly rational men of good will come to a point where they will pass legislation that could erase the nation they claim to defend, or at the very least abolish the Republican Party?

Furthermore, how could both ends of the political spectrum find common cause in this latest offer of amnesty to illegal aliens? Obviously, there is more at work in these Senate deliberations than reason leading us from point "A" to point "B" and then to point "C."

Most politicians want power. If it happens that their quest for power corresponds to the general good, then we are fortunate to have what some call wise rulers. More often than not we stumble through their policies and make do until their unintended consequences come upon us, often with catastrophic results. Revolutions and civil wars then follow.

What we decide about immigration in the next few months will have lasting impact on the future of the United States. Our lawmakers, in their obvious attempt to keep political power, may even vote unintentionally to dissolve the United States. In all of this they remain men and woman whose motives, like our own, are a mixture of insight and passion.

Perhaps we may understand better the motivation of two of the leading Senators in these proposals to alter the nature of our country, if we try to imagine how their personal experiences may have shaped unconsciously their politics and their policies.

According to a Wikipedia article, in July 1967 on aircraft carrier Forrestal, "About 10:50 (local time), a Zuni rocket, accidentally fired from an F-4 Phantom II by an electrical power surge, hit an A-4 Skyhawk getting ready to launch, piloted by Lt. Cmdr. John McCain. The missile struck and knocked off the aircraft's fuel tank and started a fire. With his aircraft surrounded by flames, McCain escaped from his jet by climbing out of the cockpit, walking down the nose, and jumping off the refueling probe."

Looking back on this incident, New York Times reporter Michael Cooper (April 29, 2007) writes, "Each time he (McCain) went to take off from the aircraft carrier Forrestal, he would hand his helmet to Tom Ott...who would clean his visor before he taxied out. The day of the Forrestal fire, 'He was standing there and he'd just handed my helmet back to me when the missile hit and he was incinerated in the fire,' Mr. McCain said. 'I always remember him with great affection but a little bit of guilt because he was standing there because of my idiosyncrasy.'"

Two years later, on the other side of the world, the future of another politician was shaped. "The Chappaquiddick incident refers to the circumstances surrounding the 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker for Senator Kennedy. Kopechne was killed when the Senator drove his mother's vehicle off of a bridge and into a channel after a party at Chappaquiddick Island, Martha's Vineyard. Due to the circumstances of the incident and the way in which it was handled, it quickly became a national scandal."

Larry J. Sabato writes, "At the time, Kennedy managed to escape severe legal and political consequences for his actions thanks to his family's connections (which helped to contain the inquest and grand jury) and to a nationally televised "Checkers"-like speech broadcast a week after the accident. But virtually no journalist who has closely examined the evidence fully believes Kennedy's story, and almost 30 years later, the tragedy still trails the senator."

In that televised speech, Kennedy reportedly said about the Chappaquiddick incident, "There is no truth, no truth whatever, to the widely circulated suspicions of immoral conduct that have been leveled at my behavior and hers regarding that evening."

Now, we come to a point where two U. S. Senators from opposing parties join together to propose immigration legislation that will alter the future of the United States. Both men are mature, and nearing the end of their lives. Now, also, is the time when we can expect the return of the repressed. Do they see themselves as do-gooders? Will what they propose make them do-gooders of evil?

The guilt we do not know can move us to do the opposite of what should be done. In his article, "The Political Meaning of Unconscious Guilt," political scientist Roger W. Smith writes, "Unconscious guilt, however, is not really an explanation; it is, at bottom, a metaphor of reconstruction, a weapon of war to shape political society." Smith's provocative article, heavy on Freudian analysis, should be read by those who want to do good, but in the end may do the opposite.

No government policy is without its opposite, or its unintended consequences. When a politician, speaking about illegal aliens says that we must "Bring them out into the sunlight," then we must also bring out to the sunlight the private motives for that politician's public actions. We may expect too much from the next generation if we hope that someday they will say, "We forgive you for you knew not what you did."


Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.




.MISTAKES, HISTORY AND THE BUSH PRESIDENCY.

--Robert Klein Engler


CHICAGO--(12 May '07) There seems to be no end to the obstacles the Democrats place in front of President Bush these days. Then there is the drive-by media that blames him for everything from global warming to overweight children. You'd think George W. Bush was going to be on the ballot again, when in fact his administration is coming to an end.

How will the Bush administration be judged by history, if there is a judgment that can extract itself from politics? Certainly, many feel the Bush administration has made mistakes, but all administrations do, so how are these mistakes any different from other past presidents and their failures?

It is possible that future historians will see the two great mistakes made by the Bush administration stem from the same source. The Bush administration was mistaken about the importance of culture and civilization in shaping national and international events. In short, they were bad anthropologists. Bad anthropology fools us into believing that American values will be readily accepted abroad or that foreigners will readily assimilate to American values when they live in the U. S.

This bad anthropology also leads to a misunderstanding of the two current enemies of the United States: Iran and Mexico. Iran, the U. S. and Mexico have different world views shaped by their culture and religion. The differences in these world views cannot be smoothed by oil or folded into tacos. The Bush administration's attempt to wage a politically correct war in Iraq and it's support for an open border with Mexico demonstrates how a failed anthropology leads to failed foreign and domestic policies.

In the summer of 1993, Professor Samuel P. Huntington's article "The Clash of Civilizations?" appeared in the journal Foreign Affairs. He wrote, "The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics."

Professor Huntington further argued that the future source of conflict in the world would be along what he called "cultural fault lines." These fault lines are where two different cultures meet. We could expect conflict when Western Civilization or nations confront Islamic and Latin Civilization or nations. This is what is happening now with the U. S. One conflict is happening far away and the other is happening in our neighborhoods.

At the time, Huntington's article garnered interest among academicians, but not among many politicians nor among policy makers. Yet, in the intervening years, much of what Huntington predicted has come to pass. Most specifically, ignoring what Huntington wrote has lead to the two great mistakes of the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and immigration reform.

It becomes more evident each day that the single cause of unrest and terror in Iraq is Islam and support by Iran, while at home, there seems to be no end to the number of illegal aliens Mexico is sending to live in the United States and the special interest groups that profit from their cheap labor.

Instead of a secure border and a policy to either contain, conquer or convert Iran, we are left with policies that are halfway measures. A path to citizenship or an Iraqi strategy that ignores the Islamic threat from Iran are policies that tread water. In spite of them, the tide is rising and sooner or later cultural conflicts will swamp either this administration or the next one.

Were the Bush Administration's mistakes avoidable? It is hard to imagine given the business and political interests that brought this administration to power, how it could have accepted the analysis of a cultural conflict with Islam, or the necessity of mass deportation to maintain the integrity of the U. S.

When the Democrats prefer defeat in Iraq and amnesty for all who manage to make it into the U. S., it is hard to imagine how their policies make the nation more secure than the Republican policies they oppose. Given the Democratic alternatives of open borders and multiculturalism, the half steps forward by the Bush Administration may be seen as prudent policies by future historians compared with the backward steps of the Democrats.

Those nations born from liberal revolutions like the U. S. and France that ignore the clash of civilizations, may eventually succumb to the absolutism of Islam and the migration of foreign peoples. A civilization of true believers will always dominate a civilization addicted to relativism, no matter how enlightened they believe that relativism to be.

At the very least, the mistakes of the Bush Administration postponed the disintegration of the U. S. for a generation. Perhaps that is as far into the future as anyone who wants political power is able to see.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.
 

 

AGAINST ALL ODDS AT THE BORDER.

--Robert Klein Engler

CHICAGO--(9 April '07) The debate over "comprehensive immigration reform" will capture again the attention of both Congress and the media. Few in either of these institutions will come out and say that at the heart of this debate is the issue of amnesty: how many should get that amnesty and through what means?

The truth is we do not need comprehensive immigration reform. What we need is to have the laws already on the books enforced. What we need is enforcement, deportation and secure borders. It is wrong to say our immigration system does not work: it is Congress that does not work for the interest of the nation.

In spite of efforts by groups like NumbersUSA and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, it looks like Congress and the media may take the easy way and do what should not be done: go along with all the special interests arrayed against enforcement, deportation and secure borders. Congress will offer some kind of amnesty to the more than 12 million who are in the U. S. illegally.

The special interests groups who oppose enforcement, deportation and secure borders are legion. They believe that their might will make right. It is worth listing these groups so that ordinary Americans understand the forces that are dissolving their country and diminishing their citizenship.

MEXICO is the main cause of the illegal alien problem in the United States. It is in the interest of Mexican elites to have an open northern border. This open border drains off social unrest in Mexico and sends it to the United States. An open border means the Mexican elites do not have to solve the social problems of Mexico. Yet, pushing their poverty into the U. S. will solve little. It just makes those problems worse as Mexico depends more and more on remittances.

Many Mexicans want to come to the U. S. for their part of the so-called "American Dream." They do this because there is no Mexican Dream. All there is south of our border is a Mexican nightmare.

Add to this the fact that according to a 2002 Zogby International poll, 58% of Mexicans agree with the statement that "The territory of the United States' southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico," then it is little wonder why Mexico does nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigrants from their nation.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH and other Christian missionaries are also partly to blame for the illegal immigration problem in the U. S. Most Mexicans grew up in a culture influenced by Roman Catholicism and Christianity. You'd think the Church would preach to them to avoid breaking immigration laws, having anchor babies and aiding drug smugglers, but it does not.

Perhaps the greater struggle the Church has with secularism puts these sins on hold and ignores traditional Catholic theology about the importance of nations. This could be why Bishop Barnes misrepresents U. S. history when he claims our nation is a nation of immigrants. In fact, the U. S. was first a nation of settlers. Regrettably, it was also a nation of slaves, who by definition were not immigrants.

Bishop Barnes claims, "The Catholic Church is not in favor of illegal immigration. However, it recognizes the right of people to emigrate from countries that cannot meet their basic needs. Millions of people are here illegally because the laws are unworkable and should be changed."

"Why not have the immigration laws enforced?" some parishioners ask. "Why not preach social change to the Mexican government?" others wonder. Theology seems to slip easily on the oil of politics in the sermons of many who do not want to face the moral issue inherent in breaking immigration laws.

INTERNATIONAL MARXISTS AND SOCIALISTS both in the U. S. and Mexico want open borders. It is ironic that some Roman Catholics would be in league with these enemies of the Church, but when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration, money in the collection plate seems to take precedence over theological truths.

It is a wonder, too, why the media does not ask the open border and "sin frontera" representatives if they are Marxists or socialists. For most Marxist, illegal aliens are workers who advance their social theory of revolution. The undocumented are pawns in the struggle against capitalism.

The U. S. media, with its leftist sympathies, plays right into the hands of these Marxists. In turn, Marxist sentiments for open borders encourages the media to have closed mouths and closed eyes.

BIG BUSINESS in the U. S. wants the cheap labor that hoards of illegal immigrants promise. Many in corporate America are ironic Marxists, too, for their motives are for the most part economic. The executives who hire illegal workers put profit before patriotism. While they may give money to the Republican Party, their real allegiances are transnational.

And why shouldn't they be? Their transnational lives saw them long ago cut any roots to the local. These executives live like sphagnum moss, seemingly off air in their penthouses far removed from the barrios. They have more allegiance to their stock options than they do to the American flag.

Many corporate executives see nations and borders as obstacles to their business interests and the free flow of capital. Yet, some are not completely without ties. If patriotism could increase profits, then, of course they would be for that, up to a point.

When Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York City says, "Although they broke the law by illegally crossing our borders...our city's economy would be a shell of itself had they not, and it would collapse if they were deported," he sounds more like an Ante-bellum plantation owner defending slavery in the South, than an elected official who should defend the laws of the land.

LABOR UNIONS have been on the decline since the 70s. Many unions look favorably on the numbers of low paid, illegal immigrants coming into the U. S. to boost their membership rolls. According to Morgan O. Reynolds, "In the United States union membership in the private sector peaked at 17 million in 1970 and had fallen to 10.5 million by 1989. Moreover, the annual decline is accelerating."

Little wonder interest in unions is declining. Unions regularly betray their members, and have large bureaucracies and executives with bloated salaries. This is often evident in teachers unions. As the quality of our public schools has gone down, the salary of teacher union officials has gone up.

If illegal immigrants can be organized, especially in the service industries and education, then these union officials have a chance to regain lost power and influence. With union membership declining, someone has to pay National Education Association president Reg Weaver's more than $250,000 a year salary. With that salary also comes regular NEA endorsements of Democratic Party candidates.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY wants big government and more voters. They can get both by turning illegal immigrants into victims. Millions of illegal aliens are a perfect school of fish for Democratic Party leaders to cast their bait. Latinos already outnumber African-Americans in the U. S., so if the Latino vote can be manipulated, Democrats could stay in power, especially in our big cities, indefinitely.

Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center recognizes the importance of the Latino vote. He says, "There is a big demographic wave of Hispanic kids who are native born who will be turning 18 in even greater numbers over the next three, four and five election cycles." Because the Democrats favor the false compassion of amnesty, these numbers favor their party over the Republicans.

By themselves, each of the above interest groups would have minimal impact on immigration policy. Taken together, and combined with the apathy of many American voters, a powerful array of forces is set against our national survival.

With vested interests against enforcement, deportation and secure borders, the odds of Congress adopting an immigration policy that benefits the average citizen are small. Because of this, the lives of U. S. citizens will get worse. There will be higher taxes, more overcrowded schools, more bilingualism, failing hospitals, a downturn in wages and a growing sense among ordinary citizens that there is something fundamentally unfair and lose in the land.

Even having Congress do nothing would be better than a comprehensive immigration reform bill that offers amnesty in disguise. Comprehensive immigration reform with amnesty now, will simply mean more reform will be needed in 10 years. By then, unless trends are reversed, there will be no United States of America left. An immigration reform that gives away citizenship also gives away the nation.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.

ANCHOR BABIES USED AS HUMAN SHIELDS.

--Robert Klein Engler

CHICAGO--(19 March '07) Much has been written recently about the New York Times editorial describing an ICE raid that apprehended illegal immigrants working in Boston. The Times editorial claims that, "A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation's borders will be secure (March 15, 2007)."

This editorial has fired up the debate about just how reliable the left leaning New York Times is in reporting the news. We should not, however, be diverted from the story about the ICE raids and the arrest of the employer who hired these illegal immigrants, most of them women. If we dwell on the alleged misrepresentation in the editorial, and make that the story, then we miss the real story. That real story is the ever increasing use of children and anchor babies as human shields by illegal immigrants.

International law considers the use of human shields to protect targets a war crime. Nevertheless, human shields have been used by the Iraqis during the first Gulf War. The Israeli Defense Forces claim that Hezbollah and Hamas used human shields to stop the IDF from shooting at gunmen and rocket launchers. Now, illegal immigrant women are using their children as human shields to prevent their deportation from the U. S.

The use of children as human shields to prevent deportation is immoral on many levels. The recent arrests in Boston, and the prolonged case of Elvira Arellano's sanctuary in a Chicago church demonstrate this immorality.

It is obvious that many of the women who come to the U. S. illegally know they stand a better chance of not being deported if they use their children as human shields. From the point of view of both secular and religious morality, human beings, especially children, should not be used as a means to an end. Children are ends unto themselves, and are not pawns used in the game of deportation. Editors ought to wonder why the Catholic Church does not speak out about this abuse of family values.

In most immigration cases that use children as human shields, we find single women or women whose husbands are missing and probably still in Mexico. These children are living in situations without fathers. The first question that ought to be asked by the editors at the New York Times, is where are the fathers and why are they not supporting their families?

Are murderers and robbers to be let free because they have children who cannot be without a parent? We never hear this reported or editorialized about. Is the New York Times telling us that human shields and anchor babies are good when they protect political interests, but are bad when they do not?

A better way would be to see the objective evil done to children when their parents bring them illegally into the U. S. and use them as anchor babies or human shields. The women who do this are not victims, but immigration terrorists. The New York Times editors ought to report that many illegal aliens not only break our immigration laws, but are also cowards who hide behind their children.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.

 

THE "D" WORD AND IMMIGRATION REFORM.

--Robert Klein Engler

CHICAGO--(16 March '07) The illegal alien and immigration debate is heating up again. Many words are echoed by the talking heads and Washington, D. C. pundits: "amnesty," "guest worker program," "path to citizenship," "enforcement," and on and on. There is one word, however, that is seldom heard these days. It is the one word that will make immigration reform meaningful. That word is "Deportation!"

Recently, I was interviewed on Telemundo concerning the anniversary of the immigration marches in Chicago. I was asked what my solution to the illegal alien problem is. I said, "En una palabra: la deportacíon! In a word, deportation." Both the host of the show and the pro-illegal guest were shocked. It seems that the "D" word said on air is a word as bad as the "F" word or the "N" word.

What kind of law enforcement against drunk drivers would we have if every time the police stopped a drunk driver, they practiced "catch and release?" That is, let the driver go with just a warning. Strict enforcement of drinking and driving laws with appropriate punishment is the only way to have safe highways.

The same is the case for deportation. This nation cannot have any system of immigration laws without everyone around the world knowing that if you come here illegally you will be deported sooner or later. That is the only realistic way to enforce our immigration laws and maintain our quality of life.

Nevertheless, there are many who believe that deportation is unrealistic. "These people are here," they say, "and there is nothing we can do about it." To say this is to either give up on the future of your country, or to have no idea just how bad the immigration problem is in the U. S.

The only way to stop the Third World invasion of the U. S. is to start deporting people by the millions. The only way to preserve our way of life and culture is to start deportation tomorrow, and then keep it going at a rate of 2,750 persons per day for at least ten years. If it's possible for twenty-million people to sneak into our country illegally, then it's possible to cast out openly ten million.

Others say, "You can't have deportations. The media would be all over it. It just looks so bad hauling off screaming kids!" Those who say this are compassionate to a fault. What if they lost a family member to a drunk driver? Would they want that drunk driver to get off with a slap on the wrist and handed the keys to another car? Perhaps the compassionate cannot see just how illegal immigrants are criminals, too, who damage our country.

According to a poll by TNS released by the Washington Post and ABC News, fifty-six per cent of respondents think illegal immigrants hurt the country. Among the many problems caused by illegal immigrants that often go unreported are traffic deaths by illegals. WorldNetDaily claims, "The states with the most illegal aliens also have the most unlicensed drivers. Those states are also in the lead for the most hit-and-run accidents, according to reports issued by the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the Pew Hispanic Center."

Deportation can be done in a humane way. Churches may even assist in this project. Yet, even if they do not assist, mass deportation must begin soon. If we do not deport illegal aliens, then we are just inviting more to come here. If we do not deport the millions who are here illegally, then we are asking for social upheaval that may be more violent than we imagine.

Americans already suffered one war to preserve the union. Must we fight another? When it comes to solving our illegal alien problem, deportation must be spoken aloud and put into practice. We must not overlook the "D" word. Deportation is the real solution to comprehensive immigration reform.

Robert Klein Engler lives in Chicago and is an Illinois Minuteman. He is a graduate of the University of Chicago Divinity School. His book, A WINTER OF WORDS, about the turmoil at Daley College, is available from amazon.com.




www.illinoisminutemanproject.com