A Solution To The Immigration Conundrum

As I promised in my last blog post, I hereby present my idea of how to solve this very difficult problem of illegal immigration in our country. Before going into my ideas about illegal immigration, two facts need to be appreciated. The first is that there is a limited amount of arable land in Mexico—inadequate to support Mexico’s population with food, especially as the Mexican population increases. The other fact is that Hispanic immigrants to the United States send about $15-20 billion back across the border in the form of remittances to help support their families in their homeland every year. To counter the influx of immigrants I would:

• First of all, the fence across the Mexican border should be built and manned so that it is, indeed, impermeable. Opponents of this idea say that it is pointless, because immigration has dwindled to a net zero in late months. I would posit that the decrease in net illegal immigration is due to the fact that there are practically no jobs available to undocumented aliens in the United States at this time. As soon as the economy improves, the influx of immigrants will resume.
• Next, I would develop a system whereby employers would be severely punished for hiring illegal immigrants. I will admit that this measure in itself might be enough to discourage illegal immigration even without the fence. The lack of jobs for undocumented immigrants has demonstrated its effectiveness in stopping significant amounts of illegal immigration for the time being.
• A system of legal guest worker movement into the United States should be established. This program would be similar to the Bracero Program of several decades ago. These workers should be given temporary immigration cards that clearly identify each one of them. The workers should be admitted according to the needs of the industries in the United States that need low income laborers, i.e., in agriculture, home service, and other service sectors.
• These guest workers should be allowed to send all the money they can spare back to their homes in Mexico. The amount they send back to Mexico should be subtracted from the $20 billion they are already sending home; and the difference should be given to the Mexican government to invest in education and agriculture. That money given back to the Mexican government must be closely monitored and administered by United States employees, at least until it is clear that the Mexicans can handle the money, themselves, without funneling it into their notorious criminal cartels. I do not believe this system would cost any more that the lack of a system we now have. We are paying far too much in social costs because of the chaotic present situation at the border today. My proposed system might even work without the fence; economic pressures might be effective in preventing illegal immigration. Presently, the people of the United States are up in arms about this problem of illegal immigration.

The federal government has completely failed to enforce the immigration laws on the books because it would like to encourage Hispanic voters to elect Democrats to public office. In response to this failure of the feds, the states have made life so difficult for Hispanic immigrants that they are having a very unpleasant time living here. This is another reason the flow of immigration has slowed for the time being. I would like for you to consider this issue and, perhaps, write to congressmen, senators, and the President with your ideas.

I would, again, to suggest that you look at a blog post by Henryk A. Kowalczyk I recommended in my last blog post. It has some worthwhile ideas for your consideration. http://bit.ly/I37WFe

Various Ideas About Illegal Immigration

My wife, Nancy, and I have been living among multitudes of Hispanic undocumented immigrants in Denver, Colorado, for many years. We have served this population of poor and helpless people in the best way we can through charitable Christian organizations. We know these people.

Lately, I have been looking at the various ideas of how the United States might handle our difficult problem with illegal immigration. One rich source of ideas and information is a web site authored by Henryk A. Kowalczyk.http://bit.ly/137WFe(paste into your browser). I do not agree with everything that Mr. Kowalczyk says, but he certainly has ideas that should be considered by us all. I would request that everyone interested in the problem of illegal immigration across the U.S./Mexico border look at his web site.

Another person to whom I have been listening is Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City. Mayor Bloomberg thinks the future of our country mostly rests with the beneficial effects of rather unrestricted immigration. He has a very rosy picture of Hispanic immigrants in the United States. Mayor Bloomberg is under some impressions that I cannot share. These impressions are as follows:

• Hispanics are ready and able to come to the United States, buy a house, and live here for five years without accessing any public services. This is just nonsense. These people are quite poor; and they have, for the most part, only a 3rd grade Mexican education. They have no money; and they cannot compete in the United States culture at this time. They do not buy houses or any real estate; they live in tenement apartment houses. The proprietors of these apartment houses tell me the immigrants move about every 11 months.
• Hispanic immigrants are capable of establishing entrepreneurial businesses. These poor people do not have the educational, economic, or cultural wherewithal to establish any kind of business. They work in construction projects or housekeeping jobs when someone else can hire them.
• Hispanic families are eager to have their children excel in school; and they are willing to work with their children to see that they do well. This is patently untrue. The immigrants we have seen in Denver have no interest in education. They can barely read their own language, themselves; and their only ambition seems to be that they want to get on some kind of government welfare program. Furthermore, they have no learning skills. They fail to recognize patterns in language, which is a skill taught in kindergarten; and they expect to learn how to speak English after attending 1-3 hours of instruction.

After all this, I would say that there is a way to help these very poor and helpless people in our country. We should do it, too! We have an obligation as good neighbors and Christians to help those people south of the border. We must think of ourselves as our brothers’ keepers in this issue. We must help others to come into the fellowship of man—they need help; and you will read about how this might come about if you will read Mr. Kowalczyk’ blog and look at my next blog post at http://www.manringen.blogspot.com (copy and paste into your browser).

Am I A Liberal? Well…Sort of.

At least, I used to be. I used to be the kind of liberal who believed in the protection and empowerment of individuals and institutions over against encroachment and invasion by the sovereign political power. I held views coeval with the emergence of ideas of constitutionally limited government, natural rights, a free-market economy, private property, civil liberties, and a robust sense of individualism. In those things, I still believe.

But… “liberalism” has changed. It has taken on the mantra of power instead of freedom, e.g., just try to proclaim the Christian message in the public square and see if the power of the society and of politically correct public discourse does not put the shutters on your mouth. That’s power in its most subtle and ubiquitous form. Just try to express your conscience-given ideas of the immorality of abortion or same-sex marriage and see what happens! No—present day “liberalism” will turn its back on you after it has thoroughly castigated you for your candor.

Present day liberalism more rightly goes by the name “progressivism,” and it is the politics of Presidents Obama and Clinton, of the Kennedys and of the Democratic Party. It has given up its moral underpinnings and now relies on trying to produce an equality of outcome rather than an equality of opportunity. It is a belief that puts its reliance on big government and bureaucracies. It is a system that says to the people, “You can have anything you want from the government if you just vote yourself the benefit. Somebody else will pay for it.” It is a system of thought and government that is doomed to fall, just as the socialist societies of Europe are doomed to fall for the obvious reason—the worker bees cannot keep up with the demands of the proletariat for government benefits.

Our society needs to regain the benefits of true, morality-based, liberal principles. We need to turn away from the era of big government and tell people what the truth is about how to live. The longer we keep our mouths shut, the worse this welfare-state situation in our country is going to be.

What Virtues Have Made America Really Great?

It is argued that there are four virtues of the American people that have allowed them to establish and maintain the preeminence in the world that we enjoy, today: Industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religiosity.

INDUSTRIOUSNESS: Francis Grund, writing in 1825 said, “Active occupation is not only the principal source of the Americans’ happiness, and the foundation of their natural greatness, but they are absolutely wretched without it…[It] is the very soul of an American; he pursues it, not as a means of procuring for himself and his family the necessary comforts life, but as the fountain of all human felicity.”

HONESTY: John Adams, looking at France and the Netherlands in the 18th Century commented on the difference between their revolutions and the revolution in America; he wrote: “It is a want of honesty, and if the common people in America lose their integrity, they will soon set up tyrants of their own.”

MARRIAGE: James Wilson, writing during the Revolutionary era said, “Whether we consult the soundest deductions of reason, or resort to the best information conveyed to us by history, or listen to the undoubted intelligence communicated in holy writ, we shall find that to the institution of marriage the true origin of society must be traced…. To that institution, more than to any other, have mankind been indebted for the share of peace and harmony which has been distributed among them.” And Cicero said “The first bond of society is marriage.”

RELIGIOSITY: John Adams wrote: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

The above thoughts are encompassed in a fine book by Charles Murray, “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010.” I strongly recommend this book to you all.

Souls in Transition: notes on a book by Christian Smith

I have recently read the book by the above title, which has some important things to say about our American culture. This book presents a study of what happens to the religious and social orientation and characteristics of people transitioning into adulthood from adolescence—it looks at people between the ages of 18-23 (hereafter called "emerging adults"). Following is my redaction of a significant message from this book:

It seems difficult, if not impossible, in this world for emerging adults to actually believe anything objectively real or true that can be rationally maintained in a way that might require people to change their minds or lives. Truth and reality are considered unreal facts in the world of emerging adults. For them, all knowledge and value are historically conditioned and culturally relative. Emerging adults have not been equipped with adequate intellectual and moral tools to evaluate the facts of culture/society, so…they just rely on how they feel about their world and do not worry about making any kind of impact on culture. And…as a result, they do not criticize anything that other people choose to believe, feel, or do. One way of life, for them, is just as good as any other way of life. Everything to them is relative, anyway. They will not risk being rude, presumptuous, intolerant, or unfeeling.

All of the above encourages the true virtues of humility and openness to difference. This is, after all, a good quality; but it hamstrings them from being able to decide what is right, good, and true. This leaves them uncertain about basic values; and, therefore, they are suffering from a troubling uncertainty about life’s big questions—they are adrift in a very complex world without guideposts. Some of them might want to move forward, but they feel paralyzed, not knowing how they might possibly know anything worthy of conviction and dedication. A lot of this fuzziness in life’s questions has been fostered by academia’s penchant for deconstructive postmodernism, which has sought to reduce all knowledge and value claims to arbitrary exertions of power and control. The glut of information on the Internet causes a lack of authorized gatekeepers to judge, evaluate and rank the merits or value of excess data.

Emerging adults struggle to establish themselves as autonomous and sovereign individuals, with unfettered freedom. The problem is, however, that they do not know what to do with their freedom; they lack conviction and direction. They lack larger visions of what is true and real and good in both the private and the public realms. One thing that hampers them from resolving their dilemma is a slavish obsession imposed on them by the culture driving them to establish private, material, comfort and personal possessions—this seems to be a key purpose in their lives.

Some, but not all, emerging adults spend their undirected lives in the amusements of alcohol and drug intoxication, and the temporary thrills of hook-up sex; but many of them have found these activities unsatisfying and dangerous. Some of them are looking for something more meaningful; but they have great difficulty finding it in their worlds. Thus ends the redaction part of this post.

Well…if any of my readers are interested in knowing more about this very interesting group of Americans, I can strongly recommend the above book. Thanks for reading!

“We have no king but Caesar!” John 19:15

Thus cried the Jewish leaders at the hearing by Pilate. It is interesting to note just what they were doing at that time: They were actually doing one of the things for which they were demanding crucifixion of Jesus. They had inaccurately accused him of pointing out a false God, i.e., himself; but they failed to realize that he was right all the time. Now they were actually doing the unthinkable—claiming that their true king was, of all persons, Caesar!! How could the Jewish leaders have made such a ludicrous mistake?! Hatred and jealousy can do strange things to well-meaning people. They were trying to stand up for their traditional religious system and the religion of Moses; but…they were SO VERY MISGUIDED by their near-sighted and selfish pride.

Do you and I do the same kind of thing at times? How many times do we condemn others for hanging pornographic pictures on the walls of their homes when we harbor pornography in our hearts? Don’t get me wrong—I am not saying that we should not condemn pornography; but I am saying that we need to cleanse our own values, motives, and affinities before we condemn the same things in others.

How many times do we condemn dishonesty in others when we go home and fudge on our income tax report? How often do we criticize others for greed when we lay up cars, vacation homes, excess clothing and any number of other things we do not need for our own use?

My plea is this: Let’s look to ourselves before we condemn others. But…when we find error and sin in ourselves, let us look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith for the forgiveness and genuine cleaning of our motives. Only he can make our criticism of the evil practices we see in our world accurate and efficacious.

A Contrast To My Husband’s Attitude Toward Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act (ACA)

By Nancy Manring

I do not like Obamacare for the following reasons:

1) I believe that insurance companies should be able to tailor their premiums to the actual cost of insuring various demographic groups. For instance, before Obamacare came into existence, single women had to pay more money for health insurance. That was because women use more medical services, and they cost more to insure. For that reason, they should have to pay more for their insurance. People with preexisting conditions are another group that is particularly difficult for insurance companies to insure. In order to insure these expensive patients, insurance companies must have some mechanism for covering them. It is unfair for the majority of insured people to cover the costs of these very expensive patients. However, this might be an area where special government funding could be a beneficial idea. The government already does this with patients who have chronic kidney failure under the Medicare program.

2) I believe that if Medicare-like insurance is provided to people at little or no cost, they will use medical services more and will, therefore, cost more money to insure. If they had more personal responsibility for their health care costs, they would use health services less.

3) The ACA provides people the option of avoiding the purchase of health insurance if they are willing to pay a nominal penalty. That way, they can buy health insurance when they get sick and drop their coverage when they are well, again. This will increase the cost of providing health care to them by a large amount.

4) If the ACA acts like socialized medicine in Great Britain and Canada, health services will be overwhelmed by increased demand. Waiting times and postponed surgery schedules will delay treatment significantly and cause long lines for care in emergency rooms and urgent care facilities.

5) The ACA does not address tort reform, a problem that is causing lots of trouble with frivolous lawsuits and expensive lawyer fees. If that problem, alone were addressed in a much simpler bill, I believe that health care costs would be impacted very favorably.

6) Most important is the fact that ACA encroaches on freedom of religion. ACA insists that Catholic employers must give their employees access to free birth control, which is against the teaching of the Catholic Church. No matter who pays for the birth control, the Church or other insurance companies ACA is eroding on church teachings. When will other churches and other religious teachings be eroded?

7) Although abortion isn’t explicitly mentioned in the healthcare bill, it is implicitly mentioned under women’ healthcare. Who would think that abortions will not be paid for under a bill authored by such an anti-reproductive, pro-abortion minded president such as we have now.

8) I do believe in the function of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an agency that is being created by the ACA. This board is the rationing part of the ACA. I believe that this board will decrease implementation of useless, expensive, medical and surgical procedures that are driving up health care costs. Many of these procedures are undertaken at the end of life in old people when the prospect for significant length of life is gone, anyway. But this rationing can be done other ways than through a federal healthcare law.

I think this country can rid itself of this healthcare bill in 2 ways. The Supreme Court can cripple it by refusing to uphold the mandate on insurance for everyone, and/or we can elect Santorum for president. Romney says he will repeal the healthcare law, but I think that is merely a campaign promise. Santorum is running for president mainly because he wants to repeal the healthcare law. It is in his heart.