Secure borders – moral or immoral?
To the editor:
Secure borders will not destroy our ability to assist those in need of help. No one denies that the living conditions of many in Central America are terrible, but better to do a good job of helping fewer than to allow a situation where we are not doing right by the many. The numbers needing help in Mexico and Central America-and, for that matter, all over the world (including our own country) go well beyond 90,000. America has historically done its best to provide assistance where it sees a need, but it has in the past and will in the future never be able to do it all.
As hard as we try, we cannot fix the problems of the world by an all-inclusive comprehensive immigration policy. Being realistic will allow us to help more, rather than being indiscriminate and idealistic about something that is impossible to accomplish. The Lord has blessed us as we live as citizens of the US. He has placed us in our particular situations to “bloom where we are planted.” He wants us to show love to our fellow man, but He does not expect us to do it all.
Some speak of comprehensive immigration as a moral imperative, and I have been accused of being immoral for the stand I take on immigration. It is interesting that liberals will accuse conservatives of sitting and watching and being uncaring and heartless, but more often than not it is the conservatives who are doing charitable work. No one is advocating sitting and watching. There is plenty to do in our immediate situations without setting in place a policy containing details that may create more problems than it solves.
I hope we can return to being a nation who welcomes legal immigrants in an orderly manner to this land of opportunity. That does not preclude caring for those in need. Do we want meaningful borders to protect our citizens – or are we interested in merely seeing lines on a map? Which view is moral? Are these legitimate points to debate?