By snoadmin
This editorial isn’t only about immigration issues. It isn’t about Latino issues. This isn’t about who’s coming into the country, whether legally or without government permission, but it is about who is already here.
Yeah, we said it; immigration reform’s most important feature is not the national focus on immigration at all; it concerns developing the society we live in and demanding the change we need to progress.
The truly patriotic, those who understand the foundations this country is built upon, those who can separate reality from ideology and realize what is best for their country, wouldn’t disagree.
The election of President Barack Obama opened a door for change. No, we’re not buying into campaign promises, but the truly patriotic, those who fit the above mentioned proscriptions, wouldn’t disagree that this administration has adopted a policy, at least domestically, for change.
Whether this change is good or bad is not going to be determined by Obama or his administration. If you disagree, we suggest opening a political science textbook. This administration has simply opened a door that we, as a nation, must step through.
Health care reform is, as we speak, at the doorstep and we’re willing to bet the recycled paper we print our news on that immigration reform is right there behind it.
Last week, about 100 House Democrats signed a letter addressed to Obama pushing for the immigration reform he promised. One of the signees, Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, promised a major immigration reform bill as early as next month.
While we neither advocate nor oppose implementing an immigration bill before health care is off the table, this is a great step for what we like to call “good change.”
Change, contrary to popular belief, is not always bad or always good. We at the Daily 49er believe change can be both good and bad. The catch is, only the truly patriotic, again, those who fit the previously mentioned attributes, are capable of distinguishing between the two.
Just like any other issue, immigration reform is susceptible to good change and bad change. We must note, however, that no change would be just plain bad.
Expanding the Immigration and Customs Enforcement — rounding up every undocumented human in an effort directed at massive deportation — would be “bad change.” The truly patriotic would not disagree because doing so would separate families, steal from our culture and further weaken our economy.
Opening our borders and allowing anyone who wishes to enter the country to just walk in would be another example of bad change. The truly patriotic would also not disagree because this would put our citizens’ safety at risk, dilute our American identity and further weaken our economy.
Yes, the economy is always a key player.
Extremism is ignorance. It stems from a simplistic understanding of any issue. This is why comprehensive immigration reform would be good change.
We ask the question, what is “good change” when it comes to immigration reform?
Gutierrez seems to be on the right page. He wants future immigration to be based on geographic needs.
For example, if Oklahoma needs workers, guest workers would be allowed to work there exclusively and not in any other state. That might be good change.
He wants to produce a path to citizenship for productive people already here. That also could be considered good change. He wants smarter border enforcement, which means people will not be able to violate our country’s laws. This might be good change.
With these guiding principles intact, it’s difficult to imagine why anyone — truly patriotic — would be against it.
This administration has opened a door for our nation. Why shouldn’t we walk through it and accept nothing less than “good change?”
