Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 5


Sep 20, 2016

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 5

Immigration Control

The question here in the United States is how to solve the immigration problem.

Bill O’Reilly was one of the few to present a concrete solution which was this:.

“Require all illegal aliens in the country right now to register at the post office with Homeland Security. After registering, they would be given a tamper proof ID card, designating their status and their right to work temporarily in the USA. If the illegal aliens do not register, it’s a criminal felony. Right now sneaking across the border is a civil action. Remember that. Subjecting the person to immediate deportation or jail time. The criminal penalty goes way up.

“Any business that hires an illegal worker who doesn’t have a tamper proof ID card faces draconian fines and possible prison time for the executives.

“Each illegal alien would have his case reviewed by federal authorities. And they would decide who would receive a Z-visa to stay and who would not. That takes the blanket amnesty, something many American hate, off the table. It also allows the feds to make rational decisions about who’s helping America and who isn’t.”

This is a little better than the last immigration bill but it would create about the same degree of virtual amnesty. It would cause of lot of them to register, but that alone wouldn’t change much.

What else can we do? Most do admit it is impractical to round up over 11 million people and send them home. Should we just accept the fact that they are here and make the best of it and concentrate on sealing the borders?

The only other alternative I have heard is to just work with current laws and deport illegals as they are caught by authorities. This wouldn’t round up a large number at one time but a handful here and there until a difference is made. Then we create a liberal work program for those who come across the border legally.

Then perhaps, most important of all, is to control the border itself.


“So I think you are quite wrong in this case in saying that “it wouldn’t change much.” This would change quite a bit, and for the better in my opinion.”

Actually, what I said was “that alone wouldn’t change much.”

By “that alone” I meant his plan for granting Z visas, but as far as the whole package goes I think it would make a difference. It is probably the most effective plan out there that has gotten national attention. He said that 87 percent of those responding to an online survey approved of it.

On the other hand, I do not think it would ever get through Congress. There are too many people courting the Spanish American vote that see future voters in the illegals.

The sad thing is that this wouldn’t be a major problem now if immigration had been dealt with intelligently in the past. We have waited too long to deal with it but better late than never.

One of the problems we have with border security is there are many who advocate open (or near open) borders.

Their argument goes something like this.

“We are a nation of immigrants. Some of the early immigrants created problems and were not wanted yet we took them in. We are being hypocritical for not doing the same today.”

This argument is very flawed for two reasons:

In the early days of this country we had a sparse population with a whole country to settle. At that time it was logical to offer an open invitation to all who wanted to come. In addition, the vast majority of those who came wanted to be Americans.

Now that the nation is overpopulated by people demanding many free services from government an influx of unskilled labor is not so desirable. A certain amount is needed and these should be controlled through legal measures.

Another thing we hear is that they are doing work that others we will not do. “Who’s going to mow your lawn?” they ask.

Well, duh, a lot of people mow their own lawns and do their own gardens. We’ve had three different companies mow our lawn over the past ten years and they’ve all been white guys and they’ve all been at a reasonable cost. I wouldn’t know who to call to get an illegal to mow my lawn.

“But how about the fields and the orchards? Who is going to pick our fruit?”

The answer is that we have done this ourselves in the past and could do it again. I worked for six years picking fruit side by side with Mexicans from age 12 to 18. Back in those days about half the workers were white and half were Mexican. I got pretty good at it and was generally the fastest guy in the orchard. Usually the only time I got out-picked was by a seasoned Hispanic who had been at it for many years.

I made more money picking fruit than most of my friends with salaried jobs. We got paid by the pound and the more we picked the more we made. As a teenager, I bought all my own clothes, schoolbooks, hunting, fishing gear and other hobbies, a car, and some of my own food. If you figure inflation in I probably made around twenty dollars (USD) an hour. I was motivated though for my sister and I lived with our mom who worked for minimum wage, or picked fruit herself, and received no welfare or child support. If I didn’t make money myself then I had none.

The only reason we do not see teenagers out in the fields today is that we have gotten soft and there are so many illegals that we just let them do it and give the kids an allowance for taking out the trash.

Some cite the inscription on the Statue of Liberty as a reason for open immigration. The inscription reads:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

Notice the key phrase here is “yearning to breathe free.” In the early days this country was an oasis of freedom in the world and we wanted immigrants who would support democracy, even if they were poor and downtrodden. We were building a nation out of wide open spaces and the desire to have and maintain freedom was the character trait most cherished.

Today the nation is built and many immigrants are loyal to their home country and culture. We thus have to take another look at what we want in immigrants. The desire to breathe free always stands, but we need to continue to seek out immigrants with talent whether they be from Mexico, or other nations. Bill Gates tells us that the importing of talent is one of the main reasons for our current standard of living and if we do not continue to pursue it we could see a great decline. The poor and unskilled also can offer a great service but the number allowed in should be controlled to match the need for labor as well as considering national security.

There is a huge controversy brewing as to whether we should build a fence on our border with Mexico. It’s too bad circumstances have led to this possible solution but concerns over terrorists crossing the border as well as an overflow of aliens is such that it is now considered by many rank and file citizens.

Ironically few politicians support the idea. Never has there been such a divide between what the politicians think we should have and what the public thinks. The 2007 immigration bill was supported by most politicians, but not the public. It was only when politicians received a drove of angry letters from constituents that some backed off and the bill was defeated.

It was largely defeated because to the public’s ears it sounded too much like the last one that did not work. We were promised in the past that our borders would be made secure and they were not. This time the promise was not believed because there the bill had no teeth. The thinking of many is this. First secure the borders and then we can start thinking more liberally toward those who are here.

Congress approved a couple billion dollars to build a 700 mile fence and little has moved forward on the project. Citizens feel politicians are dragging their feet and have no intention on building a fence. Now Trump wanting to build a fence is accused of being mean spirited and racist.

The fact is we have a 2000 mile border with Mexico. We need to either build a fence across the entire border or none at all. Taking half measures will not protect us from either terrorists or too much illegal immigration.

Israel resisted building a fence for decades, but now that they have constructed one there has been a dramatic decrease of illegals and suicide bombers. The people near the fences are now able to live in much greater peace and security than before the fence.

The problem we have with a fence is that even if the public wants it the politicians are afraid to support building it. Why? Because both Democrats and Republicans see the Spanish Americans as the new largest minority in the country and want to cater to their votes. They seem to forget about other voters.

On the other hand, if we have another 9/11 and it is linked to smuggling WMDs across the border then there will be a lot of foot dragging politicians voted out and new ones put in.

If we do not build a fence then we need to increase border security and possibly bring in the national guard to secure the borders. Advanced technology could also be employed.

In addition to regular security measure we need to do all in our power to use our influence to change the Mexican system to a more democratic government with free enterprise and individual initiative encouraged. If the people have good employment there the illegal immigration problem will go away. We have made many loans and done numerous favors for Mexico without asking anything in return. We ought to ask for some reform.

Most illegals are hard working honest people but they have their share of the criminal element. Right now when an illegal is caught committing a crime he is usually sent to jail in a U.S. prison which often gives him a better life than he had in Mexico and costs us 30-40,000 USD a year.

What we ought to do with these guys is send them back to Mexico and pay the Mexican government to take care of them in their own prison system. That would make an illegal think twice about committing a crime here.

In addition we also have the Canadian border to worry about. It is true that we do not have a large influx of Canadians wanting to come here because they have a reasonable economy but a terrorist could make it across that border with way too much ease. Securing this border also needs serious investigation.

Securing our borders and way of life is a major problem at present and there is no easy solution. In addition, politicians do not have the will to impose anything but a feel-good solution. That could change in a heartbeat, however, by means of a WMD being smuggled across the border.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE


Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 3


Sep 17, 2016

Toward Intelligent Progress, Part 3

Don’t Kill the Goose

In part two we established the principle (as taught in the parable of the virgins) that looking out for self interest is justified, especially when assisting others will hurt the giver and provide little assistance to the receiver. If the giver loses the power to give through indiscriminate giving then neither giver nor receiver will benefit in the future.

Aesop’s fable of the Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs comes to mind here:

One day a countryman going to the nest of his Goose found there an egg all yellow and glittering. When he took it up it was as heavy as lead and he was going to throw it away, because he thought a trick had been played upon him. But he took it home on second thoughts, and soon found to his delight that it was an egg of pure gold. Every morning the same thing occurred, and he soon became rich by selling his eggs. As he grew rich he grew greedy; and thinking to get at once all the gold the Goose could give, he killed it and opened it only to find,—nothing.

Again wholeness comes into play. In any action we take we must look at the end result for the whole rather than the immediate effect only.

In solving the immigration problems perhaps we should start with important, often overlooked factors.

The will of the American people.

So how do both sides agree on this issue? To hear the extremes speak you would think that there is no agreement.

The majority of both sides seem to agree on the following:

Something needs to be done to deal with the immigration problem.

The borders need to be made more secure.

There should be some program to legally allow non citizens to work in the country yet there needs to be some control on how many are allowed in as well as prevention of bringing in dangerous people.

Neither side wants wholesale rounding up and deportation even though many are accused of this.

Both claim to be concerned that a nuclear device or some other WMD could be smuggled across the border.

There is general disagreement on the following:

One side feels that all illegals should be given amnesty. The other feels they should remain with an illegal status since they broke our laws.

One side feels illegals need to have an ID so they will not illegally vote and take advantage our system as if they were full citizens. The other is against this.

One side thinks that employers need to be responsible for identifying illegal aliens and held responsible for hiring them. The other does not.

One side feels the current immigration laws need to be enforced and the other does not.

One side wants English to be our official language; the other does not.

One side wants illegals to receive social security benefits and the other does not.

There are more but this gives us a rough rundown of the current situation.

There is a core problem that has led to this awkward situation we are in and it is the cause of numerous other problems also. It is this.

When there is a problem Congress thinks the solution is to pass laws. They then pass the laws, but soon discover the laws do not work, Why? Because they are not enforced, except through selective prosecution. So what do they do? Do they actually try enforcing the law to see if their last legislation will work?

No. They do not. Instead, they pass new and often tougher laws. Now why do they expect the newer and tougher laws to be enforced when the easier laws were not?

Perhaps they are insane? Close, but not quite. Instead they are just lazy. It is much easier to pass a new law than to do something practical to solve a problem. Since it takes a couple years to make it obvious that the new legislation is futile the representatives can bask in their feel good law long enough for the public to forget about their stupidity.

An example of this was the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance law. This was given a boost when Gore and Clinton were found receiving illegal contributions from the Chinese and the Buddhist temple. Instead of enforcing the current law Congress merely said there was too much corruption because of not enough law.

Thus the McCain/Feingold law was passed. This was so strict that it even limited free speech 60 days before the election.

Did it work? No. The law was ignored and more money than ever was spent on elections. All kinds of shady lawbreakers surfaced but because they operated in a gray area the election was over before the courts could decide what was legal or not. After this, the political organizations knew what they could get away so they could flout the law more than ever.


The solution to a problem that occurs when laws are not enforced is not to make more laws that are also not enforced. First start with the laws we have. If we are not willing to do this we might as well erase them from the books. In many cases this would be a good idea.

A short-term solution must rely on law, but the long-term solution lies elsewhere. The solution lies in the answer to this question:

Why is there such a problem with illegal immigration on the southern border with Mexico but not on the Northern border with Canada where the border is open, close to the ideal set by DK? How does this answer lead us to the long-term solution?

We will explore this next.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE


Principle 98, Inclusion

This entry is part 95 of 98 in the series Principles


Principle 98


We hear a lot about inclusion these days. There are a lot of spiritually minded people telling us how important it is. Then there are numerous politicians jumping on the bandwagon preaching it with the zeal of a revivalist preacher. Both groups are telling us that we are not inclusive enough that we need to open our hearts and doors and let all in who are selected as worthy by themselves.

The problem with these advocates is that they never define the principle so we have some guideline about what is the right or wrong approach.

Let us take illegal immigration, for example. An astonishing number are telling us that we should accept with open arms and take care of all who cross the border, that immigration laws should just be ignored. If we do not agree with them we risk being accused of being a racist and bigot.

So is this what is meant by inclusiveness – that we should accept all who encroach upon us no matter what the results would be?

In examining this principle the first thing we need to realize is that this and many other principles cannot be understood using a black and white approach. To be inclusive requires a degree of judgment and discernment. Obviously one needs to exclude some things in some circumstances.

Let us use the Law of Correspondences and relate immigration to a family home. For U.S. citizens the United States is our larger home, but in the microcosm the property we live in is our home also.

Now you may have a relative or friend call now and then asking if they can crash a few days. It may be an inconvenience but you accept them and figure you are being inclusive.

Now suppose an old acquaintance who you never considered a close friend shows up on your doorstep with a wife, six kids and three large dogs. Taking him in may indeed test your normally inclusive nature.

If one really wanted to be inclusive he could take in a few homeless people. The trouble is that even if one was willing he would be nervous about doing it since the homeless guy could be on drugs and dangerous.

But let us suppose that Billy Bob is one righteous dude and decides to open his home and resources to those in need. He invites three homeless people to stay with him. He is fortunate in that he chose three that were not dangerous, but he finds they do take much more advantage of his good nature than he planned. His favorite food and drink disappear very quickly.

Then a couple days later word spreads about his good nature and three more homeless show up on his doorstep with a very sad story. Billy Bob reluctantly lets them in, thinking it is good to be inclusive.

Several days later, after having his house trashed, three more show up. He is determined to be inclusive and again lets them in. Then it becomes a daily occurrence for more to show up until his house is overflowing with all kinds of strange individuals who were more concerned with getting than giving. Finally, after sustaining more grief and expense than he could handle he throws his arms up and orders all of then to leave. Several become angry and threaten him and say they are staying no matter what. Billy Bob is beside himself and decides the only thing he can do is move out and let the bunch fend for themselves.

He gets a room at the Motel 6 and waits. Within a month the home has suffered so much destruction and abuse that it was not even fit for the homeless to live in. The bunch then leaves the house and moves into a shelter that at least has running water and some food.

Was Billy Bob inclusive?

He seemed to be.

Should our nation take the Billy Bob approach with refugees and illegals?

Obviously if we do not operate with some limitations too many people in need entering the country could wind up creating much damage as happened to Billy Bob.

Did Billy Bob practice the principle of inclusion and does our country if it uses no judgment as to who may enter?


So what then is the true principle and how do we practice it?

Inclusiveness is a state of mind where one sees all people as brothers and sisters and looks beyond race, religion, beauty, age, intelligence, social standing, education, wealth and all other differences to similarities in the struggle of life. The inclusive one tries to follow the Golden Rule and attempts to see himself living in the shoes of another and what his needs are.

The inclusive one asks himself this: “If I were in need, of a different race or social standing how would I desire one such as myself to treat them?”

The inclusive one will be friendly or at least civil to all people, even those who are unfriendly to him.

The inclusive one recognizes his limitations. He gives and helps the world as he is able but he includes himself as one that also has needs to be met. He meets his own needs so he can be a better stronger world servant and make his inclusiveness count.

The inclusive one uses discernment as sees the difference between:

(1) Helping and enabling

(2) Being friendly and becoming friends.

(3) Accepting people for who they are and bringing them into your life.

(4) Overlooking flaws and accepting those flaws.

(5) General inclusion and allowing your space to be invaded.

The first part of each point is a part of being inclusive, but the second is not. Inclusiveness is constructive, not destructive. When actions become destructive the principle of inclusiveness is not being applied.

The life of Jesus was a great example of true inclusiveness. He helped all classes of people to the best of his ability. But he did some excluding when good judgment required it. He picked out twelve disciples and taught them many things that were not given to the masses.

The inclusive person will try and follow this example. He will give as his circumstances will allow but will use judgment and assist those who are ready to receive and appreciate.

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Jesus Matt 11:28-30

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

The Pope and The Donald

This entry is part 18 of 73 in the series 2015

The Pope and The Donald

I believe that Pope Francis is the first pontiff in history to single out the United States as the evil empire. He hasn’t used that exact phrase, but his criticisms of us reveal that he sees us this way.

First, he criticizes us as being unchristian and greedy because of our free enterprise and capitalism. He seems to think that Jesus wants us enter into the forced sharing programs advocated by socialists and communists rather than leaving sharing up to Christian free will.

Then he lectures to us about destroying the planet though burning fossil fuels, as if we are the only country who has inhabitants driving cars and heating our homes. I wonder if he would have the courage to go to China or Russia and tell them their way of life runs contrary to God’s will.

Then he breaks down the barrier between church and state and addresses both the U.N. and the United States Congress.

Now he adds fuel to political/religious fire and division he has created by attacking a leading presidential candidate. On Thursday, Feb 18, he was asked his views on Donald Trump. The interviewer told the pontiff that Trump “said that if he were elected president he would build a 2,500-km wall along the border. He wants to deport 11 million illegal immigrants.”

To this Pope Francis said

“A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian. This is not in the gospel. … I say only that this man is not Christian if he says things like that.”

Well, Donald did say things exactly like that so Pope Francis is definitely stating that Trump is not a Christian.

Some are trying to whitewash the Pope’s statement saying he didn’t mention Donald by name, but this is silly because the question specifically mentioned him by name meaning the answer was directed specifically at Donald Trump.

To his credit Trump didn’t take the accusation lying down. He said:

“No leader, especially a religious leader, should have the right to question another man’s religion or faith,” He added that people in the government of Mexico “made many disparaging remarks about me to the Pope.”

Then he wrapped it up with this creative possibility:

“If and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS, which as everyone knows is ISIS’s ultimate trophy, I can promise you that the Pope would have only wished and prayed that Donald Trump would have been president.”

So, is the Pope justified in attacking Trump as being unchristian for wanting to build a wall to keep illegals out? Is there anything in the Bible that teaches against keeping out undesirables with walls?

To the contrary the scripture are full of support for wall building. The first thing David did when he established the city that would become Jerusalem was to build more walls.

Later the city was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, but after a period of captivity the Jews rejoiced when Ezra and Nehemiah were allowed to return to Jerusalem and rebuild its walls and so Israel could dwell there safely.

Jerusalem has been famous throughout history as the walled city, but the real clincher in this story is not the Old Jerusalem, but the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem is portrayed in the New Testament as the City of God where dwells God and the redeemed. Of this it is written:

“Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, Having the glory of God … And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels.” Rev 21:9-12

And why does God’s own city have a wall? It is to keep out those who are not citizens of the kingdom of God for the following scripture says:

“And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Rev 21:27

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without (outside the wall) are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” Rev 22:14-15

Someone needs to tell the Pope that even God needs a wall to keep out those who are not authorized citizens of is kingdom.

It’s almost funny when you think of it, especially when you consider that the Vatican has a giant wall 50 feet high and has such strict immigration rules that Donald Trump looks like Mother Teresa by comparison.

The United States should be the last country that Pope Francis should preach about inclusiveness as we take in more immigrants here than any other nation.

In 2013, approximately 41.3 million immigrants lived in the United States and if we add in U. S. born children the number reaches 80 million or about a quarter of our population.

By contrast the whole United Kingdom only has about a half million, France 332,000, Germany, 693,000 and Italy, wherein lies the Vatican only 307,000 less than one percent of the USA. Then as far as the nation which is called the Vatican goes one is much more likely to win the lottery than become a legal immigrant there.

With such a huge number of immigrants already here it is only logical that we should follow the example set by the Christian God and his city, and establish rules and secure our borders so we can make sure that decent people are allowed to come in and to keep out those that would do us damage.

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE