Stepped-up immigration enforcement called for, but we can do it humanely, selectively, and lose the gestapo tactics…

I don’t like the ugliness of our stepped-up immigration enforcement. I find it to be un-American, in my sense of what is American. I am all for enforcement of the law, and I imagine the lack of enforcement is what has brought us to this – in part.

Also, when things get tough, folks become suspicious and even jealous of their neighbors, thinking maybe they are getting privileges they should not get.

Stepped up enforcement was called for. So, do it pragmatically. I’d go after employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers or who are lax in their due diligence. Also, obviously if someone is arrested on felony charges that would be a time to check immigration status – – non felonies, no. Yes, technically undocumented is undocumented, but you know, this is America, the United States. We are the land of the free. You don’t bother other folks and pull your own weight, you’re not really causing a problem – let’s concentrate on the troublemakers first.

There is by all reports a vast number of undocumented folks among us, most of them productive citizens, and who cause no trouble for anyone. Why not put out notices urging them to become documented? Yes amnesty, I guess. A dirty word? I don’t think so. Perhaps being here illegally should result in a tougher path to full citizenship and more scrutiny on background.

I’m pretty sure the truth of the matter is that neither major political party, or that is the lawmakers themselves, for the most part did not want to deal with immigration, rhetoric pandering to the anti-immigrant crowd notwithstanding. Both businesses and individuals hire undocumented workers because of their availability, skills, usually lower wage demands.

So, in short, I think I favor stepped up enforcement but not the troops in the streets, or midnight raids and gestapo-like tactics we would have seen in the time of Nazi Germany or even in nations today with totalitarian governments, such as Russia.

Again, maybe the best tactic is to make immigrating illegally not as attractive, by placing barriers on eventual citizenship or permission to remain in the country.

We can do this humanely, I am sure.

Take our word for it is not proof that justifies war; and, where’s congress?

It was the fault of the secretary of defense, alias secretary of war, no let’s blame the admiral, and let’s go after anyone saying that military members do not have to obey illegal orders and let’s call any journalist who tries to objectively report on this mean names.

And was there a crime in shooting the reported survivors of a drug boat attack or was it just them being killed in some type of running battle?

But there is a more basic question here:

What I want to know is just what is this crazy war Trump has cooked up down Venezuela way?

Where’s the proof that these so-called drug boats are carrying their purported cargo to the United States?

And how is it that the president can unilaterally declare war on anything or anybody?

Where’s congress?

I was not too wild about all this nonsense when Obama was ordering bad guys on the other side of the world to be offed by drone strikes, especially when civilians were caught in it all, such as bombing wedding parties. Okay, killing Bin Laden was justified, being as he was the admitted architect of the 9/11 attack.

Sure, I wish we could eliminate all the bad people in the world, but this is not how a civilized society is supposed to work.

Few Americans would want us to back down should we face an armed attack. Even the isolationists back in the 1940s gave up when Japan pulled its sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. Even then President Roosevelt went before congress to ask for a declaration of war.

But when the threat is not so apparent, presidents have taken different approaches, such as calling the sending of troops into combat situations by other names than war or not calling it war in a legal sense in order to not have to tax for war, but instead do it on the credit card.

You see, wars demand monetary sacrifice and maybe even other obligations from the public, and if the justification cannot be sold, taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill and might even object to the whole concept.

Sure, especially in this modern time what with technology and nuclear bombs and drones, a president in an emergency might have to act fast and not have time to consult congress.

Those mysterious boats off Venezuela are not an emergency. At least no evidence to that effect has been displayed, just take our word for it, we are told.

Are we going to send drones out to kill people all over the world because of the potential that they might be up to something that could cause us harm?

If this really is an emergency? Show us the proof.