Regulating Immigration

November16, 2005.

Regulating Immigration

Recent happenings in France should serve as a warning to all the countries accepting immigrants. If they do so for a humanitarian cause, they may bear in mind that “no good deed ever goes unpunished”.

Human mind is slow in accepting a change. Immigration demands a change on the part of immigrants as well as for the host population. Both successful and unsuccessful immigrants come in conflict with the host population.

Successful immigrants believe that their success is entirely due to their own effort and feel grateful to their respective religious Gods. They ignore to give any credit to the system of facilities provided by the host country. They still carry some grudges of “discrimination”. They do not realize that every nation at any point in time stands on the shoulders of its preceding generations, and, somewhat preferential treatment for the local population may be considered their inherent right. Conflict of values also arises as the successful immigrants impose their value system, with their newly acquired money power, disproportionately higher than their numbers.

Unsuccessful immigrants, who are essentially uneducated and not dedicated to constructive life, either go on welfare as their right or become professional criminals. In each case, they are in conflict with the society. Eventually, they become an unbearable burden both culturally and economically. Their off spring continues to multiply this burden.

Appeasement policies of democratic governments with a constant focus on the voting blocs are not successful. They assure leadership failure and are unable to deliver what is best for the nation.

I recommend consideration of the following points in establishing policies and programs for immigrants.

1. A program may be established to assimilate the immigrants by developing required courses for immigrants. Policies may be adopted that maximize the influence of the national values and culture on immigrants and restricts the negative aspects of their values and culture on the local population.

2. First generation immigrants may not be eligible for citizenship

3. After two years, each immigrant may be required to pass the test of fluency in reading, writing, and speaking the national language at the cost of termination of the immigration status.

4. Immigrant’s children may be eligible for citizenship at the age of 18, on the condition that both parents and the child prove a sound moral character.

5. Terminate the immigration status of an immigrant on the very first felony conviction.

6. The immigrants who have not been successfully assimilated may be given an option to go back to their native land with a reasonable settlement allowance not exceeding ten thousand dollars.

7. Children of visitors or immigrants born in this country may no longer have the right to automatic eligibility for citizenship.

8. Immigrants may not be allowed to send more than ten per cent of their annual income to outside countries.

9. The number of immigrants accepted annually may not exceed one percent of the national population.

10. No immigrant may be allowed participation in politics at local, state , or national level.

A Dilemma of Democracy

December 24, 2004.

The greatness of certain values and practices in the peacetime becomes a weakness in the wartime. Democratic values are great in the peacetime but a greater liability in the wartime or the time of terrorism.

When there is a conflict, democracies around the world (The USA in the West or India in the East) are at a disadvantage as compared to dictatorial regimes for several reasons:

1. The mechanics of democratic governments is not designed to prevent terrorism or any other anticipated crimes.

2. In democratic regimes, the public psychology is of trust as opposed to suspicion in dictatorial regimes. Suspicion psychology acts as a deterrent to crimes as most people make an effort to remain above suspicion minimizing the fertilizing ground for the criminals.

3. Dictatorial regimes sponsoring terrorism easily penetrate into the secrecy of democratic governments, mostly due to the freedom of the media and partly due to the irresponsibility and lack of emotional connectivity of some public officials in critical positions.

4. The insolence and inefficiency of democratic bureaucracies in handling dangers and emergencies cannot be overemphasized. (Ten years prior to the 9-11 incidents, air hostesses in an airplane were attacked by a passenger. Security measures in airplanes were strongly urged. But the bureaucratic memory could not survive its processing delays.)

5. Loose and slow justice systems in democracies provide many escapes and shelters to the criminals.

6. In open, pluralistic, profit oriented societies with freedom of speech and rival political parties, criticism of all core and substantive values is legitimate. It does not allow clear identification of the socio-political problems. Nor does it allow jelling any solution based on public cooperation.

The dilemma is to protect the democratic values and yet cover the weaknesses. The solution to the problems in the changing world seems to lie outside the scope of the paradigm created by democracies. Now we may have to think out of the box. We need to decide what are the core values and what are the luxury values that may be temporarily sacrificed to protect the core values.

Illegal Immigration

May 5, 2005.

Illegal Immigrants

By T.S.Khanna

According to the old American policy, the number of immigrants was restricted annually to 1% of the nation’s population. That policy assured gradual assimilation of the new immigrants without adversely affecting the nation’s culture or economy. However, during the last two decades, there seems to be a breakaway from the old policy.

The influx of illegal immigrants is causing an unbearable strain on the nation’s culture and economy. Out of the fear of losing a large number of bloc votes, both political parties, Republican and Democrat, do not like to handle the issue effectively.

When a democratic government does not perform an essential function, people feel compelled to perform it themselves. A case in point is ‘Minutemen’ trying to secure borders. It is a great reflection on our leadership. This situation can easily get out of control and create nationwide chaos. The national leadership must consider it a call to deploy adequate resources to secure the neglected borders.

In addition, the government may encourage public support by adopting certain measures:

• Offer informants reward to locate, or identify for a quick arrest or deportation of illegal immigrants,

• Exemplary punishment for employers of or those offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants,

• Disallow any employment of those who do not have fluency in reading, writing, and speaking English language,

• Make fluency in English language a strict prerequisite for future legal immigrants and for those applying for citizenship.

• Deport all those who do not apply for citizenship after five years.

Religion and The Changing Times

September 27, 2006

Religion and The Changing Times

by T.S.Khanna

Mark Twain once remarked that when he was 14, he could hardly stand his father around. At 21, he was amazed to note how much the old man had learned (changed) in seven years. Similarly, the societies with normal growth are amazed to note that Almighty God has changed so much since the religions were founded. The ivory tower religious followers faith in victory to the “truth and honesty” has been in conflict with actual experiences. Facts indicate that truth and honesty have little value in power circles.

The religious leaders, usually in pursuit of power with a pure facade of religion, also know that truth and honesty, as rare as they are, their supply is greater than their demand in the religious power circles. Yet, they are successfully able to prey upon the gullibility of the common man, who, in turn, in the name of piety, serves them as the power base.

Almighty God ( beyond the understanding of human beings, in spite of the religious claims) seems to grant victory to the strong and the cunning; imposes morality on the weak and humble; bestows wealth upon the intelligent and prudent; gifts the superior quality of life to the wise; gives courage without discretion to the foolish; assures hope without reason(false hope) to those in blind faith, and, promises an illusion of heaven to the “self-righteous, truthful and honest”. The illusion of imagined paradise promises to fulfill any wish of a self-righteous person for some assigned sacrifice. However, that promise is conditional to leaving this world so that the illusion may never be tested for its authenticity.

In the times of conflict, religion provides a great emotional unity and secularism causes reasoning differences in the society.

Keeping secular democracy independent of religion is a new challenge of the modern times.

Religion and Democracy At Odds

By T.S. Khanna

August 21, 2006

Religion and Democracy At Odds

All through the human history, religions have evolved in response to the innate human desire to develop connection and establish engagement with the Almighty Creator of life and the Universe. Perceived, imagined, or intuitive concepts regarding the Creator by various religions differ widely. These concepts are sanctified and not exposed to the test of human rationalism or scientific techniques. They are held as real facts and the truth by the followers of various faiths and become the cause of conflict among religions.

Regardless of its goal or intent, every religion gravitates into an uncompromising political body of believers of their superiority over others. The political body of every religion has traditionally worked as the dictatorial government for its followers.

Secular democracy is relatively a recent invention of government to accommodate various faiths by separating government from religions. However, such a set up also generates some conflicts:

1. Under secular democracy, “will of the people”, not the religious authority is supreme. All religious leaders feel offended as their authority is eroded.

2. Secular democracy guarantees protection to minorities. Under religious government, minorities are considered agnostic or infidel--- a punishable crime.

3. Secular democracy encourages individual rationality and freedom; religion demands faith and obedience. Most people find it easier to follow the religious path of the “Givens”. Situational analysis, self-reliance, and independent judgment become burdensome without the training for independence through education and opportunities. Religious training is quite the opposite and is given during the earliest and most impressionable years of life.

4. Secular democracy guarantees equality of individual; religions, traditionally, do not accept or encourage equality. Gender equality has not been recognized by religions. Religious moral standards have always favored male gender.

Although, the principle of equality is accepted publicly, in public life, the followers of every faith carry a feeling of superiority, not recognized by secular democracy. They feel frustrated with democracy and consider it their moral duty to uphold their respective faiths superior to others. Without visualizing the alternatives, they feel lack of their religion is the root cause of all social ills. The followers of each faith blame secular democracy for degrading their faith by bringing it at par with other faiths. Pronouncements of such condemnations in religious institutions emotionally charge the faithful to support the religious fundamentalism. The religious moderates are considered unfaithful and looked down upon by the orthodox.

5. Under secular democracy, unlimited freedom of speech without accountability works against democracy in as much as it facilitates and encourages demagoguery to intensify split and enmity among religions. In the name of sanctity, religions restrict even freedom of thought into unquestioning faith for stability and continuity.

6. Unlimited freedom of speech,under secular democracy, allows pornography to flourish as a highly profitable business; religion condemns pornography.

7. Democracy requires national loyalty; religion emphasizes only religious group loyalty.

8. Democracy encourages discoveries, inventions, business, production of goods, and profit within the legal framework to remove poverty; religious teachings are against materialism, for living within smaller means, and require devotion to the perceived Almighty Creator.

9. The very nature of religious hierarchies does not lend itself to multi-religion secular democracy. The societies with strong religious orientations can, at best, accommodate single religion theocratic democracy, not secular democracy.

Gradualism is the basic characteristic of democracy, both in its development and in its operation. Just as liberty is taken, not given, the desire for democracy must gradually grow from within the society and cannot be quickly given to it. The case in point is the Middle Eastern countries.