top of page

The Immigration Debate: What the Heck is IMMIGRATION?

A brief glance at the dictionary would provide us with the following basic definition of IMMIGRATION as a noun as follows…“the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country.”

But is IT that simple?

A cursory analysis of that definition neglects ONE KEY WORD… Would you like to guess what it is? YUP… the word is either LEGAL or ILLEGAL… In other words it should have been defined as follows instead:

“The LEGAL or ILLEGAL action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country”…

In developing countries the RULE OF LAW does matter. Therefore, whether one attempts to enter a country LEGALLY or not has a lot to do with one being admitted to become a LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT (LPR) as it is called in the U.S.


Most immigrants or children of immigrants seem to have a tunnel vision about immigration. In other words, they fail to analyze both sides of the issue. Personally, I have advocated non-immigration both with people on the Homeland and in the US for the longest time. Simply put, it not only often depletes a country of its CREAM OF THE CROP (i.e., its best minds) to the benefit of another, but also it discourages many from attempting to fix their own country. YES, the right to travel and to seek to LEGALLY IMMIGRATE or UNITE with one's relatives should not be abridged. But ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION is NOT A RIGHT FOLKS... it's PURE NON-SENSE that people would even so debate.

Yes, I do understand that there are extreme circumstances in which one will be PERSECUTED/KILLED if one stays in one’s homeland, and for such situations, the RULE OF LAW on immigration creates an exception in which such INDIVIDUALS will have the BURDEN of proving a “WELL-FOUNDED FEAR OF PERSECUTION” prior to getting legal admission into developed countries like the United States. Of course, all human beings would prefer not to let another human-being or animal attack a human-being knowing well that it is imminent. But the latter is an EXCEPTION to the RULE and not the RULE.


Imagine that the US and all advanced countries decided to give EVERYONE EASY and UNFETTERED ACCESS/ADMISSION…

Do you think that the POOR COUNTRIES would have had anyone left in them? And let’s say that it would have been to the advantage of the advanced/developed nations, do you think that it would have been to the advantage of the underdeveloped nations?



A lot of people that are now talking about Immigration never even mentioned it before and never saw it as a problem. Most were simply taking advantage of Immigrants that came here and worked hard to pay them to get fake work documents or simply pursue unattainable immigration petitions as they remained in legal limbo.

Most diaspora communities are ill-prepared to assist the influx of incoming immigrants. A quick look at my situation when I arrived to the States LEGALLY (on a visitor’s visa) would so indicate. No one had a PLAN for me, and my future would have been nothing short of uncertain but for my love for education which induced me to keep trying different avenues as to have access to the wealth of educational opportunities that the US provides.

Anyhow, the Pre-George-W-Bush or Pre-911 immigration procedures were not only archaic, but also uncertain. There was almost no way of knowing what one’s status was… One was often waiting on long phone queues to no avail and with no final determining information. Post-W-BUSH, one has an online and digitized system that updates one of what’s going on… By the way, “W” was a Republican president and some would view him as one of the worst POTUSs ever, yet he is the one that finally started to solve the immigration problem.


All presidents have something to offer in the end. Some presidents will appear to be uniters, but will end up dividing, while others will appear to divide, but will end up uniting the country on at least RECOGNIZING its flaws and shortcomings. I like both for different reasons, but since most people choose to hate those that shake the boat the most or those that demand too many changes or reversion to more American-rotted status quo, I choose to focus on those that have the interest of the land on which I live in mind.

I left a country that didn’t seem to give a RAT’s ASS about its people. Geez, I wish I was hearing Haitians say “LET’S MAKE HAITI/HAITIANS GREAT AGAIN” even for the heck of it. I am part of a team of people that are working hard to say the latter FINALLY, but decades of leaders of my Homeland, which Trump appropriately called one of the shit-hole countries induced a mass exodus of poor people from Haiti to go from living in conditions worse than any animals would be allowed to live in the US to living in often worse or comparable conditions in countries like the Dominican Republic or Chile etc.

IS THE FAULT of the US or is it that of the leaders of those countries who chose to SELL THEIR SOULS to the DEVIL and put PATRIOTIC PRIDE last. I am appalled of those that DEMAND the US to accept ALL PEOPLE after their VERY NATION rejected them and treated them like ANIMALS?

Imagine having your house crowded with the children of ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS every day just because they are too DARN LAZY to work hard or smart… No matter how great a heart you have, one day, you’ll realize that it is EITHER UNFAIR or TOO COST-PROHIBITIVE for you to process everything that it takes to take care of your neighbor’s kids while they goof-off on drugs or booze or mere laziness.

I don’t believe any country should give FREE ACCESS TO ALL… It has to be based on a MERITOCRACY. And to expect the US to do so is not only hypocritical but also shameful.

Yes, I do agree that TRUMP or any White dude is probably a bit xenophobic (fearing of strangers) when it comes to the thoughts of a bunch of non-Europeans arriving here with their own cultures especially with the predictions that Whites will be becoming a minority race in the US in just a few more decades because of immigration and lack of reproduction by Whites. HOWEVER, that is NOT the whole story.

A NATION must enforce its laws (and yes that includes immigration laws) and ENFORCEMENT is an EXECUTIVE action, and a PRESIDENT is part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH and essentially is its LEADER and well in his right to attempt to enforce it based on how he views it. And of course, if the POTUS surpasses his authority, the job rests in the checks-and-balance system, but the executive branch’s job is to try to achieve its agenda on what it believes is in the best interest of the country at large.

No one in his right mind would like to see children suffer. But I see countless homeless people out there purposely using their children to get sympathy from others and essentially putting them in harm’s way for hours so that they can get access to some easy money from those with kind hears. Unless people are persecuted in their homeland, bringing their children to a foreign land in which they have no support system is not only reckless but also is the very definition of CHILD ENDANGERMENT. I don’t advocate separation of children from their parents, but I would advocate any rule that prosecutes such parents for putting their children’s in harm’s ways simply to fulfil an illusory dream of coming to a LAND filled with MILK and HONEY… REALLY?

The US is about HARD WORK… and MORE HARD WORK… and that requires work ethics that many immigrants will not have been used to modernly. And it is true that a great majority of immigrants will end up being on public assistance even after they become legal with the cost of living being so high and their inability to compete with more skilled Americans for higher paying jobs.

I LOVE IMMIGRANTS, not only because I am one but also because THEY LITERALLY HELPED BUILD THIS COUNTRY. However, modernly a different approach must be used. Personally, I came here because my country was in CIVIL WAR… My school was shaking from the vibration of machine guns and people were being beheaded while their houses were being looted… and it took me a long time to get my green card after arriving here legally. Thus, ONLY similarly positioned immigrants or those who are truly being persecuted and fearful of the latter or those who have family members or companies the US who are prepared to support them should have the BURDEN of proving that they should be allowed to remain in the US LEGALLY.

And what happens after immigrants arrive here with no support system, education, and money? Will all of them find legal means to make money? Probably not!

There are LEGAL MEANS through which one can petition for residency/citizenship here and they include, MARRIAGE, EMPLOYMENT, FAMILY TIES, INVESTMENTS, PERSECUTION and EDUCATION... such means are sufficient and on other means need to be INVENTED...

People need to stop using their kids as a way of deterring others from the fact, which is that they came here ILLEGALLY to begin with and unless they fall under the above mentioned categories, they are DEPORTABLE...



is the Chief Editor of LorinsPOST. This article was sponsored by and

bottom of page