Jason E. Fort
Convenience Store Clerks, and Harboring Fugitives
It has occurred to me that many people have misplaced the new Administration's view on immigration and building a wall, along with not supporting sanctuary cities, as racist - or the great and trendy word of the year, 'xenophobic'. Furthermore, the critics are saying it is not civil, and it is showing a lack of compassion. These critics, in my view, are way out of touch with reality, and lack what I now deem as Un-Common Sense (formerly known as common sense). So I thought of some simple analogies to help people understand how these large-scale moves by the newest Administration of our Executive Branch actually are quite practical, concern being caring on a grand scale, and make perfect sense for all parties involved (except the bad guys).
First of all- the WALL! This is one of the single greatest solutions to a YUGE portion of our country's problems. And you can look no further than the reinforced glass barriers you find at convenience stores to protect their cash registers and clerks to understand the concept. Now although not every gas station or convenience store has these well-protected glass barriers around the cashier or clerk, MOST of the smarter store owners or business owners located near high crime areas, have such protective measures in place. Now for those people who are not aware, reinforced glass, and some plexi-glass typically will slow down small caliber bullets and at least change the path of the bullets that can penetrate. And of course this hard glass keeps anyone from entering the work area of the cashier and cash register of these stores. And yet, there is a way that the occupant of this work area can allow someone to enter if they do not pose a threat. There is also a way to exchange cash and change for goods. And some goods are even stored behind this hard glass to send through the small opening for monetary exchange. So one could easily see how this measure keeps the person within the barrier safe, and also see how the loss of money is prevented.
The Wall to be built across our nation's southern border with Mexico would be built to protect us from a 'high crime' area. Facts speak for themselves, and the tradition of making a run for the border from American law goes back to the Old West. Only, now, criminals are finding their way back over our border and into our cities and towns. This is just a fact. Are all the people sneaking over violent criminals? No; but all of those who come over outside the parameters of the law are criminals - violent or not. But we only want to let in certain people from that outside area; thus you would have controlled access in and through the wall, but you would still focus on keeping the dangerous law breakers, the real threats, out. Same goes for the money; our banks; money used to manage the law breakers, in a sense, wouldn't have to be spent, because there will be less violent offenders coming through. And of course, if they can't get through, that's fewer actual stores, banks, businesses they can effect with their crime. So just imagine that great big wall or large double fenced barrier as that hard plexiglass, and we are the cashiers on the other side. And you see, trade can even still go on between people from Mexico and the United States - but it is all controlled. So that addresses the big WALL issue.
Now what seems to get lost in all of this is the fact that people should follow laws. The opponents to all these security and safety standards are thinking about their great big feelings with their great big hearts for all the families that will be harmed if the government doesn't support sanctuary cities. They are missing the whole big picture here, and the fact that the biggest problem with sanctuary cities is the fact they are full of fugitives - lawbreakers wanted for breaking the law. These cities and their mayors, or their city councils, that want to protect these criminals who happen to be from south of the border - are simply guilty of harboring fugitives, plain and simple. That's not sugar coating; that's real talk. When I worked as a sheriff's deputy, and we went to serve warrants, and we had reason to believe someone was helping a fugitive from justice escape police, you can bet we wouldn't hesitate to arrest those people who helped that fugitive if they knowingly deceived the police, and there was evidence and probable cause to believe they did so. How are the large cities who want to keep these known criminals safe from deportation any different? Simple answer - they're not.
Now, if you go back through the last three paragraphs, is there anything that mentions race or ethnicity? No - because everything is based on people's action. And the fact that on the grander scale, Mexico happens to be that high crime area, it is just a matter of circumstances and fact that most of the people that we need to protect our country from happen to be Hispanic. Add to that the fact that Islamic terrorists also try to infiltrate our borders through the weaker defenses, and you have even more reason to build that wall, and even more reason why sanctuary cities shouldn't even exist. Of course, as usual, that's just my two cents - maybe it just makes too much sense.