Illegal Immigration and Happy Meals
Dear Mark: Illegal immigration is a huge problem on our southern border. I'm a little nervous about that the new law in Arizona requiring proof of citizenship. It might be pushing the constitutional limits with racial profiling. What should we do about the immigration problem in our country? — Old Mexican in New Mexico
Dear Old: I agree that the new Arizona law might not survive a constitutional test when challenged in court. Although, isn't it ironic how the Obama administration is suddenly concerned about the Constitution when it comes to illegal immigration but doesn't seem to care when it comes to government health care and American citizens?
Despite its flaws, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signing this bill into law does seem to have raised the awareness and urgency of the problem with illegal immigration. In fact, Washington politicians have been embarrassingly knocked back on their heels because the Arizona law is a direct result of the federal government's failure to protect our borders. Even President Obama acknowledged the failure.
My solution to the problem is simple and could be done in incremental pieces of legislation. First, take some of the stimulus money and build a fence. We can kill two birds with one stone because our leaky border is not only an immigration problem but also a national security problem. Though not a perfect solution, a fence will at least slow the influx.
Second, identify the illegal immigrants already in our country, and give them an opportunity to apply for work visas. Those visas must also include a picture ID, criminal background check and fingerprinting. The work visas can be renewed as long as the applicants pay taxes, enroll in English classes and stay crime free.
Third, streamline the path to citizenship.
Fourth, plug the "anchor baby" loophole in our laws that allow babies born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents to instantly become citizens.
The answer to illegal immigration is fairly easy, but look for our illustrious Congress to come up with some 3,000-page monstrosity that costs billions of dollars and creates numerous bureaucracies.
Dear Mark: My wife is a teacher and has seen firsthand the problem of childhood obesity. She agrees with the decision of the Santa Clara California Board of Supervisors to ban toys inside McDonald's Happy Meals. My wife feels like the toys encourage poor nutritional decisions. I feel like the government is once again being too intrusive. Will you settle this? — Married Man in Mansfield
Dear Married: Leave it to California, the state that thinks it's OK to legalize pot and give away free needles to illicit drug users. But putting a toy with a cheeseburger? THAT would be bad for society.
Ask your wife if she would approve if government banned chocolate because sweets also contribute to obesity. On second thought, don't do that. Messing with a woman's chocolate could be painful.
You both are obviously coming at this from two different viewpoints. As a teacher, your wife is used to government officials telling her exactly what to do. Back in the real world, this is simply another case of the government trying to control private enterprise. As long as hamburgers are legal and the toys are safe, what business is it of the government how a restaurant markets its products? Furthermore, what children eat is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
Bottom line: The easiest way to settle this is to agree with your wife and move on.
Dear Mark is a public platform for your enrichment and entertainment. E-mail your questions to email@example.com. To find out more about Mark Levy, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM