As an international politics major (for now), foreign policy is something I insist politicians get right.

They don’t.

As in my previous post, I will begin by explaining how my personal experience has allowed me to formulate the Centrist Party’s foreign policy.

Communism sucks. It just doesn’t work. Human nature is not inclined to sharing. And as a matter of fact, when Romania was a member of the Soviet Bloc, the only sharing that happened was one way: from the people to the party in power. The amount of good and service outputs managed to keep 90% of the population in a state of near poverty. There was resentment and dissatisfaction everywhere. We didn’t want this life, we didn’t deserve this life, we knew that things could be so much better. So in December of 1989, violent protests in Timisoara sparked a revolution that freed my country from the tyranny of its dictator Ceausescu and the iron grip of the USSR.

One of the primary causes for the revolution’s success was the USA. President Reagan recognized that Gorbachev was a western as you can get when it comes to Russians, so he took advantage of the situation and put a serious amount of pressure on the Soviets in the late 1980’s. Now, Americans look back on his deficit spending on defense and cringe, but I look back and remember how life was almost unbearable for Eastern Europeans prior to his actions.

Moral of the story: the world needs a policeman. From the ancient Romans, to the Brits and us, the world has been dominated by hegemons who possess the ability to regulate international affairs. However, the USA is the first country I’ve heard of to groan and sigh at the pressure.

Why should we? Because we have a truly genial political system, crafted by some of the most brilliant minds in human history? Because we actually believe in our system and wish to spread it to the rest of the world? Because this system is as close as you can get to peace and freedom from oppression or tyranny? Because we have mastered economics on a global and domestic scale and have the highest standard of living in the world? Because we want, if not need the rest of the world to develop likewise?

Nahh, it’s too expensive and this won’t impact us anyways. That I think is the mindset of many Americans. And I am going to tell you now that is DOES impact us. If we help the rest of the world establish democratic systems, which studies show are much more inclined to peace, develop economically, which will help our own markets grow, and secure basic human rights, benefits will be mutual and the world will be so much the better for it.

Now I am not in any way supporting wars fought on the basis of oil, wealth, or other such interests. But at the same time, we cannot sit back passively for two reasons: because chaos will ensue otherwise, and because it will damage our reputation of strength.

Let’s look at two examples: the conflict in former Yugoslavia and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Yugoslavia was an inferno in the 1990’s. Ethnic cleansing and gross violations of human rights swept the country as various ethnic groups fought for independence and power. The United Nations responded by sending French peacekeeping forces to monitor the situation, effectively doing nothing to settle the disputes. It wasn’t until the United States stepped it, through NATO, sending their own troops that any progress had been made on the roadway to peace. NATO’s success seemed like the liberalist ideal of international cooperation…except it was really just the hegemon, the good ol’ U.S. of A.

I love learning about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It also gives me headaches because there really seems to be no correct solution. In a way, I agree with those who groan about America’s eagerness to be Israel’s protective parent; the Israelis have done some pretty horrible things to the Palestinians and we should not be so quick to throw our support behind these actions. So why stay involved? Why continue to be the only country on the UN Security Council that supports that pesky little country? The answer is simple: reputation. We got ourselves into this mess, we’d better stick with it. It would send the wrong message to all of our allies if we dropped any support from a country we have such strong relations with. Furthermore, Irael serves a good purpose: it is a little Western warning in the Middle East, a constant threat to oppressive, nuclear-hungry regimes like Iran. (For more info, check this out: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/war-and-bluff-iran-israel-and-united-states?0=ip_login_no_cache%3D1427c2d06e84e151eb944a371b82c1cc#ixzz26Fx1kUCl )

In conclusion, the world needs a hegemon. The world needs a United States with a proactive defense policy.

This will be the first of my individual policy posts, and I chose this particular topic because it is of personal relevance to me. On May 27th, 2001, my family and I immigrated (legally) to the United States, and this experience has changed all of our lives in more ways than we can imagine. We are firm believers in the American Dream, largely because we know what it’s like to be held back, not by personal limitations, but by skewed politics and a corrupt society.

On that subject, let’s first consider the incentives to come here illegally: It is an undisputed fact that the quality of life in the United States far exceeds that of almost every other country. We have a higher per capita, our dollar can buy more goods, and we have better access to everything from education to health care. Furthermore, our political and religious freedoms allow us to be ourselves without persecution or fear of incarceration and violence.

This pretty much sums up the incentives to immigrate at all, but why illegally? The primary reason is the sheer difficulty of immigrating legally. There are four ways in which a person can enter the United States:

• If they are relatives of citizens or other permanent residents (58% of legal immigrants fulfill this requirement)
• If they are sponsored by U.S. based employer (typically celebrities such as athletes and artists get in with no problems)
• If they are political refugees (only applies to extreme cases)
• If they are winners of Visa lotteries in underrepresented countries (50,000 visas allotted each year; this is how my family was able to come)

All in all, these are very restrictive measures of allowing people to come to a country built on immigrants. Furthermore, the documentation necessary for each way is incredibly precise and often difficult to fill out, depending on the state of public records in your country; I remember my parents had the most difficulties with this step. And for every document, there is usually a fee involved, which adds up to hundreds of dollars that most people can’t pay. It really is no wonder that so many take the “easy way out” and come through illegal channels; in most cases, it is the only way they can enter the country. (A good example of this is Haitians, who did not qualify as political refugees despite living in the devastation of the earthquake without a functioning government at the mercy of local gangs.)

So what do we do about the illegal immigrants in our country? After all, the presence of illegal workers opens up other, better types of jobs citizens can fill, they do not impact U.S. wages in any way (their cheap rate has not lowered minimum wage), and illegals take the country’s least-attractive jobs (such as in the meatpacking, agriculture, and hospitality industries). All in all, they have made a positive impact on our country, and deserve to be rewarded.

Republicans and Democrats, though neither party has definitively chosen a position, have narrowed down the debate to the question of amnesty. Should we or shouldn’t we just give them all citizenship? Not only is this the wrong question, but it detracts from focus on the right one. What they should be worrying about is how to make legal immigration easier and provide incentives for people to enter through the appropriate channels. Perhaps we could expand the definition of a “political refugee,” increase the Visa lottery quota, make the documents easier to fill out, and cut down the processing fees. I doubt Uncle Sam will worry about getting his money back; immigrants are sound investments.

While opening up legal channels, the government should also work to close illegal ones. The country’s borders need to be reinforced, since porous borders are a threat to national security (after all, the 9/11 hijackers had questionable Visas).

As for the illegal immigrants, whether willing or not, they have broken the law and should not receive “amnesty.” Because they lack documentation, they commit themselves to a life of poverty, empowering unethical business endeavors (i.e. sweatshops, low wages, etc.). Furthermore, America cannot support the rapidly growing illegal population (in 2006, there were 11 million illegal residents in the U.S.) without taking away from natives and legal immigrants.

Allow immigrants to come here legally so their positive impact can help this country grow.