The problem with properly carrying out immigration reform, as with all matters of importance concerning the people and government of the United States, is that doltishness has become the order of their day. Those who would differ on this observation do so only as a matter of course that others might not see them less glowingly. When the time comes for reason and confidence to save the day these same people who previously promoted that they are radiant and smart fall back comfortably in their doltish ways of excuses, pandering, and the like. Politicians, for example, would qualify most adequately here, but let us first speak of whence the affliction comes.

Take the typical schoolchild, as the standard example and carrier of doltishness, who is prodded along to believe that, in short, any differences between people should be respected, or more accurately, equated somehow by what is called the Law of Equality. Yet this belief swept along by common schooling's complete absence of how to make a sound argument begins to teeter within earshot of the comment, "If all people were equal, then we would be unable to find any differences between them." Indeed, with no important differences between people, the whole frightening stampede of Americans would be coagulated into indiscernible bloat.

The further toppling of such a belief can go on by another comment, the meatier of the two, "Some distinctions of a person are sometimes better than the distinctions of another person. Common sense and the very basis of law shows that to be true". This simple reflection would be a genuine show stopper to those transfixed with advancing this Law of Equality, but to those less capable of mind it is no matter—equalizing must go on.

This equality bit is why immigration reform will never be resolved satisfactorily in the mind of a sound person, since the majority of the U.S. population, growing up as they do on a diet of the above schoolish fodder and nonsense, believe that a person who illegally crosses into the U.S. is equal to—and in the last analysis, better than—a United States citizen who follows the rule of law. Politicians of late have convinced us of this.

Now according to this Law of Equality, if one person has a difference from another person then the person with the most glaring deficiency must be propped up to assume the level of the other person. In some cases the person with the most glaring deficiency is glorified and encouraged in his deficiency. Whether one is propped up to assume a higher level or praised for their deficiency is determined by whoever is applying the Law of Equality, and the range of administrators is great. In any case, the "other person" is often forcibly cast aside during this intensive equating process, presumably to allow the focusing of all energies on the deficient person.

Hence the clamor heard to make the slews of illegal aliens as good as the rest of the people living in the U.S. who unfairly possess over the illegals a certificate of citizenship. This is not to say that holding U.S. citizenship is the apex of humanity, especially when citizenship may be granted merely by trespassing on American soil, but the piece of paper does apparently offer a few advantages over other countries. And there we have it again, speaking of differences between things—in this case, countries. This leads us to a very reasonable point: For by the same argument about the need for people to be absolutely equal in form, function, opportunities, and everything else, should not countries suffer the same reasoning—that countries should be equal to one another and without any differences?

If this is so then one must set about finding a country and a worse country and grind the latter through equalizing machinations according to the Law of Equality. Two countries that quickly volunteer themselves are the United States and Mexico, with Mexico losing out by harboring rampant corruption, criminal gangs, and a lack of business opportunity. Perhaps the two countries could bobble back and forth on the first two deficiencies but certainly not the third. Then, with a desire to preserve the sovereignty of each country, if so inclined, and not simply merge the two countries together, then Mexico as a country should be elevated somehow to assume the better characteristics of the United States.

There is the final reasoning according to the Law of Equality itself and there is the solution to immigration reform, if the rarity of a person willing to reach it is allowed, that Mexico in all its glaring deficiencies should be poked and grappled towards being at least on the same level of the United States with things such as human rights and business laws and opportunities, to name a few concrete advantages to plod towards. But then, depending on the administrator of the Law of Equality, it may be that the grand country of Mexico should be glorified in all their inequities and left as they are, a heap of peasants and corruption. Who is to judge such things?

Certainly not I or you, but surely we must agree on at least this: A person, same as a country, should elevate themselves to something better.  But dare I say not just by the hand of others, for then he would not truly be better, just propped up to fall down on his arse once the helping hands were removed—he being unaware that he had legs to stand on. If only this sense of betterment, bettering oneself, could be added on to the often praised and utilized haphazard Law of Equality, or better, completely replace its various definitions of "respect diversity" and other trappings, the scourge of doltishness and trespassers could be allayed until the next Teachers Union meeting!