The fringe-left, open-borders types rejoice as Obama's violation of this nation's laws kicks in today, devaluing the citizenship of all Americans.
Face it, those of us born in the United States used to be fortunate. It used to actually mean something, but now, it means increasingly less and less as Obama and the democrats put those here illegally ahead of us, while turning a blind eye to the multiple negative effects.
Here's the reality: the law is clear on illegal aliens. 8 minutes old or 80 years old, the laws on illegals do not, and should not, differentiate in your treatment.
With a baseline that is quite simple: your mere presence violates this country's laws, and, therefore, this country owes you absolutely nothing, the idea that illegal aliens of any age are the recipients of any preference, bonus, allowance, or advantage of any kind over those pining away to get to this country is bad enough.
That they get these things AHEAD of AMERICAN CITIZENS?
There's no excuse for that.
And let's be honest here: both major parties bear some level of responsibility for this mess; neither possessed the testosterone necessary to address this issue back when it was more manageable; now, infinitely more difficult, they don't want to address it at all.
But Obama's age-based amnesty? His blatant pandering for the illegal alien vote? (And folks, let's remember: illegal aliens are not supposed to be allowed to vote, in fact, that was a privilege reserved to non-felon American citizens aged 18 and older.)
But with the advent of motor voter and other avenues where illegals can sign up to vote because proof of citizenship is not required to register to vote OR to get a license in this country, and where efforts to REQUIRE proof of citizenship are met with cries of racism and bigotry and lawsuits, cries, to which, the right dutifully caves; and the result are democrat efforts to use illegal aliens in their campaigns and democrat efforts to register illegal aliens to vote.
Thus, Obama's pandering to the illegal alien vote by virtue of his decision to suspend American law and illegally allow tens of thousands of illegal aliens to openly seek employment in a job market where citizens can't find work and where many of our colleges and universities are recruiting and providing preferences for illegal aliens.
In reviewing the value of being an American when I was born in the 50's with the value of the privilege (and luck) today, how do you think they compare?
We'd like to think we earn a living and that we're paid what we've earned.
But now, over half of Americans are getting a government check. Large segments of our society pay absolutely nothing in federal taxes... not even a dollar.
When an illegal gets a break that not even a citizen can get, when an illegal gets POLITICAL-based affirmative action, when an illegal is allowed to live openly, flaunting our laws?
Why should we care so much about being a citizen when in the real world, our own president is telling us it means so little?
12 comments:
Esprit de corps, exceptionalism, and elitism are defining elements of Conservatism. These feelings go hand-in-glove with a Conservative's acceptance of America's nouveau aristrocray. Suffrage threatens all that. It's democracy's greatest weakness but I can live with it.
I don't know, Martin. My view of being an American was formed early on when I was manning The Wall on the East German Border at the ripe old age of 17 and I watched people literally die to get what we have.
My view has absolutely nothing to do with aristocracy, nouveau or otherwise. After all, the Camelots of Kennedy and Clinton were certainly not conservative constructs.
My view has more to do with the idea that, even without the presence of millions here illegally, we lack the economy to put people to work and to keep from an exploding national debt.
The president has decided to drop tens of thousands more into the employment pool (gotta wonder: will those numbers be figured into our now, suddenly higher, unemployment rate? Fat chance.) when the millions born here and here legally can't find work.
Brilliant.
And given your life style, Martin, I can certainly see where you have the luxury to live with it.
The vast majority of us... including me... however, have not achieved your level of success, rightfully earned, BTW... and we do not have that luxury and now, thanks to the president, we will suffer more because of it.
Simple, really.
U.S. Property Law has always recognized Adverse Possession. As I've agreed in the past, if you want to forcibly remove people who you think are on your land illegally then I agree with your logic, but if those people are going to stay here indefinitely and you do nothing to forcibly get them off then they become owners. People who are on the same land are in the same tribe because the things that happen to that land happen to everyone on it. It doesn't get more fundamental then that.
p.s. Idolizing military service is part of the Conservative ethos of elitism. (No insult intended - I respect your accomplishments as you respect mine.)
U.S. Property Law has always recognized Adverse Possession. As I've agreed in the past, if you want to forcibly remove people who you think are on your land illegally then I agree with your logic, but if those people are going to stay here indefinitely and you do nothing to forcibly get them off then they become owners. People who are on the same land are in the same tribe because the things that happen to that land happen to everyone on it. It doesn't get more fundamental then that.
p.s. Idolizing military service is part of the Conservative ethos of elitism. (No insult intended - I respect your accomplishments as you respect mine.)
I would think if we apply the same logic in the other direction, I should be able to go vote in Germany or Mexico or even Canada for that matter. Looking at it that way shows how ridiculous the concept is.
Kriss, it's happening all over the world!
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,1987607,00.html
http://www.dw.de/dw/article/0,,1513837,00.html
Immigration, legal or not, is how populations act. I simply accept it as fact and look for solutions. Persecution is an unsavory option.
To maintain a nation typically requires choosing the best of a variety of unsavory options.
To my mind, however, having the President ignore the law of this country as a tool of remaining in office is the least savory option of all; preferred by the most horrific monsters of dictators and mass murderers.
Here, for me, the issue is only the matter of degree.
And if the president is allowed to abuse and violate the laws of this country for his own blatant political purposes, what do you propose to do when he makes a summary judgment to ignore the law and he, say for example, decides to confiscate your property at a much higher rate than the taxation you pay now?
Even as a conservative, I support taxation as a means to provide support for government's efforts to operate the fundamental purposes of government.
But Obama wants to tax the rich. Will it be OK with you if he doubles or triples your taxes, Congress be damned? You know, like he's decided to institutionalize this violation of the laws he's sworn to uphold as part of his oath of office?
After all, we're talking about a massive deficit here, and such an edict, based on an executive order, is just another "unsavory option."
I get that "immigration is how 'populations' act." (Although strangely, the number of Americans crossing deserts on foot to work illegally in Mexico seems to be very small for some reason. You don't suppose that a populations natural desire to immigrate here is because WE'VE TURNED THIS COUNTRY INTO A RESORT DESTINATION FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.... do you?)
And, I support legal immigration. Although I recognize you're an open border type who believes much more in the concept of a "North America" then a United States, the idea that we, somehow, should accord those who break our laws any privilege for doing so over those who follow our laws?
That's insanity, Martin. It's like making someone who cheated on their taxes being appointed as Secretary of the Treasury.
Oh... wait a minute...
Okay, we said the immigration bit, so I'll address your taxation argument.
Math is not fair. Accounting is not fair. Economics is not fair. All the discussion by the Left and the Right about "tax fairness" has NO PART IN BALANCING A BUDGET. Every dime Government spends is a loan to America. All that money ends up in somebody's bank account and needs to be paid back. People with big bank accounts need to PAY BACK THEIR LOAN!
Anybody who argues against this point of Keynesian economics is either misinformed or self-serving. Mitt Romney, for example, is the worst sort of liar - he steals from his own country to give to his church.
So, the 50% plus who don't pay a dime in federal taxes but who have received trillions for social programs (and, of course, payments so they can do drugs, alcohol, pay for their cable, internet and cell phones and the like)... when do we focus on THEM "paying it back?"
And what does that look like?
You tell us, effectively, then, that government owns EVERYTHING (There is no other conclusion to draw if all the money you have in your bank account is really the government's property and is only awaiting the transfer of the funds) and you'll forgive me if I disagree.
Marx and Lenin shared that view. How'd that work out for them?
Further, "immigration" is only the nexus of the much larger problem: a president sworn to uphold the law who will willingly ignore or otherwise violate it for political gain and not be held accountable for it is the problem... regardless of the issue or the cause.
Because if Obama can get away with this, who do we even need a legislative branch if he can just rule by edict?
One more bit on the tax thing then back to immigration:
You once made the comment that everyone should pay at least SOMETHING ($1 you said) so they know they are responsible too - I agree with that.
Back to immigration:
Juries will nullify the law when they think it oversteps: Jack Kevorkian, for example, went 4 for 5 because the juries wouldn't support the law. Civil rights would never have happened without public disavowal of the law. Immigration needs other solutions than are available in the law.
Martin, I looked at the articles and I wasn't saying that other countries don't have problems with illegal immigration, what I said was that most other countries don't allow them to vote. If you aren't a citizen of a country, you shouldn't be able to vote in that country's elections.
In CA, the incumbent Governor who Schwartzenager ran against the first time gave illegal aliens the right to have Driver's Licenses - 3 days before the election. Why? Because if you have a DL in CA you can vote.
That isn't OK. These people are being exploited for political reasons...not because the politicians really care about them. That isn't OK either.
Kriss, that 2nd article indeed indicated that Europe was granting voting rights to "illegals" (but, of course, what Europe does is its own business). I agree that many Democrats are acting with self-serving cynicism on the issue.
My argument is more one of pragmatism and a belief in democracy for all - not just for the ones who got here first. Super tough issue though.
Post a Comment