|
It's a Reward for Breaking the Law, not an "Amnesty"
The first thing we should challenge is their use of the word "amnesty". Legalising people who are here illegally is not an amnesty, it is a reward. The difference was explained by Peter Gadiel in his open letter to George Bush of 5 July 2006 published at
www.vdare.com/gadiel/060705_bush.htm and which applies to Britain exactly too!
Let's face it George, anyone who isn't brain dead, understands that when someone commits a crime and he's given a pardon and the slate is wiped clean, well, that's amnesty…Of course I do see the distinction between an ordinary amnesty and the super duper kind of amnesty that you're proposing.
With an ordinary amnesty, the criminal just gets back the same rights that he had before he committed the crime. He's restored to where he was before he broke the law; nothing more. What's different in your proposal is that in addition to forgiving all the crimes committed by illegals and "wiping the slate clean" you actually want to give these criminals a giant reward on top of it: U.S. citizenship.
So I guess I see your point.
What you and McCain and Kennedy and Lieberman and Hagel are talking about is not amnesty because a real amnesty would mean just letting the illegals return home and then allowing them to apply for immigration visas without holding it against them that they'd broken our laws.
That's not what you and the Senate Gang have in mind at all. You want to let 'em stay here and then give 'em a big prize...
I mean, suppose you rob a bank. And you get caught, and instead of punishing you the government tells you that if you quit robbing banks for a few years, at the end of that time some bureaucrat is gonna give you a million dollars. No one in his right mind would call that "amnesty". We'd have to make up a whole new word for it.
And you, and McCain, and Teddy (the hero of Chappaquidick) already have: you call it "earned legalization." Hmm. Makes me want to go out and commit a crime so I can win a prize from my government.
But look Georgie, your lies aren't working. No one's fooled.
Let me tell you what I think is going on here. I'll use an analogy so you get it, okay?
Let's say there's this cop, named Patrolman Bush, and every day he walks his beat in Kennebunkport, Maine. And every single day he sees crimes committed by guys who are members of a gang run by Vinnie the Fox [Vicente Fox, President of Mexico]. Every single day he watches Vinnie's guys beat up old ladies, commit murder, drive drunk and run over pedestrians, whatever.
He knows when they're gonna do it and where they're gonna do it. And this Patrolman Bush, he doesn't do anything! He just stands there…every single day…watches it all happen and lets 'em walk away from their crimes without arresting them. Of course, after a while the people of Kennebunkport get a little suspicious.
They wonder: "Hey, how come Officer Bush stands by and watches these guys do all this stuff in front of him…every single day…and he never does anything about it?"
So, imagine that situation Georgie. I mean, people are gonna start asking questions right? They might even, Heaven forbid, say that Officer Bush is, well, a little dishonest. No?
They might go to the Police Chief and say: "Chief, we certainly don't wanna suggest that Officer Bush is not a nice man…after all he talks about God all the time and about how he has a favourite hymn and all that…but since he lets Vinnie the Fox's gang commit all these crimes…every single day…and doesn't do anything, we're kinda wondering if maybe Patrolman Bush is not on the up and up."
"But we can't catch and deport all illegals?"
"We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is 'comprehensive murder reform.' It's not 'amnesty' -- we'll ask them to pay a small fine."
Ann Coulter, "Importing a Slave Class", 23/05/2007, www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20855
"Illegal immigrants are merely a symptom. The real problem is the law that ignores the truth about our economic needs." [Tamar Jacoby -- prominent US "neo-con" amnesty-booster www.manhattan-institute.org/html/jacoby.htm attempting to suggest that we need to import many more people to address "our economic needs".]
These people are not servicing "our economic needs". Rather, by their presence, they are creating their own economic needs. If you import, or allow in illegally, millions of people, then that's millions of new people who need goods and services! You're importing an entire new country of people! It stands to reason that if they were not here, then there would not be any new "economic need" to service. Jacoby's claim is a recipe for endless exponential growth of both the population and the economy.
People who Put the Principle above the Practical
When dealing with these people, the bottom line is to remember that they do not believe in the idea of borders in the first place. As we explained in our September 2006 issue, their religion of "equality" mandates "No Borders" in "One World".
Their "equality" principle reigns supreme over any practical considerations -- even if it leads to chaos, and political, social, economic and ecological damage and death in reality!
We must understand that they really don't care!
The principle is all that matters to them.
The practical considerations are too difficult to contemplate or be bothered with, because practical considerations require awkward judgments, which lead to "discrimination" and "inequality", as well as serious brain-strain and conscience-crises.
|
Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence:
Those who should get in, get in;
those who should be kept out, are kept out;
and those who should not be here will be required to leave.
Congresswoman Barbara Jordan
24 February 1995
www.utexas.edu/lbj/uscir/022495.html
|
|
