Tuesday, May 02, 2006

Immigration Rally Aftermath

First of all, folks, what can you say about Sam Adams? The guy's an American original. I respect him and love him a lot, and couldn't be happier that he's on board. Cheers, brother. Now, down to business.

So yesterday was the big day, and it seems like a lot of people turned out, nationwide, to support... what were they supporting again? Lawlessness?

Look, I completely get why people want to come to the United States. This is the greatest country in the world, and hands down the best there's ever been, by any measure. Yes, any measure.

But here's the rub. Citizenship is not a human right. It's not even a civil right. It's a privilege, something to be earned. And certainly by no means is breaking a law, and then demanding that being here and working somehow makes up for that, anything resembling logic. Let me repeat: being here and working doesn't absolve you of the fact that you broke the law. That's like... cheating to get into Harvard and then demanding they let you stay because you've been dutifully attending class. Unless of course our black-robed masters divined some hidden right in the Constitution to attend Harvard and I haven't received the memo...?

Furthermore, there's a question of fairness. I know a guy whose wife came here from China. She immigrated legally, and it took a long time, two years in fact. But that's what you do if you want to be a citizen! I strenuously disagree with any amnesty program that doesn't place the illegal immigrants in the back of the proverbial line to citizenship.

Two favorites from the rallies:

First was the "undocumented" woman quoted who brought her daughters to the rally to "show them that I'm not a criminal." Except, of course, for the inconvenient fact that YOU ARE HERE ILLEGALLY. Can IQ tests be part of whatever program we decide on? Please?

Second was the supporter/protester, whatever you want to call him, who was holding a sign that said something to the effect of "No Immigrants -> No Burritos (think about it)." Again, the IQ test would really, really be beneficial. Briefly, most people are opposed to illegal immigration, not all immigration. Once more, the key word there, italicized for the reader's benefit, is illegal. You know, as in, against the law. Secondly, what, we're all going to forget how to make burritos all of a sudden? Please. I like burritos as much as the next guy - probably more, in fact - and if there were any basis to this I'd be the first person shouting "Amnesty!"

That, folks, was sarcasm. But, overall, I was pleased that this is the face of illegal immigration. Should make it real easy for reason to win the day, and for the pols to do the right thing.


Samuel Adams said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Publius said...

If only it were that easy, but there are too many politicians who are in favor of amnesty and forgiveness or who are in favor of it but just don’t want to use the word. I have written to many politicians to voice my opinion only to receive a generic response back of “I am against amnesty. Instead, I believe that people who have crossed our borders should have to pay a minimal fine and learn English, and then go to the back of the line.” Well, guess what, they are going to stay here while they are waiting in the back of that line and the fine they would pay still wouldn’t equal the taxes they are not paying on their wages.
My favorite is the sign that read, “No one can be illegal.” Well, no, at least 12 million people who are in this country right now can and are illegal.

The Monarchist said...

Publius, it sounds like we need a rally of our own, now, doesn't it? Either that our a powerful raw-meat eating law firm to lobby for us. (rifles through pockets) I've got $32.00, how much do you have?

Samuel Adams said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Samuel Adams said...

Who is it that is so determined to leave Mexico in order to live and work in the United States under false/illegal pretenses? Is it the wealthy or comfortable Mexican citizen? No, of course not. If such are here, they are more likely to gain entry the old-fashioned way. It is the poor, the destitute of Mexico that make up the vast majority of the illegal alien population (purportedly twelve million strong) in the United States. If they are considered poor in Mexico, what manner of abject poverty do they then bring to further burden the United States?

The next (non-rhetorical) question that must follow is this: Why are they coming here in such vast numbers? Obvious answer: Better jobs and better lifestyle (the politically incorrect answer: More freedom!).

Very well, but something still does not add up. If they see such a marked potential for a better life and/or better earnings here in the United States, one would expect their behavior to reflect a desire to either a) register as foreign nationals or non-permanent resident aliens or b) become naturalized American citizens in a manner conducive to the laws of our country which they deem as superior to our neighbors to the south. Such is indeed the case by a larger segment of Latinos than the "drive-by media" gives them credit for or would have us "guilty whites" believe.

However, it is patently obvious that there are indeed large numbers of other Latinos, almost all Mexicans, who obstinately claim non-citizenship, even with an idea of reclamation. To borrow a line from one of the Winnan (sp) family, "Homey don't play dat." Be sure that, by-and-large, these Mexicans do not wish to immigrate to the United States. Immigrants become Americans, these come to colonize.

Alexander Hamilton said...


I think you're on to something there, and furthermore, there may be some truth to the criticism that our nationally-set quotas for legal unskilled immigrants is too low on an annual basis.

No criticism, however, negates the fact that ilegals are breaking the law. This is a big issue, and reform needs to be complete, and I doubt that our attention-span challenged politicians have the nerve to craft a complete solution. AH

Samuel Adams said...

Methinks you raise the spectre of white guilt, Mr. Hamilton! Now, where did I hear about that last?

Ladies and Gentlemen, without further ado (and please accept my apology for the lateness of the hour on this, but) I bring you the first of an almost daily installment here on the American Federalist Blog (and a feature that is not limited to myself exclusively but may be produced by any of The Four on any given day) ... the inaugural ... Rhetorical Question of the Day!

"Why is it racist to be opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens, but not racist to oppose the sale of seaport terminal management contracts to a foregn company because the citizens of that company's home office happen to have the same hair color, eye color, skin color, facial structure, religious beliefs, and accent as terrorists known and alleged?"


The Monarchist said...

Sam, good retort! But what if I told you that the allowable number of unskilled workers allowed to immigrate in one year was 5,000? For the entire US economy, growing as it is, 5,000 unskilled persons are allowed in to fill jobs. Would the number have any bearing - could it change your mind?

One of my sources at the Federalist Society indicated that was the number.

So, in my statement that reform must be complete, I was alluding to this aspect of the issue.


Samuel Adams said...

Thank you, my friend, and my apologies for not quite sticking to your point. There is a fellow, one with whom I believe we are both acquainted (Godspeed his arrival!), who will contribute more brilliantly on this idea than I likely ever could. However, I will here take a non-preventative pre-emptive stab at it.

Five thousand unskilled max per annum, you say? I do not presume that the twenty million "undocumented workers" in the United States are of that classification (unskilled). On the other hand, the politically-correct, toned-down number of twelve million is probably closer to the mark. Without factoring in the certainty of reproduction, it would take four and a score CENTURIES to reach that number, five thousand at a time. Going out on a limb here, but am I to presume that that limit has not been quite strictly enforced?

Continuing, I simply must ask this... Pray, how--and by whom--is one's "unskilled-ness" determined? Further, how are the unskilled delineated from the plentitude of others deluging in? What are we to make of the tens of thousands of others, that they are skilled workers?

One could say that some guy who went by the simple name of Atta was marked down as a ... skilled worker.

As I have previously inferred, my answer is woefully inadequate. Furthermore, it is still far too tangentical for where I think you're trying to go. Therefore, I will leave the continuation of this line to another, at this time.