Immigration Part II

While fairness is essential for all persons, when it comes to immigrants, their status, treatment, and contribution to the country, law breakers put the notion of equality in peril by their own hand.

Many of our citizens belong to an immigrant ancestry that was treated badly but the leadership of their culture never called for repayment regarding being discriminated against. They were led through a tough work ethic by individuals who achieved more for their children than they ever were rewarded themselves.

As far as the problem of illegal immigration, no people from any culture on the globe should be allowed to enter this country by breaking the immigration laws! Your color, creed, and religion should play no part in determining if you get in or are rejected.

As far as economic examples, according to the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) for instance “analysis of the latest Census data indicates Florida’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers nearly two billion dollars per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated taxes collected from illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly one billion dollars per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $315 per Florida household headed by a native-born resident.”

People should open their eyes. Illegal aliens do collect medical care through hospital emergency room visits and we pay! The money they collect under the table from unscrupulous employers is not taxed and the government wants more from us. We pay! Illegals may want to remain invisible but their shadow is seen in every hospital emergency room. They are on the transparent welfare roll when they take money from companies willing to pay them next to nothing or when they live together 16 in a one bedroom home fit for four individuals.

Championing such an illegal immigrant subculture of welfare off the books is another insidious form of slavery itself which many refuse to see. Certainly immigrants work hard. They always have. That is not the issue. Can a nation of laws exist without adherence to those laws?

Addressing the illegal alien issue by slamming the border shut and only allowing immigrants to apply for legal status is the first step. Because good intentioned organizations side with illegal immigrants does not give them the right to break the law. Civil disobedience is a cherished American tradition. However, being wrong and breaking the law only compounds the problem. Many people desire to change history and have the forefather’s sins visited upon their sons.

We are American’s! That was eloquently stated over 85 years ago years ago through Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an American. Excerpted from a letter written shortly before his death in January 1919, just a few months after the armistice that ended the fighting in World War I he wrote "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

Is that view still valid today? Though debate opinions vary I will fight side by side with an opposing debater to preserve their right to differ from me. That is what is uniquely American, and worth dying for. Illegals who want to share in that glory should do so legally!

Catfight
Coulter versus Clinton


The uprising of shock from the mainstream over author Ann Coulter’s comments in her new book Godless: The Church of Liberalism is quite predictable. It may shock sensibilities that Ms. Coulter says in her book that a group of widows whose husbands perished in the 9/11 terrorist attacks “act as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them." The biggest backlash however rises from her personal appearance tongue in cheek commentary on several talk shows where she alleges that that these widows are self-obsessed and enjoying their husbands' deaths.

First of all much of her rhetoric generates publicity and help her sell books. There is much hyperbole laced through her commentary. She tends to be in your face with much of her delivery on many well thought out political positions. The latest example is no exception.

Her argument is basically that liberals often send into the spotlight victims of tragedy who espouse left wing ideology. The resulting compassion for these tragic figures according to Coulter is being used as a shield from critical rebuttal while they go unchallenged on activist rampages. She is using an over the top approach to prove her point.

Coulter concludes that this is a tactic of liberal methodology. She is essentially correct. Unlike most other political commentators however she will not play their game, whither, pull her punches, and be relegated to the shadows. Using clever hijinks she blasts the left at the same time shocking conventional sensibilities.

Take for example Hilary Clinton. Senator Clinton commented on Ms. Coulter’s tome. “Perhaps her book should have been called 'Heartless," Mrs. Clinton states that she knows a lot of the widows and family members who lost loved ones on 9/11 and that they never wanted to be a member of the tragedy defined group.

The tenor of the retort sounds like Ms. Coulter has hit a nerve. You are not allowed to criticize widows even if you find it repulsive that they are using their spouse’s deaths as a launching pad for political activism. The response tends to validate Ms. Coulter’s assumption.

It is sort of like collecting life insurance. You may find yourself better off financially after your loved one is gone and thanks to their death your fiscal position is elevated. You may be shattered that they died but you take advantage of its benefits. Ms. Coulter is saying that these women sure enjoy the limelight resulting from their spouse’s demise, not the loss itself.

For a family that enjoys parsing words you’d think that Mrs. Clinton of all people would understand. The name Clinton should conjure nothing but the concept of linguistic gymnastics. She however has political interests to think about.

Mrs. Clinton found it beyond her how anyone in the public eye could launch such a mean spirited attack upon victims. You must understand that the political left has not only cultivated but championed victim-hood. It guarantees liberals relevancy. If the populace is always under the thumb of someone then you can be saved by the cavalry (the political left).

As someone who spent 8 years seated at the right hand of her husband President, there was little compassion for truth or openness let alone individuals that got in the path of the Clinton slander machine. With countless scandals under their belt the number of people harmed by their authority has been relegated to history to be forever ignored by all but the historians.

Mrs. Clinton's label as being among the smartest woman in America, bestowed upon her by feminists, seems strange. The Clinton White House attacks upon people were applauded while a mere author is lambasted. Mrs. Clinton is after all a victim of her husband’s philandering. Don’t attack her though she is a casualty!

As the two square off Ms. Coulter’s point is made again. Victims that spin political from their spouse’s tragedies are being as vulgar a site as the specter of the calamities themselves. The activism is what they are enjoying, their new found fame and attention which they would have never achieved without the misfortune to their families. Ms Coulter just wants a level playing field where commentary even from tragic figures may be challenged without undue repercussion. She points it out by using similarly offensive reciprocation.