Copyright © 2006 The Harvard Salient, Inc.
Posted on 05/13/2006 9:02:00 PM PDT by Mia T
For Sanctimony's Sake
The Left—and Right— spin on immigration hides legislative failure
By Thomas J. Basile '06, Staff Writer
It's not easy being Hillary Clinton these days. One might think that leading an intrepid one-woman crusade against flag desecration and audaciously combating the Dubai ports deal would leave little time for presidential campaigning, yet Hillary has seemingly already secured the endorsement of none other than Our Lord Himself. Lest her newfound legislative populism not prove sufficient to win over moderate voters, Clinton apparently felt that invoking the mantle of Christ might further temper her liberal image. Yet her pious lamentation that a proposed immigration enforcement law (which would have imposed a sentence of up to five years imprisonment for illegal aliens and those abetting them) was "certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures...[and] would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan—and probably even Jesus himself" was something less than inspiring.
First, regardless of whether or not Clinton is privately religious, her politics unquestionably belong to the domain of secular liberalism. For her to suggest that she somehow derives the tenets of her political philosophy from Biblical precepts strains credulity in the extreme. After all, the senator evidently did not spend much time pondering Jesus' precepts when she proudly voted against a ban on partial-birth abortion—I somehow doubt she will continue to channel Christ in her public policy pronouncements when she campaigns in the Democratic primaries.
More to the point, Clinton's comments—which have been echoed by Archbishop of Los Angeles Roger Cardinal Mahony—reflect a sentiment widely held on the Left and provoke some interesting considerations. Concerning the immediate question of what Jesus would do if confronted with a destitute illegal, the senator and the cardinal are certainly correct; no sensible person doubts that He would seek to offer aid even if such assistance transgressed the law. But God's commands to us as private individuals cannot always easily be transposed onto governments. States are equally obligated to adhere to rudimentary standards of fundamental justice and decency if the law is to assume the force of legitimacy, and Christian natural law philosophy always has and should continue to constitute a central dimension of our legal tradition. But it is also true that governments maintain their own distinct set of reasonable interests. The Church may not be particularly concerned about the integrity of national borders, yet the preservation of physical boundaries and the maintenance of the national defense and common culture are indispensable prerequisites for the very existence of the nation-state. No doubt it was precisely this understandable divergence in interests that led Christ to also remind his followers to render unto Caesar what rightfully belongs to him.
In addition, Clinton's outrage over the supposed moral dilemma the law would create for illegals and those wishing to help them is odd considering that she herself bears partial responsibility for the very existence of this quandary. If Hillary and the government of which she is a part had been even minimally competent at fulfilling their primary constitutional duty of securing the border, there would be no illegal immigration crisis to agonize over at all. Furthermore, if the senator is concerned about the ethics of the law, perhaps she ought to consider the myriad injustices endemic to the present border chaos; indeed, how fair is this unbridled illicit migration to the millions of equally poor and desperate individuals in other countries patiently waiting to abide by U.S. immigration policies? What about justice for the millions of Americans who now lose viable employment opportunities to lawbreakers and who must bear the further insult of having to support the provision of generous welfare benefits to those who have so flagrantly disrespected the sovereignty of the country they now expect to provide for them? Further, how fair is it to the millions left behind in Mexico toiling in poverty while their corrupt government exploits the flow of labor into the United States as a means of abdicating responsibility for mending their own moribund economy?
President Bush and a significant proportion of the Republican majority in Congress are equally culpable in the immigration debacle. Betraying principled conservatism in favor of gluttonous corporate interests and selling out American sovereignty for the petty purpose of gaining a marginal increase in the GOP's share of the Hispanic vote, Bush has proposed what is euphemistically known as a "guest worker" program, the centerpiece of which is to place the ostensible "guests" on a path to full citizenship. In support of his position, the president repeatedly invokes the myth that illegals are indispensable to the continued sustenance of the national economy, an absurdity rejected even by such liberal economists as Paul Krugman and Robert Samuelson. Illegals comprise no more than 4% of the workforce and remain a numerical minority in every sector; if anything, their presence artificially depresses wages, a cost borne most heavily by poor and working class Americans. In addition, the federal government in 2004 incurred some $26.3 billion in social service and other expenditures for illegal immigrants while collecting only $16 billion in tax revenue from that population subset. Given all of this, one is led to ask why that self-appointed champion of the struggling masses, Senator Ted Kennedy, opted to further perfect the art of buffoonery by appearing at pro-illegal immigration rally and passionately lauding, in their native Spanish, those guilty of transgressing the very immigration laws he and his fellow senators are charged with upholding, rather than ally himself with disadvantaged American citizens who rightly perceive the influx of aliens as an existential threat to their economic well being.
The second defense of amnesty is the sentimental but chimerical notion that the current wave of immigration is somehow analogous to those earlier ones which brought the ancestors of many Americans to these shores. But what advocates of this view neglect is that the mechanism by which the nation not only absorbed previous multitudes of migrants but in fact flourished in the decades subsequent to their arrival—assimilation—has been eviscerated by the noxious concept of multiculturalism inexorably propagated by the Left over the past several decades. Apparently unmoved by the blatant hypocrisy of lecturing Americans on the need to respect the cultures and mores of other nations while simultaneously hurling charges of "xenophobia" at those who suggest that the United States too has a right to maintain its national traditions and the distinctive attributes of its culture, liberals have succeeded in initiating the balkanization of America. The fruits of multiculturalism are manifest and numerous; bilingualism reigns on ballots, in public schools, and even in the campaign ads and speeches of sycophantic politicians; hundreds of thousands of protesters self-righteously wave the Mexican flag in American streets and impudently proclaim themselves exempt from the laws of the country they reside in but to which apparently feel little loyalty. Indeed, more than a few of the organizations sponsoring the rallies freely admit their opposition to the very concept of a U.S.-Mexico border and some even opine on their ultimate goal of "reclaiming" the southwestern United States.
The third argument advanced by amnesty proponents is that there exists no other just alternative given that mass deportation of the 11 million illegals currently living here is untenable. To the contrary, nothing could be further from the truth; while an enhanced willingness to return those here illegally to their country of origin is necessary, the fundamental solution lies in simply undermining the incentives to remain in the U.S. illicitly; if accompanied by strong border security measures—including a comprehensive fence—the implementation of a national equivalent to California's Proposition 187 denying all social services and welfare benefits to illegals in conjunction with the consistent enforcement of stringent punitive measures against employers who hire undocumented aliens will, over time, produce a significant decrease in the number of illegal aliens in the country. Those genuinely committed to becoming Americans would then be welcome to pursue the channels of legal migration from their homeland. The question is not and never has been whether illegal immigration in an insoluble dilemma (it is most assuredly not), but whether those elected to office can summon the courage necessary to eschew the exhortations of misguided vocal minorities and the false comforts of political correctness in furtherance of their sacrosanct constitutional duty to enforce the law and secure American sovereignty. With the Democratic Party remaining a puppet of the Left, and the Republican Party now under the leadership of a president who evidently prefers to employ the military in constructing schools in Baghdad rather than combat the invasion of our own southern border, the prospects for meaningful change seem unlikely at best. Although substantive immigration reform necessarily entails a rigorous, disciplined and, at times, harsh approach, it remains infinitely preferable to the injustices perpetuated by the intolerable status quo.
Copyright © 2006 The Harvard Salient, Inc.
|
Now Hillary, look me in the eye and say that.
ping
;)
ping
One of the best posts I've seen om the illegal alien problem. Thanks.
You're welcome.
ping
|
|
Recognize the enemy for what he is and do not allow them to use divisive issues to destroy our conservative movement. We are winning. We must not be sidetracked by an issue that will be solved in due time as we elect more conservative members to our government and continue replacing liberal activist judges with constitutionalists. The goal is the same as it's always been. We must hold the line and advance our cause. Never willingly give ground to the liberal/socialists! Never retreat! Never surrender! The Beast must be destroyed!-- The game has not changed, we face the same enemy, same challenges. The Beast never dies! |
|
Podhoretz: Yes—with this caveat. If the party fails to focus on the threat from Hillary and tears itself apart from within in pursuit of doctrinal purity, then those in pursuit of purity over practical politics will hand the country to Hillary in 2008. Lopez: In the short term: If Republicans lose big in 2006, how will it reflect on 2008? Will it be a good kick-start to the GOP or just put Dems that much ahead? Podhoretz: Here's a very good rule of thumb in politics: Losing begets losing. Lopez: How can blogs stop Hillary? Could the left-wing blogosphere wind up a thorn in her side? Podhoretz: Blogs can and should keep the pressure on Hillary to speak, speak, speak. She prefers to remain silent for the most part, because that way she can limit any damage her words might cause. I offer some very practical tips for bloggers in the book.... Lopez: What’s your most important piece of advice on stopping Hillary? Podhoretz: Conservatives must avoid the siren song of schism, or all is lost. Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews John Podhoretz |
ping
ping
ping
She knows about as much about the Scriptures as she does about baking cookies. Or healthcare. Or the Yankees. Or Edmund Hillary. Or Judaica. Or the other deep, abiding interests she seems to pull out of her pocket whenever she is in front of an audience, and you KNOW what I'm talkin about!
Yeah, I know, it's not THEIR fault they're not choosing to vote it's the Republicans, who are forcing them to stay home, whatever.
Zzzzzzzzzzzz
Better wake up... (before it's too late).
Mia T. bump.
|
AFTERWORD: A note to the Religious Right
Your convictions--the evangelical ethos-- is precisely my premise, my starting point. It is precisely why I cannot envision how you would doing anything to help elect hillary clinton, someone who is anathema to all you believe. But that is exactly what you would be doing if, in the next presidential election, you stay home or vote for a 'Perot.' You don't have to physically pull the lever or mark the box or touch the square next to the name 'hillary clinton' to help elect her. To think otherwise is to play with your mind. It is tempting to rationalize this issue... even to ignore it. It's a difficult issue. It's a dilemma. But rationalizing the issue won't make your actions morally right... and ignoring the issue won't make it go away. The clintons equate the Religious Right with the islamo-fascist terrorists, with the enemy. They are attempting to transfer onto the Religious Right the hate and fear and disgust Americans feel for the islamo-fascist terrorists. To disseminate their vile invective, the clintons chose a church for the venue and what the they believe to be a vulnerable, easily demagogued population for the audience. (A population they've exploited forever.) The purpose of this article is to inform you of the clintons' contemptible and dangerous scheme. To let you hear clinton for yourself. It is critical that you know fully what the clintons think of you and to what extremes they are willing to go to harm you, to defeat you, to crush you. You must not ignore or rationalize away this threat to your existence. As a Jew, I tend to be vigilant about such threats. I implore you to do likewise. You must not make the same mistake my brethren made almost seven decades ago.
|
thank you :)
Will we play right into her hands?
(Conversely, another defective, dangerous clinton could never again win national office--even by a 'Perot' plurality--if we play our cards right.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[T]hey're using the same divide and conquer techniques. They infiltrate our political parties and organizations. They plant disinformation bombs and sow the seeds of political discontent. They are masters in the use of propaganda and rabble rousing.
I am not arguing that you change your deeply held convictions. To the contrary.