Until now, I have been confused by the bipartisan effort against the will of the people to offer amnesty to millions of illegal alien felons in this country. I saw no benefit to the United States as a whole to bring in a slue of poor, uneducated, and unskilled workers simply because they were here and then bestow on them rights that, were I to do what they did, that same government would take from me. Since returning from Alaska, I realized that they do this because the politicians do not like the citizens they represent and they hope by doing this to change the distribution of the electorate to one that is willing to give politicians more power.
Evidence abounds that the politicians hate the people of this nation. They rationalize the illegal felons from foreign lands by channeling virtues of the Founding Fathers and comparing these new arrivals to our forefathers. At the same time, you can read elsewhere how politicians roast the Founding Fathers as white men who stole land and resources from the natives who were living here. Either the Founding Fathers were virtuous or they are not, and if they are, they were virtuous because they believed in the civil society and rule of law. Even if the trades made between pilgrims and Iroquois nation were unfair, they were considered just and fair exchanges by those who transacted them at the time, and all claims and counterclaims were settled by men of that time, no matter how much buyer’s remorse their posterity may harbor. The politicians claim we are not paying our fair share as citizens, that we are not giving or helpful or generous, and that the people who come here to take do so because it’s “for the children”. That canard has to stop. What about our children? What kind of nation will they inherit? Amnesty advocates seem able to see only virtues in the immigrant while they see only evils in the citizens. It is as if the citizen is beholden to the immigrant, irrespective of his national origin or attitude towards the rule of law. They are considered essential while citizens already extant are considered impediments to progress and progressivism.
Politicians seem completely disinterested in the law. As the people clamor for a sealed border, the politicians focus on amnesty. Where we would be on trial for committing a felony and then stripped of the right to vote, politicians anxiously trip over each other to give these other felons franchise. The declaration of independence reflects that governments are created by the people to serve and protect them. It is a statesman’s responsibility to serve first and foremost those who band together to form a government. They are those who elect him, and they are the ones to whom he is accountable for the execution of his rights, powers, and responsibilities. Efforts to curry favor with people who are not yet citizens at the expense of those who already are constitutes nothing less than gross dereliction of duty if not blatant defiance of a political oath of office. Citizens are those who consent to be governed and for whom the government exists. Consequently, I am the advocate of those already citizens over those who may one day hope to be, and especially over the concerns of those who wish to reap the benefits of citizenship without paying the price or respecting the rules f the civil society from which they wish to benefit.
Citizenship means to throw off allegiance to their former nation and society. My neighbors, even though they have many redeeming qualities, seem resistant to throwing off allegiances to their former sovereigns and traditions, even when these undermine their success in America or the ability of America to continue in prosperity. Governments are obligated to bias citizenship to those who are most likely to be absorbed into and contribute to the society as presently constituted. Instead, they are interested in “fundamental transformation” when there are already nations elsewhere to which they could migrate if they really believe that such a society is superior. This is the attitude of conquerors who intended to erase other cultures and imprint their own on every land over which they could take the reigns of power from the people who lived there.
Advocating amnesty over the law is a duplicitous stance. The citizen is minimized and the illegal alien is noble. That’s not always been the case. If Liberals think unrestricted immigration is so wonderful, why do they denigrate the white influx to native american lands? Immigration reform is racism against whites. The illegal alien today is noble, but when we came here, it was the natives who were noble. Between those two dates, you see the Great White Male, that demon of the deep whom they relentlessly hunt like Ahab. Chain migration is a system that hurts the prospects of a civil society. Rather than prioritizing immigration based on skills, it prioritized based on who they knew. It is the ultimate GOBNet, in which immigrants choose who come, and the immigrants become poorer, less educated, less skilled, and less successful than those who preceded them. We are a government of men now, where you prosper, not in accordance with your fealty to the law but in accordance to whose patronage you can gain in Congress. I had no idea that the Senate was now our very own House of Lords. It’s now a matter of who you know rather than who you are. Politicians overlook the citizens in favor of illegal aliens and punish citizen 501c4 groups while those headed by distant relatives of the president rapidly receive rubber stamps. The GOBNet will destroy the nation.
The reason why politicians refuse to close the border is because they want to change the constituency they represent. When they ignore the people who elect them to bestow favors on people who cannot vote today, it shows whose interests they really represent. They resent the citizens extant and hope to change the citizenship so that it is the one they want to represent- one that votes them ever-increasing amounts of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment