My Response to a Comment on Immigration

A comment from the previous post concerning immigration by a commenter by the name of Horatio states:

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

Doesn’t this sound nice and reasonable?  But examine the words carefully, and the flaws in the argument start to appear.  Let’s start with the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

WE THE PEOPLE has a nice ring, doesn’t it?  We the People are us, the Citizens of the United States, who are law-abiding and one of the most generous people on the face of the Earth.  We the People also stand for what freedom really is, and ask, not demand, respect for our country, its people, and the laws that we live under so that our country can continue to exist.

Our country is a country of laws, which were first set up by the Founders in the form of our Constitution.  The initial Constitution was not complete, which is why the Founders of the Country made it possible for the People to change or amend the Constitution.  Thus, the first changes were the Bill of Rights, and afterward, more changes were made allowing for women and minorities the right to vote as well as other equal civil liberties.  The Suffrage and Civil Rights Movements made that possible.

At this point, let us note that the Founder’s of the Country were white, well-to-do gentlemen of substance of various backgrounds, and subjects of the British Crown, and not of many nations as Horatio posits.  Let us also note that the majority of people of the days of the Suffrage and Civil Rights voted for these rights to be granted to women and minorities through State elections, not through a minority of civic-minded politicians that didn’t listen to their constituents.  Remember, it was the majority that granted the rights to the minority through their elected Representatives.  Last we should also note that the rights of women and minorities were granted to legal residents of the United States.

This is where Horatio loses the concept of a sovereign nation.  Our nation, like many other nations, has borders and laws to enforce them.  It has an immigration policy and laws to support them.  Arizona, for the most part, is reiterating the Federal laws on Immigration.  No other country, including Mexico, will allow people to enter the country without due process.  Why does anyone think that the United States should be different?

The United States is a shining beacon of what a country can do if governed by the will of the people and not by the will of a despot, dictator, or king.  The United States is (or should be) a champion of that concept throughout the world, and support the rights of people in their respective countries.  But if those people wish to come to the United States, then I, as a citizen of this country, would welcome them – after all, part of the poem on the Statue of Liberty states,

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

My Great-Grandmother came to this country from her native Ireland fleeing the Great Potato Famine, and passed through Ellis Island.  At no time was it considered to sneak into the United States like a thief in the night.  People came to this country as a land of opportunity, a chance to start over.  Coming in illegally was not the way to start a new life.  This is the strength of the United States.

Let’s look at this excellent video (h/t to GeeeeeZ!):

I take great insult to Horatio’s implication that it is somehow the duty of the United States and its citizens to welcome people who cross our borders illegally, and that we should “stop and examine [our] conscience.”  Horatio also implies that to do otherwise is discriminatory. 

What is right and legal is for immigrants to follow the due process of our laws, for then we know (at least in principle) that these people intend to be law-abiding.  It’s not discrimination, it’s self-preservation given the world today.  The violence in Arizona and Texas from Mexican gangs crossing the border illegally should give one pause the practicality of having an open border.

Horatio, I’m sorry, but you dream of a Utopia that cannot exist in this world or in any other.  It is not the fault of the immigrant that wants a better life for himself or his family.  It is the fault of the country he lives in for being repressive and closed to opportunities to better his lot in life.  The United States, realistically, cannot have unlimited immigration with open borders.  It is not practical nor is it sustainable.

And finally, I sleep very well at night because I have a clear concience, and I have suffered discrimination.


About Tom Roland

EE for 25 Years, Two Patents - now a certified PMP. Married twice, burned once. One son with Asperger's Syndrome. Two cats. Conservative leaning to the Right. NRA Life Member.
This entry was posted in Immigration and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to My Response to a Comment on Immigration

  1. Z says:

    HEY, hey, hey…if you’re going to take a video from my blog, you have to COMMENT THERE, okay? (smile!)
    Of course, I’m kidding…very glad you posted it, EVERYONE should see this and, as I said at geeeeeZ, REALIZE HE’S A CALIFORNIAN!!
    Hi, Tom! 🙂

  2. Horatio is a bleeding ignoramus. At Ellis Island people were not allowed to enter this country willy-nilly and with no vetting whatsoever. Those persons found unfit were simply returned to their country of origin. There were actual screenings and screening points. People had to fill out questionnaires, were examined in terms of physical and mental fitness, checked for diseases, their financial standing noted. Today, none of this occurs on our southern border and — despite that — the United States is still excoriated for objecting to being forcefully boarded against her will.

    Further, Horatio, have you BOTHERED to compare, say, Mexico to the US in terms of immigration? To wit:

    * Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)

    * Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)

    * Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)

    * The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)

    Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

    * Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)

    * A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)

    * A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).

    Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

    * Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)

    * Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)

    Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

    * Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)

    * Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)

    * Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.

    Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

    * “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)

    * Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)

    * Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)

    Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

    * A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)

    * Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132

    So, Horatio, let me suggest to you: try reading. Try becoming educated — before you write with your emotions as opposed to dealing with actual facts.


  3. Tom says:

    Hi Z! – But I did comment on that post!! Now I do admit that I haven’t commented on other people’s posts due to time constraints.

    BZ – Amazing how one-sided the press is when reporting on the evil United States and the worker’s exporting Mexico.

  4. Joe says:

    McClintock was right on point, as was BZ, above.

    This country was not built on illegal immigration, but on legal immigration and assimilation.

    We are not a nation of immigrants. We are a nation of assimilated legal immigrants.

  5. Yabu (EOTIS) says:

    Your post was well “put together”…good job.

  6. leslie says:

    We should wonder about someone who holds this belief. Would that someone be against a theif breaking into their house and taking what he pleases? Absolutely not. People who believe that it is right to let others break our laws and enter this country illegally then live off the spoils of legitimate citizens do not have even a basic understanding of the Constitution nor any knowledge of the founding of this country.

  7. leslie says:

    oops… meant to say absolutely.

  8. Horatio’s comment does sound reasonable. However, it is a favorite tactic of the left to take the moral high ground — the Constitution be damned.

    Great response on your part, Tom!

  9. Tom says:

    Joe – Unfortunately, there are those who do not want to assimilate into the society of the Great Experiment that is the United States. The papers are full of examples (Islam is only one, by the way…)

    Leslie – Community property and sharing has been tried even by the most religious and moral, and has failed miserably. A past post details one example.

    AOW – Thank you! And morality has nothing to do with the immigration situation. It has to do with the rule of law as it stands on the books and the right of the United States to be a sovereign nation just like every other nation in the world.

Comments are closed.