I’m going to respond but before I do I’m going to make a confession (of sorts) about my political ideology: I believe the vast majority of our citizenry has been brainwashed to believe that they (R or D) are on the correct side of history and the other side (D or R) are either ignorant or villains (or both). I’ll not address the I’s, because they either don’t care or they recognize the ‘scam’ that is being run by both political parties and want no part of it. I wanted to put this up front because some folk subscribe to the notion that if you’re conservative then you must think the same as all conservatives do on all issues: no free thought allowed. Feel free to read into that last sentence anyway you choose.
Let me also say that I hold no hope in changing anyone’s position on this topic and what I’ve written below is not designed to do that but rather explain how I got to where I am on the topic. It’s a little more meat to hang on the 4 bottom line bones I offered in the original post.
Fredrick’s abbreviated comments are followed by my response in blue. By the way, I want to thank Fredrick for taking the time to share his thoughts.
“I was surprised the other day when you stated that if the federal government allowed the illegals to cross the border that they are not illegal. If we have a leader and a ruling party fairly elected representing it’s citizens and doing it’s job then your statement could be true.”
My response: I really wanted to separate your second sentence from the first. While they are both valid one does not necessarily lead to the other. More on your second sentence in a moment. As far as the first sentence goes, consider this; our nation advertised that the border was open, provided funds to NGO’s to assist immigrants (migrants, refugees, wanderers or what ever) to get here. Managed their arrival, provide transportation to the city of their choice, gave them food, medical care, cash, housing, lawyers, and ‘we’ are busy schooling their young. You can call a rose a cactus but a rose by any other name is still a rose. This is true regardless of the ‘situation’ expressed in the second sentence.
On your second sentence: I agree with you about a stolen election. That belief that you and I share is also shared by half of the nation. The other half believes exactly the opposite. Both sides will quickly come to throwing blows to defend their position on the matter. The 100 million that agree with you and I and the 100 million that disagree with you and I did not get firmly entrenched in their respective beliefs on their own. One thing for certain is that the side that is correct will not be proven by which group pronounces their belief the loudest, the most often, or with the most vigor. You can blame the 4th and 5th estates for this tragedy (if we think carefully about what this portends for the nation it could be called no less than a tragedy).
If you choose to ignore that our current government is willfully and purposely ignoring existing laws, that’s on you.
Response: It’s not so much my ignorance (intentional or otherwise) as it is my acceptance that the party in power chooses to exercise that power in ways that I don’t agree with. I would expect political creatures to act in their own self interest and these folk certainly have not disappointed. I hear the folk in the news on both sides of the issue doing all they can to keep the citizenry fired up but few take the time to Dick and Jane their way through the issues to demonstrate why, with the hundreds of law suits thus filed, nothing has changed. Dick and Jane doesn’t capture the hearts and minds of viewers; outrage does.
The citizens of this country did not invite all these people anymore than we asked for criminals and diseases to pour across the borders.
Response: Our elected leaders did in fact invite all of these people. We didn’t ask for the worst among them or those that were ill, they came either of their own volition or were ‘encouraged’ by authorities within their home nation.
I have never opposed legal immigration. The melting pot is a grand ideal , but they have to melt ! I remember there were measures to insure that they melt. Legal immigrants had to have a sponsor. The sponsor was to see to it that an immigrant would learn to read and write English, that they would find employment and not be a burden on American taxpayers, border authorities were charged with determining whether the immigrants carried diseases and quarantine measures could be enforced.
Response: You remember the way that the legal immigration system was designed to work. For the most part it (the legal immigration system) did operate as designed. The problem was (I’ll talk about is in a moment) there existed many incentives to bypass the system. Through the 1950’s the number that bypassed the system was in excess of a million a year. Employers wanted cheap labor, immigrants wanted work, families wanted to be together, persecutions abound in the third world, some needed a new start, an anchor child was needed, folk needed medical care, children were starving, etc. Without a physical barrier those whose need was great enough would find a way to enter.
Now for the ‘is’: What is now going on at the southern border has become the ‘legal immigration system’ by default. Not to detract from other aspect of this problem but there is huge money flowing between governments and contractors and NGOs right now and very powerful people and organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. ‘Detractors’ are impotent and reduced to standing on the sidelines and crying ‘foul’.
Even when the great masses of immigrants poured into Ellis Island as a result of the second world war most were quarantined until it was determined they presented no health threat. Many were turned away.
Response: They were turned away and return to their homeland. The more industrious among them entered through the southern border, and there were a lot of industrious people; the largest deportation event in American history occurred during the Eisenhower era (1955), it was titled ‘Operation Wetback’.
Then as I remember about 1965 liberal democrat Ted Kennedy managed to change it all. We have gone from melting pot to a pot boiling over.
Response: If we open the aperture just a little, we discover that one side doesn’t have a monopoly on playing with the immigration throttle. Ronald Reagan is not a flaming liberal but on Nov. 6, 1986 he signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. It allowed immigrants who had entered the U.S. illegally before Jan. 1, 1982 to apply for legal status, provided they paid fines and back taxes. Reagan himself referred to it as an “amnesty,” and it allowed around 3 million immigrants to secure legal status after paying $185.
Anymore a person that objects to open borders is quickly labeled a racist. Once condemned a racist they are determined to have no legitimate say in matters and are silenced through political correctness.
Response: ‘Racist’ name calling is a powerful tool. The left uses it with surprising elan to suppress speech and still dissenting voices. But the real question becomes why discuss this issue with folk that are bent on silencing your voice to begin with? One thing for certain, most all have abandoned any semblance of logical thought on the topic and you and I are not going to change any opinions.
Countries are determined and defined by their borders. If we do not enforce our border will we even have a nation ?
Response: Big argument lurking here and I’m not going to take the easy path. There are US agents standing on the southern border assisting folk to enter. That implies both the existence of a border and the enforcement of the Administrations policies related to it. I get it, folk are ‘free-flowing’ across the border but that is by design. The second sentence is mute because we do ‘enforce’ the border. You and I may not like the way it’s being run, but there can be no doubt that the D side of the political house has it running exactly like their contributors would have it run.
I suppose that based on much of what you post that Christianity is a very strong influence in your life and that explains why you say you can not stand by and watch people starve. That is most admirable. I believe most people will help and feed the needy if they can. This world has many starving people. Always has, always will. I do not believe we can take them all in.
Response: There are a lot of ‘come to Jesus’ folk that would take strong exception to your characterization of me in the first sentence. A cursory review of the writings in the Gospel of Thomas will show that it is not a ‘Christian’ text but rather sayings purported to be by Jesus before ‘Christianity’ was able to completely deep six the singular remaining complete text of his sayings. ‘We cannot feed the world’. Yep, got it. But the collective ‘we’ (regardless of whether we approve or not of how the ‘other side’ brought them here) have an obligation, as humans, to ease the suffering and get them on their feet. Getting these people on their feet is, selfishly, in our own best interest.
Do you really believe that a person that is really starving can walk here all the way from central America ?
Response: I’m going to pass on your walking/starving along the way comment and the one that follows about fat folk crossing the Rio Grande. I’ll agree with you that not all are looking for a free meal.
While you dream about hitting the lottery to obtain a dream house in an exotic location, take notice that recent stories indicate that squatters may find your dream before you can get there.
Response: I’m living my dream on a little patch of ground with a babbling brook within view of my back porch. This year I’ll plant a dozen more apple and pear trees that I’ll never see the fruit of. All is right in my world.