The House of David

"dawnbreak in the west"

Friday, August 14, 2015

An equivalence

Maet at Ace:Every candidate that supports amnesty should be asked this question. "How many Americans must die at the hands of unlawful criminal immigrants?" The fact that many politicians still support it means that the current numbers are acceptable.

This can be extended - but not by mainstream conservatives: for "unlawful criminal immigrants", read "underclass thugs". Either set of dangerous human beings, or both (as happened to me in west Houston) may or may not decide to move in next door. One set is illegal. This is a technicality.

The underclass thugs are here because they were made legal. Some are homegrown from before the Civil War; some are "refugees" - Hmong and Somalis tend to be cited most in the underclass context (disclosure: I could well be an old-school gypsy myself, passing through the Hmong homeland to boot). But even if such members of the Neo-American Community were legally citizens, they were often not allowed to become legal residents of specific regions. This was because States were considered legal states, with the right to limit who got to stay and how. Oregon kept out blacks Constitutionally, entirely, until very recently (I think it was 2002, and I should add I'm not endorsing this). Other states allowed for "restrictive covenants" (which I do support). The Western nations, Asian nations, and Islamic nations all have historically assumed and accepted that there existed people who were so different from us, that they could not be allowed to live with us - unless they had proven up front that they could be so allowed. "Disparate impact" was considered natural, given disparate origins.

One form of immigration from race B into the land of A does not differ qualitatively from another, from the perspective of A. The illegal alien is illegal by dint of the current law. Likewise, the recent legal immigrant, the H1B holder, and the drifter are all legal by dint of law; which was a different law until the 1940s-60s changes in such laws. Do they deserve these rights? All of them? The now-integrated Negro (as the term was at the time of integration) is a case in point and look how he now behaves, with very few exceptions. Amnesty is desegregation, on a global scale.

I do not believe that conservatives may have this both ways. Their praise of the "Martin Luther" Kings and their condemnation of amnesty for illegals reeks of "this far, no further". Human societies simply do not work this way; they see "this far" and go for the "further". The "illegal" part does matter but it's not enough. A lot of people have a lot of legal rights which they do not deserve. By concentrating on the "illegal" part, conservatives are showing their hand - and, I'm sorry, it's simply not a strong enough hand.


posted by Zimri on 21:12 | link | 0 comments

On this site




Sophia



Politics



Random crap

Powered By Blogger TM

Property of author; All Rights Reserved