“Civilizations die by suicide, not murder,'' said historian Arnold Toynbee. Slow suicide is also tragic. It may be obvious that a person addicted to drugs or alcohol is headed for destruction. However, he may not be able to kick his addiction just yet. And that also applies to civilization and its addiction to bad ideas and tendencies. Examples include nativism and bloody misplaced compassion, both of which threaten America's existence.
Commentator Pat Buchanan pointed out that our country was founded and built by stubborn people, then asked whether we still have the fortitude today to preserve their creations. There are some things. The answer may be no, unless Americans can demonstrate the virtues necessary for a specific act of defending civilization, namely mass deportation.
Also note the coincidence of this prescription. Mass deportation amounts to mass migration, the latter calculatedly and illegally orchestrated by our nation's nativist pseudo-elite.
When the cure is called the disease
Nevertheless, even some good people will be swayed by the argument that deporting illegal aliens is cruel. In fact, all a foreigner has to do is sneak into our country and evade the authorities for a sufficient amount of time. Their long-term success in breaking the law should make them untouchable.
But Matt O'Brien, director of research at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, said the standard does not apply to other crimes or civil violations. He then said in a letter Thursday that there would be no sham pardon.
This debate persists because advocates for illegal aliens intentionally misrepresent U.S. immigration law. They argue that illegal aliens have many rights that must be protected. They portray hearings by immigration judges as “trials.” And they make the public believe that a deportation order is a “punishment” similar to a criminal conviction. But none of this is actually true.
When it comes to rights, as far back as 1892, the Supreme Court held that with respect to aliens in deportation proceedings, “the decisions of an executive or administrative official acting within the authority expressly given to him by Congress are not legitimate in law. It is a procedural matter.” In layman's terms, this means that immigration violators are entitled to a hearing in immigration court and the appeals process set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
A hearing in immigration court is not a trial. This is an administrative proceeding in which aliens facing deportation are given a chance to show why they should not be removed from the United States. In fact, the document summoning an immigration violator to a hearing before an immigration judge was previously called the “. “Command for a Cause” is for that very reason.
Americans first, not immigrants
O'Brien points out that the deportation program “doesn't exist to please immigrants.” In either case, aliens are entitled to “relief from deportation.” Unfortunately, this principle has been exploited and messed up beyond recognition by nativists seeking to bring about demographic change. With few places of refuge available, few illegal immigrants who cross the border are genuine refugees. We don't see any major wars, Pol Pot, or genocide throughout Mexico. Oh, and does Venezuela have a dysfunctional government, for example? of course.
So are San Francisco and Flint, Michigan.
Is Mexico dangerous? of course.
The same goes for St. Louis and Detroit.
Life is always tough. However, this does not justify invading the United States. we have our own problems. Importing any more would be suicide.
Deportation is not torture
Returning to Mr. O'Brien, he points out that deportation is not a punishment, but akin to evicting trespassers. Adding further perspective, he writes:
Most people who come home and find two strangers in their basement call the police and are taken away. They don't offer to feed the invaders, pay for their college tuition, or provide them with lifetime medical insurance.
Of course, the pseudo-elites who promote illegal immigration are also not doing this with their own money, at least not with their own money. They let foreigners take the shirts off taxpayers' backs and give them space in middle-class neighborhoods.
O'Brien also emphasized that, contrary to the narrative, our immigration system is “not broken.”
The people running it are.
They just don't want to enforce the law. And their rewards for illegal immigration, which often result in de facto amnesty for long periods of evading authorities, encourage further illegal immigration. And will we provide such special measures for other offenders?
“If you steal your neighbor's Mercedes, there is no court in this country that will forgive you just because you really love the car and are attached to the nice upholstered bucket seats. No, Corinthian,” O’Brien wrote. leather. “
operation
But there are many good reasons to oppose illegal immigration. For example, the Center for Immigration Studies reported in 2017 that the lifetime net financial expenditures associated with allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States was $746.3 billion. (Note: This is based on the assumption that 11.43 million illegal aliens reside in the United States. In reality, the numbers and total costs are likely much higher.)
Crimes by illegal aliens and environmental destruction should also be considered. But even this is small compared to the cultural costs. When immigration rates exceed assimilation rates, as happened long ago in the United States, segregation becomes a reality. (Never mind that not all groups are equally assimilated.) One result is that government documents and ballots are available in dozens or even hundreds of foreign languages. It's possible.
But these and other facts are often relegated to the background. In fact, articles about illegal immigration often begin with emotional manipulation. Below is an example of the beginning of a BBC article from November.
Gabriela entered the United States more than 20 years ago, gasping for breath under a pile of corn stalks in the trunk of a smuggler's car.
Of course, the authors know that if they continue to tell “Gabriella's story”, many readers will empathize with her. And they will often oppose any policy that might drive poor Gabriella out of our country. Never mind that everyone has a story. Never mind that thieves often just want a better life too. Nativists target emotions because they understand that they cannot win arguments over facts.
But the real question is whether our feelings about our country are strong enough to provoke defensive action commensurate with the threats we face. Do we have the courage and wisdom to ensure that America's story continues as a shining city on a hill?
If so, we should welcome the other side of organized mass migration: mass deportation.
