The DiamondBacks are the Arizona major league baseball team. They play in a stadium which requires the purchase of a ticket to get in and see the game. What if people could just climb the walls and sit in the seats of their choice in total disregard to those who had already purchased tickets? The ushers and uniformed security would throw them out. They would ask to see a ticket stub for proof of purchase and right to be in the stadium. Why can't the illegal invaders be treated the same way?
To this issue, a great American spokesperson for retaining everybody here is one Francisco Hernandez. The man is a liar par excellance. His answers to questions are simply more questions and he obfuscates where he can. He is as full of hubris as Barney Frank and smiles with self-indulgent smugness when he is asked a question as if anyone questioning his viewpoint is beneath his contempt. When asked what should be done with people here illegally, his comment was: "Oh, well. If someone wants to walk across a desert to clean tables, we should leave them alone. They are only here trying to make a living for their family. They just want to work and we should leave them alone." (I put this in quotes but may have a couple of words wrong. It is almost exactly the same as his statement.) He want on to remark: "If there are jobs that need to be filled and Americans won't or can't do them, thank God for them (sic) breaking laws and getting here. Actually, we should be asking if the American Indians are miffed about our illegal immigration into their country."
Does he think he is fooling anyone? Yes all invaders throughout history should give back land they took in conquests or during wars. The planet should be realigned based on some ancient claim of ownership. But when do we get the the point that we are all interlopers in one way or another. Ownership and sovereignty are determined, in large part, by the ability to keep others from taking what we have. We have laws that guarantee ownership but there are always border disputes, eminent domain issues and several legal forms of theft where one's ownership can be challenged. But the bottom line is that if you can defend your property by any means, you can usually keep your property.
So force or the threat of force keeps people from taking your property. With the current set of invaders, we have taken the prospect of "force" out of the equation and actually give the invaders as many or more rights than those being invaded.
So here we are: We are being invaded by non-citizens who offer any number of reasons for the invasion. But reasons don't make something illegal all of a sudden legal. A court would never free a car thief caught in a stolen car who gives the excuse, "I needed to get to my destination faster and I didn't have a car so I took the first one I could find. I was doing it for my family."
That is what we are being told by the invaders. They can ignore our immigration laws because they supposedly have good reasons. Following this logic, anyone who wants to get here and can sneak in somehow should be allowed to stay and given all the rights of citizenship.
The open border proponents are lying to us and trying to confuse facts with arguments that just don't stand up to examination. We need to reduce the benefits of risking law breaking by punishing those who support the invaders. In a sense, we have people giving aid and comfort to the enemy and that is a crime punishable by death in some cases.
FB
No comments:
Post a Comment