Tweet
Excerpts from the article written by Conservative Republican, Shaun Kenney.
Full article is here:
http://www.shaunkenney.com/2005/11/t...mmigration.htm
Full article is here:
http://www.shaunkenney.com/2005/11/t...mmigration.htm
But let's stop for just a moment and reflect on what we're really saying here. Check off the arguments Howell makes against illegal immigrants. Why should we shoo them off? Why, the reason they must go is because (apart from the fact they are illegally here, a federal problem) they impose upon our social safety net! As Jim Bacon comments :
[I]llegal immigration is a unavoidably a state/local problem when illegal immigrants apply for food stamps, seek medical care and attend overcrowded, fiscally stressed schools. These problems cannot be fobbed onto the federal government. The problems are inherently local, and they're real.[/]
Do we hear that? Republicans. Arguing that people should be shooed off because they are adversely impacting our socialized safety net of food stamps, medical care, and public schools.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
Let's be brutally honest. The reason why these programs are failing isn't because of the impact of illegal immigration. They're failing because they are traditionally societal roles that are being hijacked by a government bent on stressing socialism rather than individualism.
To fork over the failure of these institutions upon a convenient class of people isn't exactly what I would call just, though it certainly is a predictable repetition of history with respects to human nature.
Setting aside the contradiction conservatives offer defending liberally-imposed social agendas, what we have here is an appeal to that old American fear of "the other". That when something doesn't go well, we find some group of people to blame. At first it was the British, then the French, then Indians, next the Irish, extending to Catholics, then to Slavs, then to African-Americans, and currently with anyone of Arab descent. History does indeed repeat.
Now in an age where our open borders and socialized government system have been under threat, we are presented with illegal immigration. And it's not a stretch to say that when people speak of "illegal immigration," it's shorthand for Latin Americans crossing the Mexican border, and not grandma from the Ukraine stuffed into a duffle bag on the next Delta flight.
Here is where the rubber meets the road. Conservativism in my mind (and a slight deviation from the definition Ken Cuccinelli gave this morning) operates on the principles of free markets, free people, and a free society. That comes with a price tag, starting with the rules necessary to make socieities free.
If the concerns from the Howell bench stem from the impact illegal aliens have on our social programs, then what precisely is the problem then? As a conservative, I might suggest that the problem isn't so much the presence of illegal immigrants per se, but rather the presence of government, a presence conservatives are supposed to be fighting against.
Seeing this, let's argue in hypotheticals. If the social programs these illegal aliens are supposedly straining to the breaking point ceased to exist tomorrow, would the opposition be so strong?
Now one might argue yes, and I'll offer two generalized scenarios:
(1) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are here in the United States illegally.
Then remove them, as is the federal governments responsibility to do so.
(2) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are filthy Mexicans.
Then I say you're a racist, and deserve to be beaten to a **** pulp.
So the argument boils down accordingly. The argument against illegal immigration is either (1) a decision policy makers in Washington - not Richmond - need to develop and enforce, or (2) one motivated purely on the fear of "the other" and based on race. Propping up decaying social programs and using illegal immigrants as the scapegoat is only making a bad situation terribly worse.
[I]llegal immigration is a unavoidably a state/local problem when illegal immigrants apply for food stamps, seek medical care and attend overcrowded, fiscally stressed schools. These problems cannot be fobbed onto the federal government. The problems are inherently local, and they're real.[/]
Do we hear that? Republicans. Arguing that people should be shooed off because they are adversely impacting our socialized safety net of food stamps, medical care, and public schools.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
Let's be brutally honest. The reason why these programs are failing isn't because of the impact of illegal immigration. They're failing because they are traditionally societal roles that are being hijacked by a government bent on stressing socialism rather than individualism.
To fork over the failure of these institutions upon a convenient class of people isn't exactly what I would call just, though it certainly is a predictable repetition of history with respects to human nature.
Setting aside the contradiction conservatives offer defending liberally-imposed social agendas, what we have here is an appeal to that old American fear of "the other". That when something doesn't go well, we find some group of people to blame. At first it was the British, then the French, then Indians, next the Irish, extending to Catholics, then to Slavs, then to African-Americans, and currently with anyone of Arab descent. History does indeed repeat.
Now in an age where our open borders and socialized government system have been under threat, we are presented with illegal immigration. And it's not a stretch to say that when people speak of "illegal immigration," it's shorthand for Latin Americans crossing the Mexican border, and not grandma from the Ukraine stuffed into a duffle bag on the next Delta flight.
Here is where the rubber meets the road. Conservativism in my mind (and a slight deviation from the definition Ken Cuccinelli gave this morning) operates on the principles of free markets, free people, and a free society. That comes with a price tag, starting with the rules necessary to make socieities free.
If the concerns from the Howell bench stem from the impact illegal aliens have on our social programs, then what precisely is the problem then? As a conservative, I might suggest that the problem isn't so much the presence of illegal immigrants per se, but rather the presence of government, a presence conservatives are supposed to be fighting against.
Seeing this, let's argue in hypotheticals. If the social programs these illegal aliens are supposedly straining to the breaking point ceased to exist tomorrow, would the opposition be so strong?
Now one might argue yes, and I'll offer two generalized scenarios:
(1) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are here in the United States illegally.
Then remove them, as is the federal governments responsibility to do so.
(2) Yes Shaun, they should still be removed because they are filthy Mexicans.
Then I say you're a racist, and deserve to be beaten to a **** pulp.
So the argument boils down accordingly. The argument against illegal immigration is either (1) a decision policy makers in Washington - not Richmond - need to develop and enforce, or (2) one motivated purely on the fear of "the other" and based on race. Propping up decaying social programs and using illegal immigrants as the scapegoat is only making a bad situation terribly worse.
Comment