Well there is really no need to state the obvious. You clearly don’t see how the President's proposal suggests giving up of the right to determine who can enter and stay in the country. Nevertheless, the law is quite clear regarding who is a legal immigrant and who is a trespasser; and when the GOP aims to make illegal people legal because (as you have claimed “there is nothing one can do to stop the flow of folks who wish to come to America,”) then the GOP to any rational person aims to allow foreigners to determine who can enter and stay in the country. Your argument is no argument at all. It is merely an admission of defeat of the exact species employed by those who think an unfettered right to drugs, homosexuality, contraception and abortion ought to be made integral to American society. “There is nothing we can do to stop drug use. So lets give the druggies clean needles. Lets accept homosexual marriages, give condoms to teens and pay for their abortions. Let’s make trespassing legal (as long as it promises to translate into votes).”
Your claim that “the only absolute law is that all men are created equal by God” serves as no more a basis for approving trespassing as it does for approving the equal right of all men to the use of your home and car. This is just so much leftist- speak, Thomas, that has become all too common amongst Republicans. Contrary to your opinion, the ”legal control of immigration is in it's implementation” not “a clear statement of action" that all men are created equal. American sovereignty grants Americans the right to choose who enters and remains within the borders of their country just as your personal sovereignty grants you the choice of who enters and remains in your home. It is not racism; but it does ultimately protect culture. If the legal control of immigration is wrong for the country, then the law is wrong to recognize your sovereign rights as an individual, since the country’s rights come directly from its individual members.
Your “argument” that one need know “the exact details of the law and regulations” that Bush proposes in order to properly reject them, is quite punch drunk. It is a wondrously fallacious attempt to place restrictions on your opponent while leaving yourself free to employ the same idiocy you claim of him. But it will not take the most perceptive person to understand that one might reject Bush’s proposal on essentially the same basis you support it. While you think it idiotic for me to judge the proposal as one that rewards criminals, you have with equal idiocy defended the proposal based upon its attack upon immigration control and the “reality” that no one can control who enters the country. It is the proposal’s principle that allows you to support it, and it is exactly that same principle that allows me to reject it. So then ignorance of the “exact details” is no more restrictive upon me as it is upon you. If my rejection is idiocy, so is your support.
The fact is, my rejection is not idiocy at all, but your support surely is. Our nation is a sovereign creature of true rights garnered from sovereign American individuals. The Founders saw it as such. It has a system whereby it determines who is legally of it and who is not. Your contention that its right to control immigration is against God is ridiculous on the surface. Churches quite commonly practice this sort of regulation and they rightly bristle at and even reject those who would attempt to join them while at the same time openly rejecting their doctrines. There is no higher Christian law requiring them to permit trespassing. Indeed, to protect their members, they are bound to defend their law. It is not up to foreigners, contrary to your contention, to tell them by force which of their laws are “good” or “bad.” They have systems whereby these things are determined. The same is true for America. It is not up to foreigners to tell America by either force of entry or otherwise, which of its laws are “good” or “bad.” America has a system whereby such things are determined.
This issue is quite clear, despite your claims that one needs to ‘find ways to spell it out.’ One merely needs think in essentials and see the principle driving the GOP proposal. If the proposal in any way aims to make trespassing legal, then it flies in the face of my country’s sovereignty, against my Constitution, against what gives me the right to deny squatters on my property, against what gives me the right to close my own doors, against ultimately my sovereign right to own and control property in freedom. There is no need to “spell out” anything more than this.
And there is no need to listen to “talking heads,” Thomas. I scarcely think any talking head is even taking my view because leftists veritably rule the day where talking heads are concerned on this issue. Oddly enough, had Clinton a mere four years ago proposed what Bush now proposes, the GOP would be up in arms about our being “a nation of laws.” The GOP, its talking heads included, is obviously betraying its principles in order to avoid nationally what has happen to the California GOP in the wake of Prop. 187. It seems so expedient.
When you say such garbled things as ”Immigration law show attempt to minimize making acts of pursuing life liberty and happiness criminal”, you once again force me to seek clarification that I’d rather not seek. I think you are saying that immigration law attempts to curtail the human right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing can be further from the truth. It no more aims to curtail human happiness than you aim to curtail human happiness by denying the bum on the street the right to enter and live in your home. He is equal to you, Thomas. Apparently you have little idea of what Jefferson meant by the notion of “equality” that you now so cavalierly throw around here. Your position is, once again, built upon the logical vapor of fallacy. Immigration law aims to preserve the home of those who own it, so the owners as a group may choose how best to structure it for the purpose of allowing themselves life and freedom to pursue happiness. It is all about national sovereignty and the rights of home. The concern is for those who are members of the home, who embrace the system of law that makes the home what it is. The concern is not for foreigners who from the outset prove their disregard for the law by breaking it and who encourage others to break it. |
