The Expansionist: Indefensible Hypocrisy on Illegal-Alien Children; Recklessness on Immigration

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Indefensible Hypocrisy on Illegal-Alien Children; Recklessness on Immigration

Rachel Maddow is a detestable hypocrite. She made a great SHOW of being unable to deal with (tearing-up at) a news update toward the end of her program on MSNBC one nite this past week, about (mis)treatment of illegal-alien children. You might already know but definitely NEED to know that Rachel Maddow is a NOTORIOUS, enthusiastic champion — CHAMPION! — of ABORTION ON DEMAND! Rachel Maddow does not identify with children! She actually regards children as GARBAGE to be ripped out of the womb of ANY woman who might not be willing to bring them to term, puréed by spinning blades, and flushed away as medical waste. BUT she now POSES as, instead, a champion of children's rights. What a contemptible load of crap, and, thus, what a contemptible b* she is! In many matters she is duly moral, but not as regards children.
+
This is odd, in that she is a forthright lesbian, and most lesbians cherish children, because they have to go to some considerable trouble and expense to have any of their own. But Rachel Maddow is out of touch with her femininity / womanliness, so takes a drastic, Radical Feminist stance as regards children, that values the woman at the expense of the child, 100% to 0% — every time. Such a one-sided stance doesn't even take into account regret after the fact, sometimes years or even DECADES after the fact, when a woman who killed her child wonders what that child might have looked like, been like; if it could have made a major contribution to society, or if it could have kept her company and helped her with life's daily tasks and financial pressures over decades.
+
Perhaps when she is 70 and childless she will see the error of her ways. But how many deaths of children will she have contributed to before then, with her insane, short-sighted, one-SIDED advocacy of abortion-on-demand? As a gay man of very limited means, I could never afford to have children (ideally, sons). My financial means were always limited by the need to devote much of my time and energy to my work for change and sanity in society. If I had been financially rich, I could have worked on my multitudinous projects thruout life and had help with daily maintenance for myself (cleaning, tending to bills, cooking, home repair, and on, and on) and even child maintenance services, leaving me the biggies, such as attention to the emotional, moral, and intellectual needs of my sons. That was not to be. I am now 73 years old and DO have to wonder how my life would have been different had I had my boys. For one thing, I would probably have help now from younger men with various daily and seasonal chores, such as cleaning gutters and cutting back the wisteria that surrounds my house.
+
Hype-ocrisy on Immigration. A very large proportion of the publicly-indignant human-rights enthusiasts we have heard spouting off about 'cruelty' to “undocumented immigrant” children are AT THE SAME TIME champions of the “right” of women to KILL children. All of a sudden they pretend to care deeply about the rights of children. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. They would as soon KILL a child as look at it. NOTHING THEY SAY about caring deeply about temporary immigration policies traumatizing children long-term can be believed, because their way of preventing long-term trauma is to KILL children.
+
There is no such thing as an “undocumented immigrant”. That is an instance of language being used to LIE. These international migrants are not “undocumented”. It's not as tho they lost their papers. They never had legal papers, so they are not “immigrants” but invaders, lawless barbarians who are ALL criminals, for violating our immigration laws. So it's nonsense to represent them as law-abiding people. Immigration laws ARE laws, and violating those laws is a criminal offense, so all violators of our immigration laws ARE CRIMINALS.
+
The leading voices on BOTH sides of this controversy are full of sh*. The 'sympathetic' people are actually advocating that we give up the right to control our borders and allow everyone who wants to live here to come in without obstacle. If their voice prevails, we will have A BILLION MORE PEOPLE within our current geographical limits within 20 years. Do YOU want there to be 1.3 BILLION people in this country within 20 years? I don't. And I don't want foreign languages to sweep English away. As regards Spanish, there are 170 million speakers of Spanish in Mexico and Central America. In the United States, there are already 41 million speakers of Spanish whose mastery of English is poor, plus 12 million who are fluently bilingual.
+
At some point, the features of this society that draw people here would stop working with unrestrained immigration. That wouldn't stop people from coming, however, since there is always a lag between change and general appreciation that there has been a change. But the negative consequences of a mismatch between immigration and the ability of society to absorb immigrants would be felt very soon.
+
The Americans who will suffer first are not Princeton University graduates or even graduates of community-college vocational programs, but ordinary people whose highest educational achievement is a high-school diploma, IF THAT. We will have, then, the notorious “race to the bottom” we sometimes hear about, in which the MOST VULNERABLE, such as poorly educated blacks, suffer WORST. Can that really be what we want, as a society, to victimize the most vulnerable among us?
+
Even if people born and raised in the United States might be able to compete with illegal aliens if they were in control of their lives and able to focus their energies on success, we must always bear in mind that a LOT of people in the most vulnerable groups in this society are incapable of focusing on success because they are DERANGED by drugs and incapable of functioning efficiently or even competently, and their failures drive them into deeper drug abuse, that subverts their lives ever more, and impels them to make ever more recourse to drugs for solace, and to keep them from thinking about the mess they have made of their lives. That is of course the exact opposite of what they need, which is to focus sober, hard attention on extricating themselves from their miserable condition.
+
There's not much we can do about the derangement of drug users, unless we forcibly STOP them from using drugs, as by imprisoning them in correctional institutions, mental hospitals, or compulsory drug-treatment programs. We warn and we warn and we warn people NOT to torpedo their future by using drugs, but they don't listen. Should we therefore rightously consign them to a life of misery and let immigrants take their rightful place in society? Oh, we could certainly JUSTIFY that, but should we actually DO it? “You've made your bed. Now lie in it!” That might make the righteous among us feel glorious, but what would it do to society?
+
Society should not conspire in the failure of people who have already subverted their future, as by goofing off in school, then dropping out of school, and falling into habitual drug use. It is easy for the vulnerable in American society to see themselves as victims, of laxity in enforcing immigration restrictions not least. Americans should be able to see the Government as being on their side, not the side of illegals, be they adults or children. There are not jobs enuf, housing enuf, places in schools enuf to go around for Americans and foreigners without distinction. If we are to draw distinctions, we must give U.S. citizens preference every time. If that disadvantages foreigners who do not have legal permission to be here, that's tuf. They have their own country. Let them go there.
+
It is not cruel to send people to their own country. The issue is NOT “political asylum”, which is the ONLY type of “asylum” society should concern itself with. Political asylum is intended to protect people from political oppression by their own government. It is not to give foreigners shelter here from crime, or drug wars, or domestic abuse in another country, only protection from pervasive, specific oppression by government. If we wish to make individual grants of protection to foreigners out of the goodness of our heart, that is our right — to grant, or deny, on any basis we may choose.
+
This is not 1810. Our land is not empty, in need of people to clear the land, plow and farm it, form towns and cities, staff governments, schools, the military, etc. We not only do not need more people, but we actually need to have FEWER people in large areas of this country. Quality of life, not quantity, should be our first concern. Illegal aliens in many parts of this country cram substandard housing units with as many as 20 people in a house or apartment intended for 4 or 5. That's no way to live. We would do them a favor by sending them back to their own country's adequate, ordinary housing,
+
Moreover, there is the issue of preserving their culture. Immersion in the culture of the United States will inevitably affect the culture of illegals. Young children might find themselves losing their parents' culture almost entirely. Some kids concerned about acceptance by American children may actively disown their own culture. Do the parents really want that? Or do they want simply to live, here, the cultural life they enjoyed in their country of origin? Cultural interaction — or refusal to interact — is a two-edged sword that can harm everyone. Do the people so indulgent of today's flood of immigrants really want them to lose their own culture? If not, do they want communities of size to become a foreign mass in the body politic of this country?
+
The issues are not black-and-white. There are losses as well as gains in both legal and illegal immigration, to both the host country and migrants. What we don't see in today's crisis is an appreciation that there are serious questions for all parties, questions for which we need, in good faith, to seek answers, not just to posture.
+
Sentimental Claptrap Can Destroy Our Civilization. The dangers of unrestricted immigration are not hypothetical. We have an actual, perfect example of how dangerous mass immigration can be in the model of a little thing called “the Roman Empire”. It was once the premier military, economic, and cultural power of Europe. But political tumult led to the collapse of the external frontier, with massive inpouring of alien peoples, many of them armed to the teeth. Some of these groups of foreigners took over different parts of the erstwhile Empire, creating multiple separate countries from what had been a unified Empire. Over time, even cultural unity ended, and the Latin language became the language only of the (Roman Catholic) Church. The language the bulk of people spoke was the local dialect, which wandered over time farther and farther from other dialects, so that they became mutually unintelligible, “Roman”ce languages, because few people traveled more than 30 miles from their birthplace ever in life, and there was no way to convey sound except personal interaction: no radio, no television, no film, no telephone.
+
Nor was there even written communication among most people. Books and other printed materials had to be copied by hand, and there were no newspapers, magazines, advertising flyers, or other printed materials. The Iberian Peninsula, an area smaller than Texas, had two major political units, Spain and Portugal, which spoke dialects that became separate languages, and relatively few people could understand both. We could have the same kind of fragmentation experienced by the Roman Empire. Would the people clamoring for 'humanitarian' immigration like that? I wouldn't.
+
Putting Foreigners First. It is one thing to feel sorry for people in bad situations, and quite another to give till it hurts — yourself, your own children, your town, city, state, cultural community, whatever. The instructions given at the start of a passenger airplane flight say that in the event oxygen masks drop from the overhead bulkhead, parents should put their own mask on before they attempt to put a mask on a child, because if the parent does not secure an oxygen supply, s/he could DIE before being able to put one on a child, which could consign the child to death too. If unrestricted immigration destroys our economy and cultural unity, we will end up hurting illegal aliens as well as ourselves. That is not in anyone's interest — well, not in the interest of any patriot or friend of the United States.
+
Europe's Migrant Problem. Alarm and countermeasures against mass migration are not unique to the United States. The European “Union” is being seriously affected by a flood of refugees from poor, incompatible societies. Some observers think the strains of this mass migration might end the European project, and break up the European free-movement area, leaving at most a free-trade area, if that. We must all, in the civilized world, face the future with eyes wide open, and brains engaged.

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 1:12 PM

<< Home

About Me