In a May 24th Point of View, a citizen and descendant of immigrants poses the question, “Where do you draw the line?” on immigration. Since “citizen descendant of immigrants” applies to all 330 million citizens of the United States (even the Indians walked here, thousands of years ago), the answer is that, everyone gets to draw their own line, here, as long as it is within the law.
The writer, “C.” tells us that he (or she) is “a proud American” and recognizes that the rule of law (U.S. Constitution, etc) is important. C has been to Mexico and seen the poverty and the dirt floors of the oppressed and deceived Mexican poor. Yet, C says that, “I am one of ‘them,’ one of the millions of children born to immigrants.” That refusal to be just “American”, like every other child of immigrants here, is self-imposed. Mixing in the “melting pot” requires only a couple of things: being here legally and willingness to “melt”. Nobody makes you assimilate.
Mexico’s corrupt governments chose long ago to appease or even conspire with drug and smuggling cartels. They chose to pocket the riches from being an oil exporter and OPEC member, rather than sharing oil revenues as Alaska does with their citizens. They chose to teach their children that the S/W United States is “stolen Mexican land”, ignoring the facts of wars won, treaties signed and the 1848 equivalent of half a billion dollars to purchase the mostly empty and unproductive territory; stolen from the Indians by Spain and Mexico before 1776. If they sold cheaply because Mexico was bankrupt before oil was discovered, or if corrupt leaders pocketed the money, it does not make America’s part in the accords less valid.
C’s father was not a citizen. C declines to state whether dad was an illegal alien or had a visa and was a legitimate “immigrant”. His immigrant mother made him study and become naturalized. If he was here legally and not rewarded for invading the U.S., his citizenship closes that book for every Republican, conservative, Tea Party member, or Minute Man. Yet, C insists on being separate from the other 329,999,999 because of the very thing that makes all Americans the same: “descendant of immigrants”. If C chooses to be conflicted because of the plight of the Mexican poor, then so should Americans of Haitian, Sri Lankan, Chinese, Russian, Cambodian and many other poor origins. So should have Irish and Italian poor a century ago. Just being Roman Catholic was once considered a bar to getting elected, yet John Kennedy was president.
C is troubled by letters to the editor with “venom” about “the ones who take their jobs, who pay no taxes” or “bilk the system”. C pays his taxes. So do I and most readers. Having read many and written several of those letters, I must say that most of the “venom” seems to be reserved for the federal politicians of both parties who have refused to secure our border and especially the Progressive Democrats who openly advocate “immigration reform”. They do not mean restoring America’s sovereignty, but granting amnesty or even throwing open the borders. This would be an insult to the efforts of C’s father and every other immigrant that did it the right way. C says he understands the impact on health care and schools, but ignores the criminal element with their drugs, kidnappings and murders.
C wants to know where one draws the line, begging the question by pointing out that some illegals have lived here for decades “without creating any problems” (other than 1.3 billion in annual costs to Arizona alone) and only wanting better for their families. There is also an assumption here that only Mexicans want better for their kids, and not those poor Haitians, Sri-Lankans, Chinese, Russians, Cambodians, Irish or Italians. The fact is, out of 6 billion souls in the world, 5 billion desperately want to come to the U.S. We can neither accept them all (especially without identification) nor give “dibbies” to those who happen to be nearby. Central and South American “immigrants” get no such special treatment from Mexico.
Where to put C’s line is obvious: where the law puts it. You don’t go into someone’s house or a sovereign nation without permission. Even so, C is “not sure what side” he stands on. Either C is confused by the constant stream of divisive lies and distortions from those on the left or he is among those who profit from it: illegals, S.E.I.U. and Progressives.
Tampa Bay church has a defiant message for would-be shooters who want to target its congregation - A Tampa Bay church has a warning for any would-be shooter wishing to target their congregation: “We are heavily armed.” That’s what a sign on…
9 hours ago