Thread: "Compassion" to Ill. Imm.: Immorality in Disguise

August 18, 2009
"Compassion" to Illegal Immigrants: Immorality in Disguise

It's a controversial issue because it involves a debate over what is moral and immoral, but the argument for government-ruled compassion toward illegal immigrants is one that is dangerously deceptive (as just about all liberal arguments tend to be), unbeknownst to even some bleeding-heart liberals themselves. I know it's nothing new, but I'm particularly peeved when liberals claim (false) moral superiority in their positions, which never amount to any more than a dangerously skewed perspective on right and wrong. And now, with the discussion of whether or not illegal immigrants should be entitled to healthcare and health insurance under Obama's socialist plan, I'm afraid that many Democrats would make this lie even more pervasive.

I'm sick of listening to liberals pretending to agonize over the poor, unfortunate, underprivileged millions of illegals who have found their way into our country. Under the pretense of "compassion", these hypocrites are quick to cry that these immigrants are people, too, and that those who would dare deny these harmless, suffering fellow human beings their "right" to health insurance and health care are cruelly denying them the right to life (who knew they cared about a "right to life", anyway?).

However, their lies are exposed when you realize that these are the very same people who disregard the poor, unfortunate, underprivileged BILLIONS of civilians around the world who haven't managed to make it across American borders (yet). You see, if the pro-amnesty and pro-healthcare-for-all types truthfully cared about the underprivileged, they would be the same people supporting U.S.-intervention in foreign nations whose governments are the primary root of these civilians' situations. Yet as a general rule, it is these very same liberals who decry the U.S. government for using any kind of coercion against tyrannical or oppressive governments to influence change in how these governments treat other nations and their own people. Consider Iraq, where the U.S. is now responsible for overthrowing a dictatorial regime and instituting democracy in what should surely be considered an overwhelming humanitarian success.

But I don't need to remind anyone that liberals weren't exactly thrilled about this accomplishment. So what that millions of Iraqis who had lived in constant fear and injustice were now given the chance to build a new society with representation from all its people? So what that our country provided humanitarian aid to Iraq in the form of food and medicine, and helped to build schools? So what that our own American troops had personally spoken to, played with, and given gifts to thousands of Iraqi children who will now view the American people in a positive light?

To liberals, none of this ever seemed to matter in their rampage to destroy President Bush and undermine his Iraq War. And unsurprisingly, this is a trend with these so-called peace-lovers - throughout the course of American history, any time the U.S. has gone into another country for the good of the latter, there has been the ever-dependable group of protesters claiming to be concerned about the lives of our American troops. Apparently, the lives of the poor, unfortunate, underprivileged millions and billions around the world are "none of our business", as the peace-lovers are known to say.

So why the overt - if phony - compassion for illegal immigrants once they've crossed the line into America? To me, it's obvious: highly politicized, the issue of illegal immigration is tied to a significantly large constituency of voters. While the aliens themselves cannot vote (at least, for now), it is easy for Democrats to appeal to minority groups - especially the large Latino population in America - who tend to sympathize with illegals as minorities, and may be related to or friends with some. Further, by pretending to be the defender of the illegal immigrant, liberals and Democrats reinforce their related gimmick that they are on the side of the minority. If you break it down into numbers, the objective is clear: easy votes from the Latino voting block (who comprise about 15% of the US population at 9% of the voting block in the 2008 election), as well as a significant portion of votes from other minority groups.


So as much as I'd like to believe that liberals really do have the best interests of the underprivileged in mind, their claims and positions too often contradict themselves. Democrats would have us believe they are the party of the humanitarian. But studies have consistently found that Democrats, on the whole, contribute less to charitable and humanitarian organizations than Republicans. And this apparently even applies when it comes to volunteering time and giving blood.

But never fear. Liberals are in favor of de-criminalizing illegal immigration and having the American taxpayer bear the burden of this population's health care costs. That should make up for things.



http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/08/ ... migran.php

when liberals claim (false) moral superiority in their positions

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, lest ye be judged...

Dixie

Our newest Supreme Court Justice is a compassionate jurist. Lucky US!