Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
02-02-2013, 01:08 AM #1
Amnesty and the Sucker Nation
Thursday, 31 January 2013 15:20
Written by Jack Kerwick, Ph.D.
The New American
Imagine you are an employer. One of your employees has spent years neglecting the most basic duty of his position. When you call him on it for the umpteenth time, he reassures you that he will get it right this time. But to do so, he must assume other duties in addition to his original one. As this person’s employer, would you accept his word?
Or imagine you are the spouse of a chronic philanderer. After years of enduring one betrayal after the other, you’ve finally had enough. He begs you not to leave and promises once more that he will stop his tireless cheating. Only this time, he tells you that for this to happen, he will also put an end to all of his other irritating habits: leaving his socks lying around, leaving his whiskers in the sink, leaving the seat up on the toilet, etc. As this person’s spouse, would you accept his word?
These questions are rhetorical: No employer and no spouse with an ounce of sense could fail to see these promises for the worthless gestures that they are.
A person who repeatedly failed to do the job for which he was hired is much more likely than not to find himself without a job. But even if, for some reason — like tenure, say, or his membership in a union — he isn’t fired, only the most wildly irrational of employers would think that if only this employee has more duties delegated to him will he then shape up.
And while a woman may stay with her husband even as he continues to cheat, there is no one so foolish to think that if only he devotes himself to discharging more of the obligations that he has heretofore violated will he then discharge this one obligation.
“Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” In our private relationships, there are fewer statements that resonate with us more than this one. When it comes to our relationship with our government, however, it is as if its meaning was utterly alien to us.
When those in the federal government advocate, as they now do once more, on behalf of amnesty, they are like the derelict employee and the philanderer from these examples.
Our government is useless if it doesn’t secure our nation’s borders. This task is one of the few responsibilities that the United States Constitution assigns to it, a duty that it has failed miserably to execute. So, because the government hasn’t done its job, because it hasn’t honored its promise to protect its citizens, we now have what our government assures us is an untenable situation, a crisis that demands immediate attention: At a minimum, 11 million illegal immigrants are living in our midst.
What should be done? Our office holders from both parties, from Barack Obama to Marco Rubio, tell us that these millions of people who entered America illegally and, thus, broke a number of other laws since their arrival, must now be placed on a “pathway to citizenship.”
They must be granted amnesty. They must be permitted to stay here.
Read: Our elected representatives failed to avail themselves of the endless opportunities that they’ve had to keep their promise and now the rest of us are told that we have to deal with the consequences of their abdication of duty — irrespective of the costs.
Yet there is more. Not only do we have to suffer the effects of our representatives’ refusal to do the one thing that they pledged to do; we are now told that the only remedy available for reducing this damage is one that they have already tried before, back in 1986: a “solution” that actually — and predictably — added to the damage.
But this isn’t the worst of it. As it turns out, things aren’t looking all that bleak after all, to hear our amnesty apologists in Washington, D.C. tell it. Never again will Americans have to worry about this illegal immigration thing. Never again will they have to worry about the government doing its job and securing the borders. What will make the future different from the past is that in the future, the government won’t have to worry about fulfilling just this job. It will now have this job and a whole lot of other jobs to do.
That’s right: The same federal government that couldn’t just secure America’s borders before is now promising us that it will be able to do this much and everything else that is contained in this latest rendition of “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Anyone who buys this is a sucker. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. And shame on the federal government that never seems to tire of trying to fool the American citizens — particularly when it comes to the issue of amnesty.
Amnesty and the Sucker NationSupport our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at http://eepurl.com/cktGTn
02-03-2013, 05:11 AM #2
We should expect opposition. 'Bama has already said that he doesn't like E-Verify, because it's inaccurate and makes employers bear the responsibility for the errors. IMO his opposition tells us that he realizes that E-Verify can protect American jobs and the quality of American life.
I don't know why someone who's received so many benefits from being an American should be so eager to attack Americans, but it does seem to me that 'Bama consistently does just that. And when it comes to making policy, he completely ignores the poorest Americans.
Americans first in this magnificent country
American jobs for American workers
Fair trade, not free trade
02-03-2013, 07:45 AM #3
I think he hates "colonials" and wants to replace them with the indigenous people of this continent. He has signed the UN Treaty for indigenous people in 2010. In reality though many of the Mexicans for example, are no more indigenous to this continent than any US citizen that has Indian ancestry black or white.
I was talking with a friend from New Mexico that is " Mexican American" and we started talking about ethnicity and about our heritage. He is 75% Spanish and according to him he is about 10% Indio and the rest of his ancestors were French while I am abut 75% Scotts-Irish and Norwegian and 25% American Indian. There is no "race card" to play we are both European and Native American the only difference is that his Indian ancestry is from South American. Neither of our families ever owned slaves except that a couple of my ancestors came here in slavery as indentured servants.( the first slaves in the contry). We decided that it really is about skin color and not race and shows how bigoted and racist the left has become. JMO
Last edited by Newmexican; 02-03-2013 at 07:48 AM.