Thread: Nice Resume... not!

One of the biggest complaints we hear from those on the side of amnesty for all illegal aliens is that they are hard workers and not criminals.

First, let's look at the criminal aspect. Does any court in the U.S. show sympathy toward people who commit crimes with good intentions? I am sure there must be a few cases. However, the majority of courts will usually apply what we call blind justice, no favoritisms and no kind-hearted excuses.

If we do not enforce our laws, we cannot expect other people to take them seriously, especially foreigners. Illegal aliens do not see themselves as criminals because we do not uphold our laws that says they are, in fact, criminals. When we call them criminals but do not punish them accordingly, we appear to be attacking them for reasons other than the actual offense and only using the offense as an excuse (racial prejudice?). We're not racists, of course, but we may appear that way due to current incompetence of our law enforcement agencies.

And now for my main point: hard workers. I have no doubt in my mind that many (more likely most) Mexicans are hard working people. I have worked side by side Mexicans in Mexico during the summer heat. Their overall passion for work is completely astounding. My hat goes off to the true hard workers from Mexico.

However, I have a problem with their resume. Take a look at Mexico and see what they have done with it using all of their hard work. While I was there, I saw families living in cardboard boxes all up and down the roads. There were fires all over the place because they burn their trash rather than having it picked up or taking it to a dump (I went to the dump and found people living in the trash). Many parts of Mexico look like some kind of post apocalyptic nightmare.

Why are we supposed to believe that these people are hard workers when they have little to no proof of their hard work in their own country? Imagine if you go to a job interview and hand over a resume and portfolio that display a literal distaster. You will not be hired unless the employer is an idiot or really desperate (perhaps if the employer can work out a deal to pay you in chicken scratch). Then suppose you are angered that your resume was not taken seriously. You march in front of the building holding a sign that says you're a hard worker. Will they take you seriously? Maybe you wave the flag of your previous employer. Will they take you seriously?

Sorry, but if you are a hard worker, then your work will speak for itself. You won't need to march for the right to work. If you organize a strike that causes your employer to suffer, it does not mean that you are a valuable asset. It simply means that your particular job needs to be filled by any able person. The fact that you have the job does not indicate any worthiness on your part, especially if you obtained the job illegally. And speaking of legalities, why would anyone take you seriousyly if you demand special treatment above and beyond the rules and laws that everyone else has to follow?

Illegal aliens, you're fired.

Those are some good points.

In Marbury v. Madison 1 Cranch 138, 163 (1803), the court held "The government of the United States has been empathetically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation, if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right" – we have ceased to be a 'government of laws' and are instead a government of the lawless