At a bookstore, I was looking at Laura Ingraham's book, and it said the usual non-sense of "illegal aliens committing crimes, illegal aliens driving drunk, and if you don't hate illegal aliens, its because you lived in a luxury community with private security guards"
Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Debbie Schlussel, Neal Boortz, Thomas Sowell all say the same B.S. that David Duke says! The only difference between David Duke and those other pundits is their opinion on Israel. Duke thinks "Israel can do nothing right", the others think "Israel can do nothing wrong!"
But my topic of today isn't Israel, it's immigration.
Another right-wing anti-immigration fascist wrote a silly editorial. His name is Mark W. Hendrickson.You can read his garbage here http://tinyurl.com/39mays
---
Here is Stuart Hayashi's response to Hendrickson's nonsense.
-------
Conservative Mark W. Hendrickson writes, "Illegal immigration is one of our country's most divisive, intractable issues."
http://tinyurl. com/39mays
I wish that were true. It isn't. It is one of the most uncontroversial issues, because the vast majority of people scoff at the right to migrate without a visa.Who supports open immigration? Prof. Schoolland, Pablo Wegesend,Sean Brunett, Jeff Olstad, and me. And Harry Binswanger of the AynRand Institute, and Robert W. Tracinski. That's the end of it.
Who opposes your right to migrate without a visa? Ron Paul, the Libertarian Party, and almost everybody else. Most of the demonstrators in favor of Bush's quasi-amnesty plan were concerned about their own families; they weren't overtly ideological. The left-wingers there who were ideological blathered about issues other than open immigration, such as "corporate imperialism. " And the Mexican government certainly doesn't favor open immigration. If a South American tries to sneak into Mexico, the Mexican government will shoot him.
Hendrickson writes sarcastically, "But we should at least stop rewarding illegals with the ultimate prize: automatic U.S. citizenship for their children born here. This is absurd: 'Congratulations, Ms.Gonzalez! You have broken our laws, entered our country illegally, evaded the immigration service, and now your son has all the rights ofU.S. citizenship. ' It is time to amend the Constitution so that the precious gift of citizenship is awarded only to babies born here of parents who are in the country legally."
Here is what's wrong with Hendrickson' s argument. By his logic, the British government should not have let Thomas Jefferson get away with committing treason. Jefferson and the U.S. Founding Fathers broke the law of their own country; they were all traitors. They were guilty of legal sedition. And the British government is to give them amnesty for that? For shame! What sort of example will that set?
Furthermore, what about all of the Northerners who violated the federal Fugitive Slave Law by participating in the underground railroad? What about all of the people who participated in forms of civil disobedience and, in defiance of the law, disobeyed state segregation laws? Charlton Heston himself committed civil disobedience against segregation laws. So shouldn't all of these people have been prosecuted even after the law was changed? The law is the law, and we have to follow the law!
And what about the re-legalization of alcohol? Alcohol was decriminalized precisely *because* of the abundance of Americans flouting that regulation. Do you want to reward those lawbreakers by changing the law for them? Do you want to reward their lawbreaking,which amounted to a huge TANTRUM? And wasn't it wrong that, following Prohibition' s repeal, so many drinkers and bootleggers received*de-facto* clemency, in the sense that officers didn't prosecute them anymore?
Conservatives keep assuming that the law is the word of God. They evade that the law is not an end in itself; it is a means to the higher end that is the protection of Lockean individual rights. When the law itself becomes destructive of Lockean rights, the law morally invalidates itself.
Finally, Hendrickson writes: "Fourth, let's make the US A monolingual by law. Certainly everyone may speak and write whatever language they prefer, but when it comes to things like official business, this should be an English-only country."
Here's what's wrong with what he said. "Monolingual" is a grammatically incorrect neologism. If you know two languages, you're "bilingual." If you know multiple languages, you're "multilingual. "
So if you know one language, then the correct term should be "unilingual, " not"monolingual. " "Monolingual" would be the correct word if the term for someone who knew two languages or multiple languages was,respectively, "duolingual" and "polylingual. "
People like Hendrickson, who use such a grammatically incorrect word as "monolingual, " do not seem to understand Latin-based English. Hendrickson does not know proper English, so, by his own standards, heis worthy of deportation.
-------
What's with all this hysteria about children born to illegal aliens born in the US having US citizenship.
The David Dukes, Thomas Sowells and Ann Coulters think those children should be punished for having the "wrong parents".
So what, should we deprive all descendants of British conquerors of having US citizenship? That might mean the David Dukes, Ann Coulters, Laura Ingrahams, etc might all get deported!
