rant 0006
back in 1986, the IRCA (immigration reform and control act) was passed by the congress of the u.s. part of this act granted amnesty to illegal aliens if they paid any back taxes due, proved they were not criminals, and proved that they had at least minimal knowledge of u.s. history, u.s. government, and english. the democrats promised that further reforms would be forthcoming, so many folks, myself included, grudgingly assented to the amnesty, and congress passed the act. needless to say, that reform never came, and the democrats continue to press for Yet Another amnesty.
so why should we trust the democrats about this issue again? i'm not linus, the poor schmuck from Peanuts, although the democrats are acting like lucy, who yanks the football away every year and leaves linus flipping head over heels. i won't fall for this again. this time, the reforms have to be real, or i call bulls**t on it.
before we do anything, we need to find out what is happening on the border, and we need to decide what to do about it. why do people come to the u.s., and what would cause them to knowingly violate the law to come here? should we block everybody from coming, or open up immigration to anybody who wants to come? these are important questions, because a republic only works if most people obey most of the laws most of the time; if laws are ignored or broken, respect for the law goes away, and everybody does whatever he can get away with; that way lies anarchy, followed immediately by tyranny.
most governments throughout history have been essentially organized criminal groups. the government *owned* the citizens, and disposed of them as it saw fit, with no consultation with the citizens whatsoever. whenever governments changed, it was almost without exception one group of thugs killing off another bunch of thugs and taking over their racket, which was putting the squeeze on the citizens owned by the defeated thugs. keep in mind that this was not *some* governments; it was *EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY*. in 1215, king john affixed his seal to the magna carta in an attempt to make peace with his rebellious nobles, who resented some of his more obnoxious actions (as they affected *them*, not the citizens sublet by john to them, whom *they* then owned), and a revised version of this document was similarly sealed by subsequent monarchs. the rights it granted to barons became the basis of much of english common law, which was extended to cover more and more citizens over time. common law became part of the reasoning used by british colonists in the americas in their rebellion against king george III in 1776, whom the colonists claimed was violating their rights as englishmen. britain and the u.s. became the first nations that actually began treating citizens well as a matter of law, as opposed to fiat rule.
yes, the ancient greeks had democracy, but their democracy allowed only the idle rich (who also happened to be men) to be free; non-landowners, women, and slaves had no rights, and were granted no voice. other governments had the occasional "benevolent despot," who treated the populace relatively well, but the *benevolent* type of despot was a rare occurrence. most were of the malevolent persuasion, and even the rare "good guy" often turned evil in his old age. there was never a guarantee that any given leader would be benevolent in the first place, and as a rule, most kings were evil to the bone. in the UK, rights were ceded to the citizens by the king, while after the u.s. gained independence, they were seen as granted by God Himself, and were thus inviolate. the government was to have only *limited* powers granted to it, always at the pleasure of the citizens. in both cases, this was a new idea, and one that succeeded spectacularly. as it happens, when U leave people alone to live their lives, most of them usually spend their time making things better for themselves rather than harder for the government or their fellow citizens, especially if the government enforces the law *equally* for all citizens.
most citizens of the u.s. are law-abiding. occasionally, some government in the u.s., at the local, state, or national level, will pass a stupid law; the citizens will ignore or flout the law, there will be unintended consequences, and if the government is run by wise (or at least reasonable) people, they will revoke or change the law to end the general misbehavior. since the success of rule by law is *strongly* dependent upon this obedience of and respect for the law, this is a Good Thing, because when most people, or even a large subset of them, ignore the law, they will neither notice nor complain when leaders do the same. and when that happens, rule by fiat - and the collapse of the republic - is not far behind.
so why do people try so hard to get here? other than refugees from wars, most people stay put in their country of birth, even when they are dirt poor, when they are owned by the government, and even when abused by the same. i'll go out on a limb here and guess that it's because even when they are here illegally, people like not having the State all up in their business. i'm also willing to bet that those abused people who have heard of the u.s., but haven't showed up yet, are still at home mostly because they haven't found a way to get here yet. since the majority of illegal aliens traveled here legally and overstayed a tourist, student, or other visa, most of them probably have money, or salable skills, or both. these people had the wherewithal to get in, but jumped the line and broke the law. although i completely understand wanting to get in and enjoy the freedom, i still believe that breaking the law to enjoy the benefits of the place that is so good to live, specifically *because* the law is usually obeyed and enforced more even-handedly than anyplace else on earth, rather defeats the purpose. perhaps it's just the *one* law they break, but there are usually a multitude of others that must be broken in order to be able to stay (state employment laws, social security fraud, tax fraud, inducing an employer to overlook illegal status, etc.). the end result is a lack of respect for the law. if people ignore the law, our rulers will more easily be able to resort to rule by fiat and lose the silly laws that prevent them from doing what they believe is best without the approval of we of the stupid stinking masses.
as to why democrats, in particular, are so gung-ho to allow people to enter the country illegally, we need only look at their motives as politicians. in fact, to find out why *any* elected official in the u.s. does anything, it pays to keep in mind that he is a politician. the founders expected that people would play politics (although most of them intensely disliked the idea of political parties), but i see no evidence that they anticipated the rise of *professional* politicians. the founders had a more elitist expectation; they expected that leaders of the community, who generally reached their position of leadership by virtue of hard labor and virtuous behavior, would serve their fellow citizens by filling political offices for a time, then returning to "real life." 230 years later, most political offices at the national level (and probably most at the state level) are held by people who make a living "serving;" they are professional legislators. and like anybody else with a job, they want to ensure that they keep working and getting a paycheck. hmm-m-m ... how to do that ...
it is of course obvious that a politician who wishes to stay "employed" will do all that he can to win elections. were they not professional "servers," i would have no problem with that, but that is another rant. in order to win elections, a politician must either be doing what his constituents want, or at least, not raising their ire, but there are other approaches. as it happens, most *legal* immigrants who become citizens tend to vote democratic. there is nothing wrong with that, since *every* citizen has a right to vote for whom he chooses. the democrats, however, appear to have decided that if they cannot win elections among current voters, they will import *lots* of new voters, who should, on average, vote more democratic than republican. if they can get *all* of the current illegal aliens to be amnestied and on a fast track to citizenship, they could get a lock on every office from dogcatcher to prez for the next several decades, and current citizens be damned - especially since they don't vote democratic often enough. given the rancor with which most democrats view voter registration, it would appear that they also want to jump-start the takeover by using the old "vote early, vote often" approach, a staple of the democrat political machines in all large american cities (the dead are allowed to vote as well, but that's a little harder to pull off). "no need to check my name and address; checking is *racist*, so take my word for it!"
yup, this is gonna work out well.
so why should we trust the democrats about this issue again? i'm not linus, the poor schmuck from Peanuts, although the democrats are acting like lucy, who yanks the football away every year and leaves linus flipping head over heels. i won't fall for this again. this time, the reforms have to be real, or i call bulls**t on it.
before we do anything, we need to find out what is happening on the border, and we need to decide what to do about it. why do people come to the u.s., and what would cause them to knowingly violate the law to come here? should we block everybody from coming, or open up immigration to anybody who wants to come? these are important questions, because a republic only works if most people obey most of the laws most of the time; if laws are ignored or broken, respect for the law goes away, and everybody does whatever he can get away with; that way lies anarchy, followed immediately by tyranny.
most governments throughout history have been essentially organized criminal groups. the government *owned* the citizens, and disposed of them as it saw fit, with no consultation with the citizens whatsoever. whenever governments changed, it was almost without exception one group of thugs killing off another bunch of thugs and taking over their racket, which was putting the squeeze on the citizens owned by the defeated thugs. keep in mind that this was not *some* governments; it was *EVERY SINGLE GOVERNMENT IN HISTORY*. in 1215, king john affixed his seal to the magna carta in an attempt to make peace with his rebellious nobles, who resented some of his more obnoxious actions (as they affected *them*, not the citizens sublet by john to them, whom *they* then owned), and a revised version of this document was similarly sealed by subsequent monarchs. the rights it granted to barons became the basis of much of english common law, which was extended to cover more and more citizens over time. common law became part of the reasoning used by british colonists in the americas in their rebellion against king george III in 1776, whom the colonists claimed was violating their rights as englishmen. britain and the u.s. became the first nations that actually began treating citizens well as a matter of law, as opposed to fiat rule.
yes, the ancient greeks had democracy, but their democracy allowed only the idle rich (who also happened to be men) to be free; non-landowners, women, and slaves had no rights, and were granted no voice. other governments had the occasional "benevolent despot," who treated the populace relatively well, but the *benevolent* type of despot was a rare occurrence. most were of the malevolent persuasion, and even the rare "good guy" often turned evil in his old age. there was never a guarantee that any given leader would be benevolent in the first place, and as a rule, most kings were evil to the bone. in the UK, rights were ceded to the citizens by the king, while after the u.s. gained independence, they were seen as granted by God Himself, and were thus inviolate. the government was to have only *limited* powers granted to it, always at the pleasure of the citizens. in both cases, this was a new idea, and one that succeeded spectacularly. as it happens, when U leave people alone to live their lives, most of them usually spend their time making things better for themselves rather than harder for the government or their fellow citizens, especially if the government enforces the law *equally* for all citizens.
most citizens of the u.s. are law-abiding. occasionally, some government in the u.s., at the local, state, or national level, will pass a stupid law; the citizens will ignore or flout the law, there will be unintended consequences, and if the government is run by wise (or at least reasonable) people, they will revoke or change the law to end the general misbehavior. since the success of rule by law is *strongly* dependent upon this obedience of and respect for the law, this is a Good Thing, because when most people, or even a large subset of them, ignore the law, they will neither notice nor complain when leaders do the same. and when that happens, rule by fiat - and the collapse of the republic - is not far behind.
so why do people try so hard to get here? other than refugees from wars, most people stay put in their country of birth, even when they are dirt poor, when they are owned by the government, and even when abused by the same. i'll go out on a limb here and guess that it's because even when they are here illegally, people like not having the State all up in their business. i'm also willing to bet that those abused people who have heard of the u.s., but haven't showed up yet, are still at home mostly because they haven't found a way to get here yet. since the majority of illegal aliens traveled here legally and overstayed a tourist, student, or other visa, most of them probably have money, or salable skills, or both. these people had the wherewithal to get in, but jumped the line and broke the law. although i completely understand wanting to get in and enjoy the freedom, i still believe that breaking the law to enjoy the benefits of the place that is so good to live, specifically *because* the law is usually obeyed and enforced more even-handedly than anyplace else on earth, rather defeats the purpose. perhaps it's just the *one* law they break, but there are usually a multitude of others that must be broken in order to be able to stay (state employment laws, social security fraud, tax fraud, inducing an employer to overlook illegal status, etc.). the end result is a lack of respect for the law. if people ignore the law, our rulers will more easily be able to resort to rule by fiat and lose the silly laws that prevent them from doing what they believe is best without the approval of we of the stupid stinking masses.
as to why democrats, in particular, are so gung-ho to allow people to enter the country illegally, we need only look at their motives as politicians. in fact, to find out why *any* elected official in the u.s. does anything, it pays to keep in mind that he is a politician. the founders expected that people would play politics (although most of them intensely disliked the idea of political parties), but i see no evidence that they anticipated the rise of *professional* politicians. the founders had a more elitist expectation; they expected that leaders of the community, who generally reached their position of leadership by virtue of hard labor and virtuous behavior, would serve their fellow citizens by filling political offices for a time, then returning to "real life." 230 years later, most political offices at the national level (and probably most at the state level) are held by people who make a living "serving;" they are professional legislators. and like anybody else with a job, they want to ensure that they keep working and getting a paycheck. hmm-m-m ... how to do that ...
it is of course obvious that a politician who wishes to stay "employed" will do all that he can to win elections. were they not professional "servers," i would have no problem with that, but that is another rant. in order to win elections, a politician must either be doing what his constituents want, or at least, not raising their ire, but there are other approaches. as it happens, most *legal* immigrants who become citizens tend to vote democratic. there is nothing wrong with that, since *every* citizen has a right to vote for whom he chooses. the democrats, however, appear to have decided that if they cannot win elections among current voters, they will import *lots* of new voters, who should, on average, vote more democratic than republican. if they can get *all* of the current illegal aliens to be amnestied and on a fast track to citizenship, they could get a lock on every office from dogcatcher to prez for the next several decades, and current citizens be damned - especially since they don't vote democratic often enough. given the rancor with which most democrats view voter registration, it would appear that they also want to jump-start the takeover by using the old "vote early, vote often" approach, a staple of the democrat political machines in all large american cities (the dead are allowed to vote as well, but that's a little harder to pull off). "no need to check my name and address; checking is *racist*, so take my word for it!"
yup, this is gonna work out well.
Comments
Post a Comment