Mac-Coleman

29 January 2013 –

The rush to erode society didn’t wait even one day after Secretary Panetta’s announcement that DoD would open all combat positions to women.  When queried by the press, the Secretary implied strongly that drafting women would certainly be probable if the draft were reinstituted.  One step of social engineering leads to another leads to another.  The social fabric of a vibrant society is tearing as we watch it.   

Yesterday, the announcement of the bipartisan group of senators’ agreement to restructure our immigration policies and laws bears further examination.  A history of U.S. immigration policy would be interesting.  Long and interesting.  Too long for a blog.  Besides, most people use their read of history to justify what they feel and think based on their modern experiences.  Let’s compare a couple of current arguments on immigration reform using the value and emotion laden definition of the term that I presented yesterday.  Reform:  to put an end to evil by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action.  Which of these opposing arguments contains evil and should be reformed? 

a.       The widespread concept of “sanctuary” for illegal immigrants describes what over 150 cities in 34 states have done by writing laws and declaring policies that dictate that local law enforcement not cooperate with federal authorities to enforce existing immigration laws, mainly the overarching 1996 “Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigration Responsibility Act.”  Is sanctuary evil or does it righteously react to the evil of government’s prosecuting or processing illegal immigrants for deportation, no matter the extenuating conditions or circumstances that forced these people to come to the United States?  

b.      The Rule of Law describes the concept that the laws of a strong and peaceful nation be applied to all within the nation’s jurisdiction and that such laws be applied evenly and consistently.  Is a strict interpretation of the Rule of Law evil or does it guard against the eroding evil of societal structure caused by those who deliberately break the law and those who aid and abet those who break the law? 

c.       The concept of being a “Shining City on a Hill” means that the United States, the richest and most powerful nation on earth, should extend an invitation to all who want to live there to come and enjoy the rights and privileges of citizenry.  Is this concept evil or does it react righteously and generously to the effects of the horrors and travails imposed on so many people in so many places—including in the lands across our southern border. 

d.      The concept of Strategic Imperatives (I just made the name up; I hope it catches on) describes the necessity for law-makers and policy implementors to hold paramount the best interests of the United States when making strategic decisions on how the United States interacts with the rest of the world, no matter how tragic or horrible conditions may outside its borders.  To help is fine; but, only if it furthers clearly-stated U.S. strategic interests.  Is this concept evil or does it protect the United States from the ultimately destructive effects of massive movements of destitute people, international, economic upheavals, and eventual loss of power to less altruistic bad guys in a bad world?

e.       There is a modern, widely-stated concept that the United States’ strength lies in its diverse population, with its many groups of different peoples, each with its own views of life and society based on myriad ethnic, cultural, and language experiences.  What is more, interpretation of the “moral intent” of the Constitution and subsequent laws should reflect this inclusion process.  Is this concept evil or does it necessarily defend all the peoples in the United States against the historical and continuing subjugation of their rights to a racist and sexist, white, English-speaking, male elite?  

f.       The concept of assimilation into American society describes a process where the primacy of individual liberties, individual rights, and the literal interpretation of the Constitution that enshrines these rights and liberties in the formation of modern laws are essential to creating an American.  An American’s loyalty to a societal group may stay strong, but that is not what makes one an American.  Is this an evil concept or does it combat the evils of group rights, the stated mixed loyalties of hyphenated-Americans, and those corrupt, self-serving politicians who attempt to balkanize American in order to gain power? 

If you prioritize the evils and the response to evils that you agree with in the above comparisons, I am sure that you will more clearly understand your position on the complex issue of immigration law and policy reform.  I hope you will arrive at the position that Representative Sonny Bono (R-CA), so succinctly declared when asked what he thought of illegal immigration:  “What’s there to say;  it’s illegal.”  And the beat goes on.