0 comment Thursday, December 4, 2014 | admin
American Pioneers -- or 'Illegals'? an article from the reliably liberal Washington Post, is yet another example of the War on America's history. Eduardo Moises Penalver's article is somewhat stale, having appeared two weeks ago, but no matter; his 'arguments' and ideas were already stale when the article was fresh. It's the same old moral equivalency argument: 'So are you, and so's your old man'. If the illegal aliens of today are illegal, then so were our 'old men', our pioneer ancestors. I like how Penalver puts the word 'illegals' in scare quotes. Nice touch, Eduardo. Illegal means against our laws; there's no gray area there. One either obeys the laws or one does not.
Comparing our pioneer American ancestors to today's illegal invaders is dishonest. The two situations are not analogous.
Squatters, in the circumstances he describes, were breaking the laws, and were subject to the legal penalties of the time. There may have been considerable public sympathy for them, but they were first of all citizens of this country, and rightful heirs of this country. Their very presence in America was not a breach of any law. And if they were lawbreakers, they did not have a huge lobby agitating to let them continue breaking the law. They were not a threat to the country; they were not a hostile, foreign presence flying an alien flag, and claiming the land for some foreign regime. Penalver is an academic, apparently, yet he does not see these distinctions.
Further, he tries to legitimize the illegal invasion by referring to the " legitimate needs that push them to break the law."
Does he even understand the concept of the 'rule of law'? If we legitimize lawbreaking by saying that people may have 'legitimate needs' which 'push' them to illegal acts, we are in effect justifying anything from burglary, robbery, theft, trespassing, and maybe even rape -- after all, sex is a 'legitimate' human need, is it not? So maybe rapists could be called 'undocumented suitors' or 'undocumented partners'. The idea that anyone purporting to seek a 'better life' or to satisfy a 'legitimate need' can break laws with impunity is absolutely antithetical to civilization. Embracing Penalver's crackbrained 'ideas' would be to embrace anarchy and chaos. Much like Mexico's society, no?.
Penalver and his counterparts who are acting as apologists for their illegal compatriots seem to be simply rationalizing their ethnic solidarity; they have a gut-level loyalty to their own ethnic brethren and they resort to half-baked arguments legitimizing their bias. If they wish any real credibility, some objectivity would be in order.
Meanwhile, I challenge all of the apologists and shills for the illegals to stop attacking our American founders and settlers in order to legitimize yourselves. This is a dishonorable tactic, and it's angering many Americans.
Comparing our pioneer American ancestors to today's illegal invaders is dishonest. The two situations are not analogous.
Squatters, in the circumstances he describes, were breaking the laws, and were subject to the legal penalties of the time. There may have been considerable public sympathy for them, but they were first of all citizens of this country, and rightful heirs of this country. Their very presence in America was not a breach of any law. And if they were lawbreakers, they did not have a huge lobby agitating to let them continue breaking the law. They were not a threat to the country; they were not a hostile, foreign presence flying an alien flag, and claiming the land for some foreign regime. Penalver is an academic, apparently, yet he does not see these distinctions.
Further, he tries to legitimize the illegal invasion by referring to the " legitimate needs that push them to break the law."
Does he even understand the concept of the 'rule of law'? If we legitimize lawbreaking by saying that people may have 'legitimate needs' which 'push' them to illegal acts, we are in effect justifying anything from burglary, robbery, theft, trespassing, and maybe even rape -- after all, sex is a 'legitimate' human need, is it not? So maybe rapists could be called 'undocumented suitors' or 'undocumented partners'. The idea that anyone purporting to seek a 'better life' or to satisfy a 'legitimate need' can break laws with impunity is absolutely antithetical to civilization. Embracing Penalver's crackbrained 'ideas' would be to embrace anarchy and chaos. Much like Mexico's society, no?.
Penalver and his counterparts who are acting as apologists for their illegal compatriots seem to be simply rationalizing their ethnic solidarity; they have a gut-level loyalty to their own ethnic brethren and they resort to half-baked arguments legitimizing their bias. If they wish any real credibility, some objectivity would be in order.
Meanwhile, I challenge all of the apologists and shills for the illegals to stop attacking our American founders and settlers in order to legitimize yourselves. This is a dishonorable tactic, and it's angering many Americans.