Thursday, April 18, 2013

Compassion for illegal aliens? Really?

I am dismayed by the sudden about-face by some so-called evangelicals.  They're now supporting amnesty for illegal aliens under the guise of compassion.  Compassion?  

Where's their compassion for the family of little Dimitri Smith?  Little Dimitri lived just one minute after an emergency C-section in an attempt to save his life after his mother was hit by an illegal alien drunk driver.

Where's their compassion for the family of 25-year-old Drew Rosenberg who was hit head-on by an illegal alien, thrown from his motorcycle, then run over by the illegal alien who fled the scene?

Where's their compassion for the family of Vanessa Pham, age 19, who was brutally stabbed to death by an illegal alien in Falls Church, VA?

Where's their compassion for the family of Chief Petty Officer Terrell Horne who was killed when drug smuggling illegal aliens rammed his Coast Guard vessel off the coast of California?

Where's their compassion for the family of 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw who was murdered in what appears to be a ritualistic gang killing in Los Angeles?

According to a study conducted by the office of Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa) on average 12 Americans are killed by illegal aliens every day.  That's the equivalent of a 767 jet going down every month!  To illustrate it another way, there are about as many Americans killed by illegal aliens each year as there were combat deaths in the entire 9 years of the Iraq War.

Where's their compassion for millions of lives destroyed by illegal drugs coming from south of the border?  Where's their compassion for the millions who are out of work, their jobs occupied by criminal invaders from Mexico and beyond?  Where's their compassion for overburdened taxpayers whose family budgets are strained by the added taxes imposed on them to pay for extra services for those who chose to break into the country?  Where's their compassion for the skyrocketing cost of medical services driven, in part, by illegal aliens who clog our emergency rooms and never pay?

Compassion, indeed.

Some evangelicals and even some talk show hosts say their position on illegal immigration has 'evolved.'  In reality, they have simply caved.




17 comments:

  1. Preach it, Brother!

    ReplyDelete
  2. you're right...because of anecdotes, we should point guns at an entire group of people who aren't "us" (and if they defend their natural right to travel unmolested, kill 'em). I agree with so much of your arguments on immigration - namely, we have to stop using violence against "americans" to extort charity which give exactly the wrong incentive for people to come here. I don't think increasing violence against people for stepping from one patch of dirt to another is the answer...let's just stop assigning legitimacy to any aggressive violence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Where did Phil say he supports violence against illegals?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm pretty sure he supports border enforcement. I'm not sure how this is executed without violence. Maybe you can enlighten me.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Border enforcement would only turn violent in the event the illegal alien chooses that path of resistance. The border patrol is not authorized to shoot on sight or some other ridiculous accusation that you are implying.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Border enforcement IS NOT violent. We keep putting them back on their side and they still keep attempting to come over. I know people who do this and their is no violence...although, some of the illegals choose to use violence towards our border patrol!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Physical arrest is a violent act...it may not be deadly, but inhibiting someone's natural right to move freely is violent. If I arrested you (implied that if you resist that I will escalate my force) to move you, would you consider that violent. The presence of a badge doesn't change it.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Our standard procedure for placing a suspected criminal under arrest is not a violent act. As others above have pointed out, it only becomes that way when the suspected criminal initiates the violence. People who sneak into this country illegally are criminals. Are you suggesting we not place them under arrest? Should we roll out the red carpet instead?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm suggesting that the freedom to move around unmolested is a natural right and there's no legitimate role for violent interference when it is exercised.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an interesting idea but on what grounds can you support it? The ideas of borders and territories far out date the creation of laws to support them, most likely predate mankind altogether. Even animals of all kinds have territory that they enforce violently against others even of their own species.

      Your definition is either incredibly open or your parameters are vague. Does this mean that you feel people have a natural right to move into your home whenever they want regardless of your knowledge or their intentions? You specifically state above that "inhibiting someone's natural right to move freely is violent," that would include something as basic as a locked door. Do you honestly hold to the argument you're espousing in your private, everyday life?

      What about objects you own, bought and paid for, like a car? If enforcing territory is unnatural there is even less argument for the ownership of objects like cars in nature. Is it OK if any passerby takes your car without your knowledge and consent? Is it their right?

      Delete
    2. Defending private property isn't even the question. This is the state intervening in travel. Even if I want and invite people from the wrong side of an invisible line, the state feels justified in violent interference.

      Delete
    3. Defending private property is absolutely the question! The subject is intimately linked. Both are invisible lines dictating ownership. One is just on the micro-scale (individuals and small groups) and one is on the macro-scale (a nation made of many individuals and groups). Just as an individual has a right to protect his own property so too does a nation as a collective entity of individuals have a right to protect its national borders that have been agreed upon by its own collective and acknowledged by the other nations of the world.
      You do NOT get to possibly endanger (read the article above)the health and safety of others in this country (which would be encroaching on their natural rights); regardless of if they are born/earned citizens, or have green cards/visas; by letting just anyone over the invisible line of which, if you're a citizen, you are only a partial owner.

      Delete
    4. A nation-state is a non-entity. It consists of a small group of people who declare a monopoly on legitimate violence in a given geography. Nothing more. It's not a magical thing. (President Obama agrees... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewQl-qAtNwQ). So the border patrol "agent" feels justified in threatening violence against people because he believes in the legitimacy of nation-state violence. Legislation is nothing more than the threat of state-initiated violence against individuals within the "domain" of the state. This includes legislation (legislation != law) around travel (i.e. immigration).

      I would reject the legitimate initiation of force against an individual. In reality, the "agent" with a badge is a person who has to make his own decision about using violence against another person. In situations of self-defense against a violent person, I would argue his use of force is completely justitified.

      I do not own anything, partially or in whole, because of the existence of a ruling-class. In other words, citizenship doesn't make me the owner of any property. To say everyone owns something is to say noone owns it.

      Fundamentally, if we disagree that initiating violence against people is wrong, I'm not sure the conversation can advance. If that's the case, I'll happily give you the last word and let this be my final reply.

      If, however, we can agree that aggressive violence is wrong, perhaps there are implications we can explore.

      Delete
  10. Remember the Alamo! Bitch!

    ReplyDelete
  11. In case anyone is still reading and actually interested in something deeper than "they're takin' our jobs", I'll leave this here...judge napolitano on the freedom to travel http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/31/immigration-and-freedom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you even read the post above? It isn't "they're taking our jobs" it's "they're murdering 12 of us everyday."
      The article you provided is interesting but has definite flaws.
      First it assumes that any argument against illegal immigration stems from some sort of racism/nativism. This is both a strawman and an ad hominem. Roughly 46 million legal immigrants come to america every year and more power to them! Only 1-2 million of them become citizens. These are people that are not born here and have no intention of becoming citizens that are more than welcome here. People like Tesla and Einstein weren't born here but America became a little greater when they became citizens. This has nothing to do with people entering illegally.
      And his appeal to the Judeo-Christian God is laughable seeing as how some of the greatest atrocities ordained by the Old Testament God was because of the "wrong" people being within the national boundaries.

      Delete
    2. "They" aren't doing anything. Individuals are violent, and they are properly responded to with violent self-defense. you understand that there are roughly 44 homocides per day in the US (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm). Since I'm sure your number of 12 includes many non-homocide "murders", I'm not sure what implication you want people to draw.

      The state's designation of citizenship really has no bearing on this to me. I don't assign more rights to citizens than non-citizens. That's what natural/inalienable rights means. Rights are not created by government (pretty sure Jefferson was clear on this point).

      Delete