 |
| The opinions expressed in guest columns posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AmericanPatrol.com. Visit the Alamance Independent to read Mark Andrew Dwyer's weekly column posted every Sunday. -- Click here for more Mark Andrew Dwyer columns. -- Please, send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com |
Originally published in the December 26, 2004 issue of the Alamance Independent
NOT ALL ILLEGALS ARE EQUAL
By Mark Andrew Dwyer
I mean, not that some illegal "immigrants" are free to violate the America's border and her immigration laws while others are not, but, quite obviously, not all of them inflict the same amount of damage to our country. So, there is no good reason to pretend that it doesn't mater who they are or where do they come from, except, perhaps, for the fear of being labeled "racist" by some notoriously chauvinistic (see [1]) groups like MEChA and La Raza.
In his otherwise excellent article (see [2]), Burt Prelutsky wrote:
"Those who condemn us - the anti-illegal crowd - as racists are always contending we wouldn't be so anxious to defend our borders if those were Swedes coming across. The truth is, illegals are illegal, and I don't happen to care what nationality they are. I simply have a bone to pick with anybody whose first act on American soil is to break the law. There are, after all, millions of people all over the world waiting their turn to emigrate legally. When you get right down to it, it's those who constantly argue on behalf of Latinos for no other reason than their race who are the real racists. -- To put this problem in some perspective, a conservative estimate of illegal Hispanics in America is 10 million. To reach that number, not only would every single Swede have to pack up and sneak over, but they'd have to bring a few million Norwegians with them."
Although Prelutsky's seems like a safe and agreeable stance, it reminds me way too much of politically correct postulates of the kind "all people are equal" (not to be confused with the "all [people] were created equal" clause of the Declaration of Independence) that resulted in de facto discrimination against those who are more successful, more talented, and more diligent than others. I don't agree with his up front refusal to acknowledge that the country of origin of an illegal "immigrant" does make a difference. Here is why.
It has been a prevailing legal doctrine for some two thousand years now that this is not just a mere fact of breaking the rules but the damage to the community and society it inflicts that warrants steep enforcement and stern prosecution of the perpetrators. In particular, since commonality of crime usually multiplies such a damage, any rise in criminal activity is typically followed by stricter enforcement and harsher penalties for breaking the law. This is why some states, fed up with soaring crime rates, passed the "three strikes and you're out" laws, and communities notorious for nation's highest per capita crime rates, like Los Angeles and New York, employed exceptionally strong and well-organized police to cope with the plague of the rising crime. And quite justly so.
If vast majority of illegal "immigrants" were "not hurting anyone" but just, like some open border advocates often say, contributed to the betterment of the American society, I can hardly imagine a reasonable person that would call for sealing of the American border and deportation of all illegals. Sure, breaking the law should never be condoned, but if the resulting damage is negligent, if any, the perpetrators usually enjoy far reaching leniency of our justice system that tends to punish them with proverbial slap on the wrist for their wrongdoing. But when a majority of illegals that flood this country worsen the living conditions of its lawful residents, when they overburden public schools and health care facilities, trash national parks, and use up scarce resources and living space in already overpopulated areas, when they bring with them uncontrolled population growth, crime, diseases, and open contempt of American culture, its values, and political system (with some of them claiming that American Southwest is their "historic" land that we stole from them), when they demand special privileges for themselves and their numerous children, set aside jobs, college admission quotas, and subsidized housing, and when they laugh of our laws, our immigration enforcement agencies, and make mockery of our national border, well, then that's a horse of different color.
I have no illusion that if it were Norwegians illegally immigrating in droves to the U.S., we would not have so-called "immigrant" communities flocking together in order to easier break American laws, demanding recognition of Norwegian or Spanish language on par with the English language, breeding two, three, four times as many children as they can possibly afford and feed, joining their militant ethnic organizations, and demanding that, as descendants of Vikings that came to America long time before the "Anglos" did, they should be granted ownership of the most habitable parts of the U.S. (which, meanwhile, they are in the process of trashing) and submit these parts to the control of their Norwegian government. Knowing Norwegians as I do, I doubt if they would have the highest high school dropout rates, engage in mass production and distribution of marijuana and other drugs on American soil, join violent ethnic gangs, turn to common crime like theft, robbery, and sexual abuse, forge their identity documents, or even drive without a valid driver's license. These are simply things that most Norwegians would not do.
But Mexicans? That's a whole lot different story. Not only do they exceed, among all the foreign-born, in all the above (see [3]), but they also use that very fact as a defense against any criticism that they may face because of their notoriety. As idiotic and illogical as it seems, they want us to accept that we cannot enforce our immigrations laws because it's mostly them, Mexicans, that are breaking these laws, so any meaningful enforcement of these laws would automatically equate to "mass racismo". They even extend this absurd charge of "racism" on bona fide enforcement of traffic laws because drivers of Mexican ancestry are disproportionately over-represented among drunk and unlicensed drivers and, therefore, disproportionately more often arrested for these offenses.
So, in a sense, and contrary to what Burt Prelutsky wrote, the open border lobby and illegal "immigrant" communities got it right. If it were predominantly Norwegians and not Mexicans illegally "immigrating" to the U.S., we wouldn't have the "immigration" mess (and the plagues that come with it) that we are having now, and 80% of Americans would not be staunchly opposed to a lack of enforcement of the American border and the immigration laws. Now, a vast majority of American citizens want all this uncontrolled and mostly illegal over-immigration, predominantly from Mexico, brought to a stop and Mexicans have no one but themselves to blame for that.
The attitude of our Federal government towards this problem is quite interesting, to put it mildly. Although, it seems, the government does differentiate between different kinds of illegal "immigrants", it favors the nation that have been most notorious for not playing by the rules, for wrecking our country, re-entering the U.S. after being caught by the Border patrol, and for flexing muscles before their inevitable attempt to take over America. When an illegal "immigrant" is caught and classified as OTM (Other Than Mexican), he may expect detention and deportation, even if he himself is a productive and benign member of the society on a visa that is about to expire (see [4]). Contrast this with Mexicans: they are, most likely, cut loose with a meaningless note to appear in front of an immigration judge, which they infallibly skip. As if it weren't enough, President Bush refers to them as "good people" despite the mounting evidence to the contrary (see [5]). So, "W" and his administration are not only wrong on the issue of illegal immigration, but also, out of all the possible wrong choices that they could have made in this respect, they chose one of the worst, second only to letting al Qaida operatives cross the American border as they please.
You may wish to remind them about that.
[1] Pandering to MEChA Chauvinists
http://www.americanpatrol.com/GUESTCOLUMNS/DWYER/PanderMEChA030912Dwyer.html[2] In Defense of Fences
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40457[3] The Immigrant Gang Plague
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_immigrant_gang.html[4] U.S. Says Many Foreigners Must Leave to Renew Visas
http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/377404%7Ctop%7C06-23-2004::19:07%7Creuters.html[5] America's Least Wanted
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/criminals.html
| 
| 
| 
| 