Part II "The Southern Menace"
Posted on 04/04/2006 8:56:39 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
When people come from abroad to make a new home for themselves, and they are committed to the goal of becoming part of our nation – that's immigration. When they come to exploit economic opportunities while proudly flaunting their determination to continue in their allegiance to a foreign flag – that's colonization.
During the Los Angeles march, large numbers of foreigners marched proudly under the flag of a foreign country, to demand the right to live in the United States. They claim that the issue is immigration. But by their own actions, they reveal what is in fact a determined effort to force Americans to accept large foreign colonies in our midst, and to pay handsomely for the privilege of doing so. We have both the right and the moral obligation to say no.
Obviously our political leaders do not understand the real nature of the issue. In his radio address, President Bush told us that his guest-worker program is not intended to lead to citizenship for the illegal aliens in our midst. He actually seems to believe this is a point in its favor. At the same time, he and others like him want us to believe that the latest so-called immigration bill is somehow in line with the great tradition of immigration that literally created the American people. This is a lie.
In the past, the large majority of people coming to America from abroad came here to become part of the nation. They brought habits, customs and creeds that enriched the panoply of our emerging national identity, but they also accepted the challenge of becoming an integral part of it. Citizenship is the proper fruit of that kind of immigration, and that's what makes it good for America.
Accepting the presence of large numbers of people who maintain their allegiance to a foreign flag, a foreign language and a foreign culture – and who mean to claim many of the benefits but none of the responsibilities of citizenship – is a departure from the tradition that built this nation, and the culmination of inept policies that will end in its dissolution.
Given the destructive consequence of allowing such colonization, it is especially dismaying to see supposed moral leaders demanding that we accept it. I must assume that Cardinal Mahoney means well when he encourages people to violate laws intended to enforce our immigration policies. I'm sure he honestly believes that it is morally right to help individuals in need regardless of their immigration status.
But as a Catholic leader, I must question his willingness to abandon the wisdom of Catholic moral tradition, which has always cautioned against the impetuous inclination to do good for particular individuals while bringing on greater evils for society as whole. This wisdom has been at the heart of the reasoning derived from the just war doctrine that requires, for example, opposing zealots who justify killing abortion doctors on the plea that they are saving the life of an innocent child. Their particular act saves some innocents, but at the great risk of civil violence and war that will plunge the whole society into destructive evils that endanger all its members.
True moral responsibility requires that we compare the good we may do by violating the immigration laws with the harm that will result from destroying our capacity to enforce immigration rules and regulations. Will the absence of immigration controls (in effect, open borders) lead to greater evils than the effort to enforce them?
As we ponder the response we should consider the spectacle of the major cities in many countries around the world, where the pressure of uncontrolled migration from rural to urban areas has led to excessive burdens on their infrastructure, and the development of enormous slums riddled with disease and poverty. The United States is, as it were, the urban capital of the world. Uncontrolled migration from the global hinterland will result in pressures upon our economic, social and political infrastructure that will degrade both our material well being and the always fragile fabric of our national identity.
The result will be greater poverty, greater social friction and unrest, and sharper, more irreconcilable differences in our political life. The latter will be especially true if we have permitted large communities of non-citizen workers to become a permanent feature of our national life. This would be a population of people who pay taxes and yet, as non-citizens, have no say in the political process that determines their ultimate disposition. "No taxation without representation" was the early battle-cry of political justice in America, and it still indicates the truth that representative government is part of the natural birthright of all human beings. It makes no sense to adopt policies that encourage the permanent existence of a large, disenfranchised population in our midst.
All this suggests that immigration control is prudent and necessary for the common good of the country. Moral reasoning that ignores the common good is in fact not moral at all. Cardinal Mahoney and other Catholic leaders should revisit and ponder this principle of the Catholic moral tradition. If immigration control serves the common good, then effective immigration laws are appropriate and morally obligatory.
Thomas Aquinas rightly points out that law without enforcement is no law at all. Therefore, effective immigration law means effective enforcement of the laws. When Cardinal Mahoney encourages citizens to ignore the laws, and thus undermine their effectiveness, he encourages them to take particular actions that, by contributing to the overall collapse of the economic, social and political infrastructure, will result in far greater misery and suffering than they purport to alleviate.
This is irresponsible, immoral and contrary to the rational requirements of Christian conscience. Christ exemplifies the truth that, for the sake of the whole, even innocent individuals ought to be willing to sacrifice themselves. Encouraging illegal immigrants to seek their own advantage by a route that undermines the common good thus represents a corruption of their respect for the principle that ought to govern their Christian consciences.
It is both unfair and dishonest to react to this analysis as if it represents some willingness to slam the door of opportunity in the face of the hopes and aspirations of less fortunate people around the world. On the contrary, the effort to develop and enforce responsible immigration policies aims to assure that the invitation to hope is not extended in ways that destroy its fulfillment. It is also intended to make sure that our policies do not aid and abet the tendency of some foreign elites to enrich themselves at the expense of their people, and then escape accountability for their viciousness by pushing the victims across the border into the United States. Is it morally right to facilitate the corruption and greed of these self-serving exploiters?
I believe that immigration in the true sense is good for America. This would mean policies aimed at assuring that by and large the people who come to America come with the intention of becoming full and responsible citizens of the republic. It also means discouraging any who think they have the right to establish foreign enclaves in our midst, in order to gain economic advantages for themselves without fully committing to help us build this free society.
Immigration, yes; colonization, no. The first prerequisite of any immigration policy, however, is to regain full control of the borders of the United States. Currently proposed legislation falls far short of what is needed to achieve this goal. Until and unless our political leaders put in place the tools and forces needed to achieve this control, responsible and moral Americans ought to oppose any measures that would signal our acceptance of the de facto colonization of our country.
President Bush's guest-worker proposal is such a measure. It may serve short-sighted business interests intent on cheapening the cost of labor in our economy; it may serve the corrupt interest of Mexican and other foreign elites seeking to relieve the pressure created by their own policies of greedy exploitation. But it does not serve the common good. Such service demands policies that give preference in immigration not just to workers seeking jobs and money, but to those who seek liberty and the responsibilities of citizenship.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Former Reagan administration official Alan Keyes was U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Social and Economic Council and a 2000 Republican presidential candidate. Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.
ixnay on the shuncoloniztay alktay. i still hold out hope hundreds of thousands of economically incentivized Americans will emigrate to the Orinoco region of Venezuela. They can send back oil instead of money. Marching with the US flag would be de riguer. Same same.
Why don't we just take the oil and SCREW mexico. They say we're so bad... don't you sometimes wish we would just live down to the rhetoric that every thugocracy in the world spouts about us and show them what REAL hardball is?
I agree with most of what Keyes has to say here. Most of the arguments you see elsewhere focus on how American business is benefiting and exploiting these people, and how they are a drain on public resources. I have not seen this other argument -- that these people are here for their own benefit with no intention or desire to become citizens.
Keyes seems to favor legal immigration and citizenship, however, even of the unskilled and uneducated. He says this is good in that it will prevent "taxation without representation". I disagree with this. Increasing the class of legal workers that are unskilled will still depress wages and result in no taxes being paid.
As the progressive income tax brackets ratchet to higher income levels each year, this means that more and more people will fall off the income-tax rolls. This is the opposite of "taxation without representation" -- it is, in effect, "representation without taxation". Increasing the number of voters that do not pay for larger government is a recipe for disaster.
Keyes has in the past supported a NRST, but doesn't mention it in this article. That is disappointing, because I think it is a critical piece to the illegal immigration problem. Even with the NRST replacing income taxes, however, adding to the pool of legal low-wage unskilled labor has the same problem. These people would still consume public services and vote, but they would not pay any net taxes because they'd be eligible for the FCA. We would still have "representation without taxation."
We need mechanization to replace the manual labor that is currently being done by illegal aliens, not more legal aliens or even citizens performing low-wage manual labor. Legal immigration should be limited to people capable of performing skilled work. Retaining the manual labor jobs just lowers the standard of living for all Americans.
Don't forget, there were hebrew imigrants that moved to Egypt. After about 400 yrs of working the farmland and construction were too numerous and the Egyptian officials were afraid that the number of Hebrews were more than Egyptians, so all the babies under 2yrs were slaughtered, to break a generation. The Hebrews eventually moved out...under the leadership of Moses with the Guidance of God.
In any case, you can be assured that Dr. Keyes still very much supports the FairTax.
True, true.... but we have to be better than that...
The colonizers are increasingly well-integrated with the radical Left, that's for sure.
During what other occupation could you get such great lawn care, and cheap lettuce and strawberries? This has to be the best occupying force ever!!! /S
Too bad this won't fit on a bumper sticker..... ;)
Teddy had it so right! Not Kennedy, but Roosevelt!
Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on Immigrants and being an AMERICAN in 1907.
"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt 1907
Every American citizen needs to read this!
LOL...
Dr. Keyes is absolutely right.
Both are a serious threat to national security.
I just don't see the majority of Mexicans as threats to national security. Maybe because I have Mexican neighbors and have never had any problems with them. They go to work, come home, take care of their children. Kind of like I do.
As Rush put it, when the minority that don't pay taxes becomes the majority, it's all over.
I think you shouldn't be able to vote if you don't pay Federal Income Tax. There's a word for Representation without Taxation -- Tyranny.
I still can't support the NRST because if the Income tax is not completely abolished to go along with it, we just wind up with a new tax.
excellent post. I hope dr Keyes moves to Texas and runs for Senate there
You're a funny guy.
Umm...I was actually being series.
Why? Racial Superiority? If we didn't think we were superior we wouldn't be so high & mighty. We'd get down in the muck and roll around with these barbarians. We'd show them the true meaning of the word "Ugly American."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.