Illegal Aliens? Never Heard Of Em! (Barbara Simpson Alert!)

I know: Let's have dictionaries with erasable print! That way, when words are changed to suit political or ideological purposes, we can just make the corrections and move on. Wouldn't want being correct to get in our way, now would we?

We are careening past the day when words have accepted meanings. If we keep on at this rate, dictionary makers will be faced with three choices: either publish volumes twice the size they are now, print the books with erasable type, or just throw in the towel. What good is a dictionary when the meaning of words keeps getting changed, modified or downright destroyed?

It's too easy to use Bill Clinton's variations of "is," but that's an extraordinary example of what's happening.

We're in a world where "pro-choice" means the right to kill an unborn baby, where "single mother" encompasses any female who gives birth regardless of her marital status, where anyone who raises serious and thoughtful doubts about affirmative action is a "racist," where anyone who has concerns about homosexuality based on religious or historic ramifications on a society is a "homophobe," where anyone who disagrees with the liberal media culture is deemed a "fanatic right-winger" and sometimes "redneck" as well.

What happens if you love your country and want it to be safe and free and are willing to fight to maintain that safety and freedom? You once might have been called a patriot. Today, you'd be called a "war monger" or an "isolationist" and certainly would not be praised for your "flag-waving xenophobia."

Speaking of the flag, God help you if you revere the flag and expect it to be honored as a symbol of our country, our history. You will be vilified and mocked.

And then there are the "borders." Borders? Oh, right: the geographical boundaries of our country – any country.

Traditionally, borders are respected. You just don't walk across from one country to another. There are rules and regulations governing who crosses, when, how, for how long and, in some cases, for how much. Every country has its own laws. Traditionally, those laws are seriously enforced.

Yes, laws. My dictionary (Webster's New World) defines laws as "all the rules of conduct established by the authority or custom of a nation." In other words, those rules and regulations instituted by governments which guide how citizens of the country live and behave and how "visitors" to the country do the same.

Interestingly, "lawmaker," "legislator" and "lawgiver" all have the same definition: as one who makes law.

So, will someone please explain why we have duly elected legislators making laws benefiting people who have crossed our borders illegally, work in this country illegally using fake birth certificates and/or social security numbers, and are employed under the table by businesses who are themselves violating federal and state laws?

Historically, anyone operating that way in a country would be constantly on the run, fearful of authorities. But, not in our world, where these illegals are protected:

by cities which turn a blind eye to the lawlessness and in some cases provide extraordinary protection;

by unions which solicit membership among illegals (who in turn, by their very presence and "membership," are taking jobs from union members who are legal citizens and lowering pay levels);

by local, state and federal laws which mandate the rights of citizens be accorded to these illegals;

by similar laws which burden the legal, taxpaying citizens of the country with paying the bills for all the costs of these illegals. The end result of all of this obfuscation waters down the meaning of U.S. citizenship. It also demeans the observance of our laws by people born here and those who immigrate legally and become citizens.

There is a clear definition of citizen: a member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to it by birth or naturalization and is entitled to full civil rights.

How is it acceptable for lawmakers to make it possible for foreigners here illegally to get driver's licenses, open bank accounts, hold jobs, get social security, insurance, free housing, food, school, medical and other social welfare, and ultimately be forgiven all their lawbreaking and made citizens?

SpyGuy writes:
In many ways, it doesn't really matter what the new governor's position is on illegal immigration. Border control and immigration control are not within the state government's purview. Let's assume that we could elect a governor who will take a hard-line stance against illegal immigration. What could he do? He couldn't put troops on the border. He couldn't round up and deport illegals (that's the job of the INS...or whatever they're calling themselves these days). He couldn't even enact legislation to cut off social services to illegals (assuming he could get such legislation past the communists and socialists in the CA Legislature) because some Leftist judge(s) would simply overturn it (the same way they blocked the voter-approved Prop 187).

Then you're admitting that illegal immigration _cannot_ be stopped, no matter who wins the California governor's election. If that is the case, California's social course insofar as the illegal invasion is concerned cannot be changed. It will continue, and get worse. It doesn't really matter _who_ is "to blame". It is going to happen.

SpyGuy also writes
I agree with you that it will be very difficult for any new governor to turn California around, primarily because we will first have to also recall 99% of the CA Legislature. One of the reasons Gray Davis and the legislature are trying to push through (before the recall) this bill giving driver's licenses to illegals is specifically so that more illegals aliens will become illegal voters--to keep the Leftist Demoncrats in power, of course.

Then you're admitting that California's course _cannot_ be stopped, no matter who wins the California governor's election. OK, you _said_ "very difficult", as if you're trying to hedge that you, too, see what is inevitable. I understand the bill to grant driving licenses to illegals _has_ passed the legislature as of tonight. How will this make a turnaround any _less_ difficult?

SpyGuy continues:
I'm not willing to surrender just yet. But it will take a NATIONAL effort to reverse the downward spiral. This is not just California's problem: it is AMERICA's problem

I'll grant you that. But -- right now -- the problem is festering to the greatest degree in California. If Californians are unable -- or unwilling (I sense the latter) -- to take proactive steps to solve their numerous crises on their own, do not expect the rest of America to solve these troubles _for_ them, unless the citizens of that California (I sense you are one) are willing to give up some of their "state sovereignty" as well (read on).

Even though you're not "willing to surrender just yet", the fact that you're even _mentioning_ "surrender" indicates to me that you see it as being a real possibility, bearing down hard and fast.

In responding to my posts, you keep trying to transfer the blame for California's problems towards the federal government, and by implication, towards the "other 49" states. "We didn't create this mess, YOU did!". "We can't solve it, YOU can!" Very democratic of you to put things that way (hearty laugh). And since there is no possibility for Californians (of all political persuasions) to dig their own way out of their self-created hole, they -- INCLUDING the Republicans -- will soon be screaming bloody murder for _us_ (meaning: any American who is NOT in California) to "do something" - to make "NATIONAL effort to reverse the downward spiral".

No deal. I'm not buying that, nor will the majority of the rest of America. If America has to take steps to "save California", the most prudent step will be to exercise some "tough love" and fiscal discipline towards the fallen (ne "golden"?) state.

I'm not sure how this could be done. I'm thinking back to the New York City fiscal crises of the Beame era, where an entity was created that wrested some control of the city's finances away from the city itself. I would predict that any "nationally imposed" solution to the California bankruptcy will be some sort of financial board that takes control of the state's finances out of the hands of California's legislators and places it into the hands of a blue-ribbon commission of some sort (selected by financial experts and politicians of _other_ states). Nothing more than a half-baked prediction. But you read this here first, right on Free Republic.

Would such a solution be unacceptable to Californians? Fine -- then save yourselves. But if you want _our_ tax money to pay for _your_ problems, expect _us_ to demand - and to exercise - control over how our money is spent.

SpyGuy concludes:
Don't think that you can throw California to the wolves to keep them at bay. The wall we must be building, is not between California and the rest of America, it needs to be between America and her neighboring countries. And it will take all the states UNITED (now there's a concept!) to do it.

Do you recall the story in the news, not too long ago, about the lone hiker (in Utah, or was it Colorado?) who, trapped in the mountains by a huge falling rock, cut off his own arm to free himself? How could someone have summoned the intestinal fortitude to do something as unthinkable and drastic to save himself? An amazing story, almost unbelievable. But he did it -- TO SURVIVE. What would have been his alternative?

If California continues to the point where it threatens to drain the lifeblood from the rest of the nation, could Americans [collectively] take such drastic action to save the bulk of their nation?

Is such a thought as equally unthinkable?

Cheers!
- John

John writes:
"Then you're admitting that illegal immigration _cannot_ be stopped, no matter who wins the California governor's election."

John, you're the one who brought the California Gubernatorial recall election into this thread, not I.

John writes:
"It doesn't really matter _who_ is "to blame".

Yes is does. Because if you can't identify the source of the problem, how can you determine how to correct it?

My position was--and contiues to be--that illegal immigration is a NATIONAL crisis caused by our NATIONAL government. You keep trying to blame the illegal immigration problem on California. And I have to keep reminding you that neither California, nor any other state, has any direct control over immigration policy or enforcement. The government of California CAN be blamed for many things, but lack of control of illegal immigration into the United States is not one of them.

You'd do well to remember that illegals are not simply invading California, they are invading OUR country.

John writes:
"But -- right now -- the problem is festering to the greatest degree in California.

Before simply pointing the finger at California, perhaps you should ask yourself why California is the epicenter of this crisis. There are several reasons, some of which is self-generated, and some of which is beyond control of the people or government of California:

1. California is a border state with many ports of entry between the state and Mexico. Furthermore, there are fairly large cities in Mexico that are very close to the California border making it easier and less hazardous for illegals to make the jump. This is beyond California's control.

2. California has large population centers and is geographically large, making it easier for illegals to "hide in plain view". This is beyond California's control.

3. California has--or at least had--a thriving economy that attracts people seeking work. This is beyond California's control. (Well, perhaps not entirely. We could collapse our economy to make the state less attractive to illegals. Hey, that's exactly what Gray Davis has done...perhaps he is anti-illegal immigration after all.)

4. California has a significant agricultural industry which creates a demand for low-cost migrant workers. I don't state this as a justification, merely stating a fact. This is beyond California's control. (Note: it IS within control of the federal government to punish businesses that hire illegals, but that is outside California's control.)

5. California has numerous "social service" programs that are not only willing to turn a blind eye, but actually encourage illegals to consume the taxpayer-funded services. This IS California's responsibility.

6. Many parts of California have an illegal-immigrant-friendly atmosphere. This IS California's responsibility.

So California certainly provides the means (1,2) and the motive (3,4,5,6). But it is the federal government's actions (or lack thereof) that provide the opportunity!

If the feds actually secured our borders,.... If the feds actually pursued, prosecuted, and deported illegals,.... If the feds actually punished businesses and individuals that hired illegals,.... If the feds quit granting amnesty to illegals,.... If the feds didn't pass legislation making it easier for banks to transfer money from illegals to other countries,.... If the feds seized the millions of dollars flowing out of the US into Mexico each year,.... If the feds took a hard line stance against Vincente Fox and other foreign governments.... Only then will we severely curtail illegal immigration into the United States.

One other point I'd like to make in response to your statement. California may be the epicenter, but it's certainly not the only state where this problem is "festering". Take a look at any of the border states and you will see that all are under heavy attack.

John writes:
"If Californians are unable -- or unwilling (I sense the latter) -- to take proactive steps to solve their numerous crises on their own, do not expect the rest of America to solve these troubles _for_ them"

John, you are mixing up too many issues here. California has many, many problems--most of which is due to to an acute case of Leftist poisoning. And many of California's problems are intertwined. But let's try to stay on one topic here. This thread is about illegal immigration. And while California is certainly hemmoraging money due to illegal immigration, that is an effect of the problem. The CAUSE of the problem is the fact that the federal government refuses to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws.

John writes:
"[Y]ou keep trying to transfer the blame for California's problems towards the federal government, and by implication, towards the "other 49" states.

Once again, my sole focus throughout this discussion has been on the issue of illegal immigration. So, with that in mind, answer me two questions:

1. At which level of government falls the responsibility for national security: local, state, or federal?

2. What government agency is responsible for enforcing immigration law?

Illegal Immigration is a NATIONAL problem, caused at the NATIONAL level of government, and adversely affecting ALL FIFTY states.

John writes:
"But if you want our tax money to pay for your problems, expect us to demand - and to exercise - control over how our money is spent.

I have no love for California's socialist government, nor for the Leftists and "useless idiots" who have seized control of this once great state. But I have to laugh at your argument, considering that for many previous years, California's rich economy has grossly subsidized federal benefits for many--if not most--of the other states. Mind you, I don't believe in, nor support, redistribution of wealth. I just find your comment ironic.

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.