On illegal aliens, Conservatism and Nationalism

Over at National Review Online there is an interesting post by Linda Chavez to chide conservatives who opposed the recent amnesty bill dealing with illegal aliens. It is fascinating to see how an individual can upbraid others for using emotional arguments and then turn right around and make emotion based arguments in return. She first apologizes, however, for the utilization of the 10% or less that hold extremist views on racism, ethnic bias and other sorts of things that are inherently individual based on outlook. It is, indeed, a long lasting phenomena going back centuries. It is also so minoritarian in extent that it is rarely brought up in any other circumstance, save where racism or ethnic bias is being addressed.

That makes me wonder *why* someone would even bring it up at all, as crimes based on such are rare compared to gangland violence, domestic abuse, and even such things as carjackings and jaywalking. She points to those making the 'talking points' on 'media' and 'talk radio' as pushing an agenda of racial extremism, hatred based on ethnicity and other forms of bias outlook based on individual viewpoints. As her polling points out: it is less than 10% of the Nation that represents that.

Apparently these individuals are leading, but few are following. So, again, why bring them up? So that Republicans can 'disavow them'? Apparently joining the Party of Lincoln now requires an ideological test to ensure that one is following in the footsteps OF Lincoln. If Linda Chavez believes that, then she is looking for adherence to something that those in the GOP should have in their hearts, as seen through the Emancipation Proclamation and via the acts of Lincoln, himself, while going through nearby town and communities right after the war and before he was assassinated. He was a gracious and good gentleman who spoke kindly with blacks and did not demean them. If Linda Chavez really and for true believes that this is necessary in the Party of Lincoln, then it is no longer the Party of Lincoln. That is something that should be understood by Republicans: it is the Party that granted equality to those that had been enslaved.

It is the Party of Emancipation.

It is the Party of Freedom.

I am NOT a Republican and I can still see that.

I do think that some few of the Republican Party should practice as Lincoln taught including, if I may say so, Linda Chavez. President Lincoln set a damned high standard for America and the urge to openness is NOT a message of disavowal but of WORKING with your fellow citizens to ensure the message of Liberty and Freedom rings throughout the Land. Those that have emotional based hatred that guides their decisions are not to be 'disavowed': they are to be reasoned with in hopes that the Nation can remain a Nation built on reason and faith in Our Fellow Man to uphold our joint Liberty together so that all may be Free.

The way to address bias is not to shun, not to hate them, but to pity and forgive them their sins and help them towards redemption.

I am of no known religion and I can still see that.

It is a sacred trust taken up by all Americans. So that this Nation can speak as We the People.

That is the message I get from the Founders of this Nation and even *they* had their problems upholding their beliefs. Those problems would be papered over for decades and cause the mightiest bloodshed this Nation has ever known as brother fought brother. We did not try enough to understand each other and come to a common conclusion on what it means to be HUMAN. Now I hear a message of disavowal, of hatred, of shunning to make one an outcast because they hold beliefs that are not in common. Does answering their emotions with your own HELP? I see that it creates more of a rift, more alienation and less held in common until that portion of the society that holds such beliefs comes to no good end. The Antebellum years between the Revolution and the Civil War should have taught us that: that such things need to be addressed head on and without rancor and that reason should be a guiding means to enact our emotions.

If your blood starts to boil, Ms. Chavez, may I suggest taking a 'cooling off period'? Of not letting your emotions get you in trouble? Of not causing harm before you can help others understand the problems? And if all you meet is unreasoning, emotional hatred, then you know you have met an individual who is BEYOND REASON. You will meet those in life as they do not adhere to the common weal and seek to create a more perfect Union within the Nation. If you cannot deal with your own emotions, Ms. Chavez, then why do you then seek to inflame that of others? Is it to get an unreasoning response? Inflaming passions to justify actions is something the Left loves to do so as to not help people realize that society is held in common. By doing that they seek to overthrow society and the common culture of the Nation and change it to their will. Is *that* what you are doing, Ms. Chavez?

As Ms. Chavez points out 'words do matter', and I cannot agree more!

She then pushes forward that she cannot understand *why* illegal aliens have become such an important issue. I cannot and will not address her personal views on others, save to say that when one confounds illegal aliens with immigrants who have come here legally, one is trying to mix apples and oranges and call them all apples. And then decry when someone else calls them all oranges. I prefer to call them as they are, and illegal aliens, no matter what race, color, ethnic background or Nation of origin, be it Mexico, Ireland, Poland, Russia, Mauritania, Thailand, China, Rwanda or Tahiti, I consider them all the same for what they have DONE not who they are. And what one does in life starts to describe who you are by your ACTIONS.

Their ACTIONS speak louder than words.

I am extremely fair and even in that appraisal. What you DO determines what your outlook is and tells of this thing called 'character'. Because that is another deep premise in American society: you achieve by what you DO in life. The sweetest of a mass murderer is *still* a mass murderer, for all that they may have been kind to dogs and led a good and upstanding life save in that one, tiny area.

If someone cannot, for the life of them, figure out that the Party of Lincoln is about stopping the long lasting wrongs in which the Citizens of the Nation enslaved others against their will and that the Nation could not put up with that to consider Freedom to be a guarntee of being a member of the Nation, which all slaves WERE, then imagine what sort of problems would be had if folks were walking over the border to offer themselves up on the slave market without any coercion involved. That would have made putting the idea of the universality of individual rights as a touchstone more than a bit harder because there would be an ability to point at people that did, indeed, consider themselves to be slaves.

The United States has all sorts of laws to address working in the Nation, freedom of the workplace and the freedom of contract within the Nation and with those Nations that we have set up agreements with so as to allow their Citizens to work in Our Nation. That is the freedom offered by this Nation State known as the United States within the system of Nation States which holds each other accountable when they or their citizens break such agreements. This puts forward that Nations are Sovereign entities that contain their People and that their outlook must be respected both via their physical borders and by the agreements held between Nations.

Do note that Nations may enact discriminatory Treaties and legislation for themselves. Externally one may or may not sign up to Treaties, but we have ZERO say over that internal conception, save to use our Freedoms to decry inhumanity when we see it. Similarly other Nations and their Nationals are expected to do the exact same thing with us. That is something known as 'reciprocity amongst Nations in World Affairs'.

Perhaps Ms. Chavez has heard of this concept in all of her life?

I put forward a very Tart and somewhat Testy idea on Immigration Policy.

I point out, in that, the Powers that We the People grant to Our National Government to CONTROL immigration and naturalization and then, give them the authority to DO what is necessary to UPHOLD those laws they create. I also point out in The People are alienated, not the illegals, rather testily, that this very same authority has been used in wartime to utilize 50% of the GDP plus excess earnings and savings to produce war material and support a conflict the United States was in. That exact, same, power is available for EVERY single power that is Granted to the National Government via the Congress.

Previous to that I looked at the actual Bedrock of the Nation and Warnings the Founding Generation handed to us so that we could know our Nation and ensure its security against invasion and creeping tyranny. Those classical liberal roots of the Nation were given enacting authority via the things that made the bedrock of the Nation.

I think from the concept of the Westphalian system of Nation States and the concept of reciprocity amongst Nations to hold each other accountable and to uphold the right of their own People internally there are some extremely salient points that can be made.

First is that the United States and all of its powers are for those that are here legally or who have sought asylum or refuge or otherwise act in accordance with the policies set up by Congress and administered by the Federal Government.

Second is that individuals in their respective Nation States are to uphold the agreements of their Nations.

Third, that when one breaks the immigration and naturalization laws that are covered by Treaty between agreeing Nations, then one is breaking three sets of laws: That of the Nation of Origin, That of the Nation they are seeking, and that of the Treaty or Agreement between their Nations. That single, solitary activity is one that BREAKS three laws: Two National and one International.

These points are very clear and do not depend upon: race, ethnicity, economic capability, religious outlook, nor, indeed, any personal traits save those that are embodied in those separate areas of law.

Those that have entered the United States from Nations we have Treaties and Agreements with on this matter have broken their own laws, our laws and that of the Treaty.

Those that enter the United States from those Nations which we have no Treaty covering such things and then do NOT seek immediate asylum or relief from persecution have broken their own laws to leave in such manner, our laws to enter in such manner and the Laws of the Seas which recognize the sanctity of the territory of Nations.

I really don't care how *nice* these individuals are in the rest of the respects of their lives.

They are international scofflaws of the first order. They blithely break laws for PERSONAL GAIN.

And to those companies that entice, offer or give any help or leeway to such individuals: they are acting outside the confines of the US Constitution which delegates those things to the National Government. By not behaving in accordance to the National Laws of the Land, these organizations are committing a crime against the Nation and its Sovereign Rights Granted from We the People to Our Government.

I want those companies closed and auctioned off piecemeal.

And those that break the Laws of the Land should face life imprisonment for taking the actions they have done in consorting with foreigners outside of the channels strictly set up by We the People.

I did not elect companies, churches, civic organizations, political parties nor any other group to decide on those matters: that is something that is solely the domain of the Federal Government of the United States.

The actions of those coming here illegally tells me much about those individuals and about the respect the US is being shown by their Nations of origin that DO NOT STOP THEM.

Linda Chavez forgets that we are a Nation based on principle. Our emotions guide us to good principle and we then STATE that principle and back it up with the Powers of We the People.

The Declaration of Independence puts forth that Government is created among men. To have the right to have common government, those doing so must be able to say who IS and IS NOT part of that Government and its Nation. That is a basic and founding right that goes back to Westphalia.

When this Nation put its Constitution together it boldly stated exactly Who has the Power and What their Responsibilities are. I looked over that as it is a basic and guiding view of the Nation which should have some impact on what we do as Citizens to ensure that the Nation is UPHELD.

Perhaps Ms. Chavez has heard of it?

If not I will reproduce it in full:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Does that ring any bells, Ms. Chavez? We have come here as a People to form a more perfect Union and do you see what that next thing IS?

To establish Justice.

Yes it IS discriminatory: those here first get to make the rules.

Even worse is that we get to make them in accordance with our own outlook so that we may have a more perfect Union with our fellow Citizens.

And those rules establish Justice for Ourselves First before any other thing.

We agree, as a People to do this so that we may then have a Nation together.

I do not see any mention of any other Nation involved nor its People.

The US Constitution is, indeed, a highly biased document.

I happen to like it.

I am not so sure about Linda Chavez.

Perhaps if these illegals would act in a legal fashion and respect the Laws of their Nation and those of Our Nation and the Laws held in Common between Our Nations they might get more respect?

Just a thought.