By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
#SamFrescoe #Dreamers #DACA #illegalimmigrants
The political saga of seeking to legalize illegal immigrants,
making them full citizens, continues to adapt and take new forms. What was once
framed as a “dream” is now recast as a righteous defense of “civil rights” –
from a conditional aspiration to a moral mandate.
On 22 Jan 2018, multiple news media outlets attributed the
following to Sen. Durbin:
- Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants who were brought to America by their parents when they were children “is the civil rights issue of our time,” according to Sen. Durbin (D-Ill).[i]
- Democratic Senators believe amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants is the “civil rights issue of our time,” declared Sen. Durbin (D-Ill).[ii]
- …the concern over whether to legalize millions of illegal immigrants amounted to a “civil rights” issue.[iii]
In all cases, the reports were similar in quotation, concise
in length and detail, and played off the latest government shutdown to some
degree. In my view, at first glance the significance of reported statements
seemed small enough…just another utterance from Senator
“Shithole Spectacle” Durbin. – Then, there was this:
- “I’m focused on one thing — not that meeting — but on making sure that those who are being protected by DACA and eligible for the DREAM Act have a future in America. I am focused on that full time.” [iv]
Of course, Durbin is not the only voice interested in
granting citizenship. Given the recent surge in news media reporting, it seems
reasonable to postulate that the number of Legislators and Executives interested
in granting citizenship, regardless of the preferred “path,” is large and
growing.
Do you smell that? It smells like…
I have questions:
- Why would any Legislator redirect their attention away from representing the many interests of their constituencies in favor of illegal immigrants?
- Why is this Senator distancing himself from remarks so proudly parroted?
- Why is this Senator pushing eligibility per an Act that he knows is not yet a law?
- Why would anyone agree to hold 2.7M federal civilian employees (US citizens and legal immigrants) ransom in order to coerce the acceptance of any number of illegals (US criminals)?
Then, there is the question that matters most:
- Why would politicians want us to believe or agree that granting citizenship to a specifically identified group of people exhibiting criminal behavior is a civil right?
Because those that hold political power continue to
demonstrate their willingness to double
and triple-down over this issue at the expense of every other concern, I am
highly suspicious of their motives.
What are we being asked to accept?
In this case, the heart of my suspicion lies in the claim that
government action (a subsidized solution) is necessary to correct the unjust status
of illegal immigrants (a problem). – In my view, the problem set seems to change
frames as follows:
- Prior to 2010, the dominant voice (politicians in power) was not interested in the plight of illegal immigrants (the inferior voice) because the behavior of those individuals was justly illegal, a violation of established law.
- Today, the dominant voice (politicians in power) is interested in the plight of illegal immigrants (the inferior voice) because the behavior of those individuals was made unjustly illegal, a violation of civil rights.
This recrafting of the problem allows social and cultural
space for the rise of a political discourse that’s intended to realize a government
solution.
Simply stated, the government is seeking our approval to
subsidize the social, cultural, and legal standing of a specific, relatively
small, people-group from “illegal immigrant” to “American citizen” regardless
of their prior connection to illegal behavior.
When the government subsidizes the solution to a problem,
then more of that problem will develop.
then more of that problem will develop.
However, there is a glaring assumption within the proposed
solution: the inferior population (illegal immigrants) is small and will remain
small. Unfortunately, because the federal government exercises a monopoly on
the use of force and the establishment of guilt, and the nature of any government
is to secure and expand its power, the assumption does not hold true to fact. The
bottom line is this: the underlying assumption is a fallacy. Thus, the proposed
solution is actually a mechanism for the expansion of political power.
In fact, the fallacy is already demonstrating itself.
- 12 Jan 2018 – Durbin claims 700,000 “Dreamers” reside in the United States [v]
- 18 Jan 2018 – 3.6M “Dreamers” are in the United States [vi]
- 22 Jan 2018 – Durbin is paraphrased, “…the concern over whether to legalize millions of illegal immigrants amounted to a “civil rights” issue.” [vii]
Going Forward – Seeing Through the Fog of Power Politics
Earlier I asked, “Why would politicians want us to believe
or agree that granting citizenship to a specifically identified group of people
exhibiting criminal behavior is a civil right?” – Answer: I suspect we are witnessing
an attempt to expand political power by force of guilt (versus a bid to restore
liberty to citizens unjustly denied civil rights).
Given the obvious reframing of the problem, the continued condoning
of criminal behavior, the exponential demonstration of the underlying fallacy,
and the highly dishonorable conduct of those involved, I find the idea of reducing/diluting
my political consent through granting citizenship to a criminal element within
American society to be completely unacceptable.
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you
to tell me what you believe with the comment section.
© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
[i] Kathryn
Blackhurst. “Durbin Claims DACA Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”.
Lifezette. January 22, 2018. https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/dick-durbin-claims-daca-amnesty-is-the-civil-rights...
(accessed 180127)
[ii] “Dick
Durbin Claims Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”. The Citizen Press.
22 Jan 2018. https://thecitizenpress.com/dick-durbin-claims-amnesty-is-civil-rights-issue-of-our-time
(accessed 180128)
[iii] Alex
Swoyer. “Sen. Dick Durbin says debate over Dreamers is a ‘civil rights issue’”.
The Washington Times. 22 Jan 2018. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/dick-durbin-says-debate-over-dreamers-civil-rights/
(accessed 180128)
[iv] “Dick
Durbin Claims Amnesty Is ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Time’”. The Citizen Press.
22 Jan 2018. https://thecitizenpress.com/dick-durbin-claims-amnesty-is-civil-rights-issue-of-our-time
(accessed 180128)
[vii] Alex
Swoyer. “Sen. Dick Durbin says debate over Dreamers is a ‘civil rights issue’”.
The Washington Times. 22 Jan 2018.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/dick-durbin-says-debate-over-dreamers-civil-rights/
(accessed 180128)
No comments:
Post a Comment