By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
#SamFrescoe #DACA #civilrights #Dreamers
Have you encountered a situation in which two ideas are
combined to give a new meaning that turns out to be a perversion of those original
ideas? In my mind, common examples include democratic socialism, compassionate conservatism,
and progressive liberalism? If you have, then you’re likely no stranger to newest
combination to enter the political narrative: illegal immigrant civil rights.
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. Dick Durbin (D-Ill).[i]
-
Democratic Senators believe amnesty for millions
of illegal immigrants is the “civil rights issue of our time,” declared Sen.
Dick Durbin (D-Ill).[ii]
-
…the concern over whether to legalize millions
of illegal immigrants amounted to a “civil rights” issue.[iii]
Of course, Sen. Durbin is not the
only champion of the cause. There are Legislators, Executives, news media
outlets, protesters, and lobby groups[iv]
parroting the narrative along their lines of influence.
It seems to me that the political discourse surrounding new narrative
continues to spin while looking for traction. So far, within the last 15 days,
we’ve witnessed clever remessaging, blatant dishonorable conduct, further
condoning of criminal behavior, and massive differences in just how big the
problem set is right now. Considering all that’s gone on, it seems to me, that
the champion’s message is clear enough: if America does not grant illegal
immigrants citizenship according to their preferences, then it’s because those
opposed are racist oppressors.
Yet, despite it all, outspoken champions want Americans at
large to…consent to another progressive solution…designed to fix a progressive problem…that
was created to satisfy progressive ideology…that was continuously supported by
progressive advocates…and is now being presented as the progressive “issue of
our time.”
Why
is the answer to a failed Progressive Policy another Progressive Policy?
Background
The United States is no stranger to naturalization of
immigrants. The Constitution is clear on the matter: establishing a “uniform
rule of naturalization” is an enumerated power reserved to the Legislature (Art-1,
Sec-8). As a result, there is law and precedent dating back to the beginning of
the republic.
Additionally, the United States is no stranger to addressing
civil rights.
-
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that all
persons born in the United States were now citizens, without regard to race,
color, or previous condition.[v]
-
On 9 July 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment
declared citizenship only on the conditions of birth within, or naturalization
in, the United States.
-
On 3 Feb 1870, the Fifteenth Amendment declared
voting rights of the citizens cannot be denied or abridged on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude.
-
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 (aka the
Enforcement Act or Force Act) affirmed the “equality of all men before the law”
and prohibited racial discrimination in public places and facilities such as
restaurants and public transportation.[vi]
-
The Civil Rights Act of 1957 declared that any
citizen of the United States cannot be deprived of their right to vote and have
that vote counted by reason of their color, race, religion, or national origin.[vii]
-
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended segregation
in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex or national origin.[viii]
-
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibited
discrimination concerning the sale, rental and financing of housing based on
race, religion, national origin or sex.[ix]
However, when I combine these ideas, naturalization and
civil rights, I perceive neither naturalization nor civil rights. I see a
combined effort of professional idea brokers and steadfast activists attempting
to convince the common American to believe or agree that denying citizenship to
criminal actors is a fundamental wrong when those actors are illegal immigrants.
In my book, what we are looking at is a clear example of
identity-based, power politics…nothing more.
Bolstered Identity Politics:
“Americans are
dreamers too.” – President Trump
If illegal immigrants (an identity group) are granted
citizenship, then that group will exclusively receive a reward that is inversely
proportionate to their prior illegal behavior. Therefore, if citizenship is
granted, then illegal behavior of that identity group will be condoned,
forgiven, and rewarded.
In my view, should the deal be done, it’s likely that the
champions will develop variations of the condoning-forgiving-rewarding cycle in
order to continue to secure government-backed rewards. Simply stated, doing a
deal will solidify their modus operandi. After all, it worked before.
Why
should the common American accept the rewarding of criminal behavior as a good
thing? – I mean, when was the last time that a law-abiding, upstanding,
self-sufficient American received a government subsidy for being good a citizen?
Just Behaviors are Devalued:
Self-governance is a trust amongst us that mutually demands
independence, respect, and responsibility at the individual level.
America was deliberately founded on this good idea.
independence, respect, and responsibility at the individual level.
America was deliberately founded on this good idea.
Rewarding bad behavior incentivizes the continuance of that
bad behavior. In this case, there are two sets of bad behaviors: 1) the illegal
behavior of immigrants; 2) the condoning of illegal behavior by politicians. Should
the deal be done, the relationship between the newly formed voting bloc and the
politician seeking power will become mutually supporting. Meaning, the benefits
of bloc-politician resource exchanges (a gateway to domestic power) will exceed
the benefits of self-governance, personal liberty, and individual
responsibility (cornerstones of limited government and traditional American
society). – Regardless of how things actually turn out, behavior rewarded
becomes behavior repeated.
In the case of the illegal immigrants, their bad behavior is
rewarded with recognition, standing, and rights to power. In turn, the group
now has a mechanism capable of redirecting resources through the monopolies of
government.
In the case of the politician, their bad behavior is
rewarded with the creation of a concentrated and sympathetic voting bloc. In
turn, certain politicians now have a mechanism capable of swaying popular consent
to their favor.
Going Forward – Consider the Long-Term Effects
In my view, supporting a pathway to citizenship for illegal
immigrants devalues just and virtuous behaviors, bolsters identity politics,
and skews political consent away from those that are fully assimilated American
citizens. – To be clear, I am not a fan of granting citizenship to illegal
immigrants in any shape, form, or fashion.
Of course, people do disagree with my view, and for many
reasons other than political power. Granted, this is a multi-faceted issue. However,
I must ask, “Are you willing to live under a precedent that further
concentrates political power in a way that can be used against you in the
future?”
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)
[v] http://spartacus-educational.com/USAcivil1866.htm
(accessed 180128)
[vi] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Civil-Rights-Act-United-States-1875
(accessed 180128)
[viii]
http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-act
(accessed 180128)
[ix] http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fair-housing-act
(accessed 180128)
No comments:
Post a Comment