By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
#SamFrescoe #civilrights #DACA #Dreamers
The political discourse surrounding illegal immigrants in
the United States continues to spin ever faster. As the narrative turns and
twists the collision between solid facts and soft feelings is being overrun
with remessaging, blatant dishonorable conduct, further condoning of criminal
behavior, and massive growth of underlying fallacy. Yet, despite it all, politicians
want our consent to solve the illegal immigrant problem that they created.
Given the potential far-reaching impacts of their proposed
solutions, the introduction of the civil rights[i]
lens on what is a naturalization problem set, and the dishonorable conduct on
display, I find myself questioning their motives.
Why do our politicians continue to
advocate that Americans should adapt our laws to meet the needs, wants, and
desires of illegal immigrants versus advocating that illegal immigrants should adapt
to meet the needs, wants, and desires of American laws?
Why do our politicians appeal to American
goodwill in order to stop oppressing illegal immigrant families versus appealing
to illegal immigrant families in order to stop oppressing American goodwill?
Why do certain politicians need,
want, or desire Americans to accept their playing of a race card to invoke
identity politics?
Motive – A Framework
Establishing motive outside of an expression of intent is
difficult; but, we can consider the consequences of a proposal or set of
actions and infer a motive.
First, let’s assume that the
behavior of political champions reflects a sincere intention to grant
citizenship to illegal immigrants currently within the United States making
them full citizens.
Second, because the champions are
politicians (many are career politicians at the federal level) let’s
acknowledge that the motive of human governance is power; and, the purposes of
“power” are to expand, augment, dominate, and control. [ii]
When taken together, is the motivation behind granting
citizenship to illegal immigrants to secure political power by expansion and
augmentation of a base, or domination and control of an opposition? – Or, both?
Power Politics and American Governance – Points Not
Discussed
If citizenship is granted to Dreamers, estimated at 3.6M and
growing, regardless of a path, then the distribution of political consent will
shift. The shift will occur because more than 72% of today’s Dreamers (2.6M) are
of voting age.[iii]
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
– Declaration of Independence –
State/Local Politics: The
greatest concentrations of Dreamers are in Las Angeles, New York City, Houston,
Dallas-Ft Worth, and Chicago. This is significant because political power rests
in the hands of the voting majority; which are concentrated in major cities
where majority of participating voters reside. Because Dreamers are the
beneficiaries of government support and protection; it’s likely that their
consent to be governed according to government-based support and protection
will remain. Meaning, their votes will likely back the expansion and augmentation
of government.
Federal Politics: For
Presidential politics, mastery of the Electoral College is the key to victory.
Looking through this lens it’s easy to estimate the potential impact of accepting
illegal immigrants as full citizens.
The states most impacted by illegal
immigrants currently control
154 Electoral College votes (57% of the votes needed to secure the Presidency).
154 Electoral College votes (57% of the votes needed to secure the Presidency).
Pew Research suggests that Dreamers
prefer to enroll in DACA within the states of California, Texas, Illinois, New
York, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, and the District
of Columbia.[iv]
This pattern closely follows the residency preferences of unauthorized workers:
California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois; Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington.[v]
Taken together, it seems likely that the political balance of the states common
to both lists will experience a shift: California, Texas, New York, Illinois,
and Washington. – Again, because Dreamers are the beneficiaries of government
support and protection; it’s likely that their consent to be governed according
to government-based support and protection will remain. Meaning, their votes
will likely back the expansion and augmentation of government.
Bottom Line: If illegal immigrants are granted
citizenship, regardless of the path, then the prevailing view of the role of
government will shift:
- Shift further from… “The Bill of Rights and Constitution are our nation’s foundations which define a government structure to implement principles which serves all of the country’s citizens and protects our freedoms.
- Shift further towards… “The political class uses government functions and institutions to enlarge, entrench, and enrich itself while viewing citizens only as parts of tribes and voting blocs resulting in diminished individual rights and freedoms.”
Going Forward – Pushing Back
In my view, it’s time to push messaging upon our
politicians?
- Do
illegal immigrants demonstrate criminal behavior?
- Are
children of illegal immigrants born in the US citizens under the 14th
Amendment?
- Are
the children of illegal immigrants emancipated? If yes, then they are adults;
why should their illegal kin be allowed to stay? If no, then why should minor
children be used as the basis for condoning criminal conduct?
- Why
should Americans accept the perversion of two good things, naturalization and
civil rights, in favor of rewarding criminal behavior with citizenship, standing
under the law, voting, property rights, and other common protections?
- Why
should Americans accept that illegal criminals are good people for America?
- Because
progressive policies created this problem, why should Americans believe that a
progressive solution is an acceptable answer?
- Why
should we accept that being against illegal behavior is racism in practice?
- If
the lawful behavior of abiding citizens is not subsidized, then why should the
unlawful behavior of illegal immigrants be subsidized?
- Why
does the desire of the Government to legalize and forgive illegal behavior supersede
the legal need of everyone else to be law-abiding, regardless?
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]
John Patrick Diggins, “John Adams”, Times Books, 2003, ISBN: 0-8050-6937-3
No comments:
Post a Comment