Continuing on a rant about all things stupid in this great big country of ours, I decide to once again create a post based on Facebook.
You know, I think Facebook is becoming my new source for stupid.
This one is based on the idiocy that is illegal immigration. My Microsoft dictionary defines "illegal" as: forbidden by law. It also defines "immigration" as: the act of people entering into a new country to settle permanently. And finally, it defines "illegal immigration" as: somebody who has entered the country illegally.
Now, as you know, supporting illegal immigration is all the rage and nowhere is it more visible than on Facebook.
Since I have a major problem identifying supposedly sane people supporting something that is against the law as hypocrites, I came up with a sure fire questionnaire that can determine with with a reasonable degree of accuracy if a particular person is a hypocrite. Question #1 is a gimme, but if you agree with question 2 or question 3, you are a hypocrite. If you agree with question 4, not only are you a hypocrite but you're morally depraved as well.
Question #1: You abhor doing anything that is against the law.
Question #2: You condone illegal immigration.
Question #3: You approve of Mexico chastising Arizona for creating a law aimed at curtailing illegal immigration and of Mexico filing a friend of the court brief against it, in spite of the fact that Mexico does not bend over backwards like we do when it comes to illegal immigration. When Mexico finds an illegal immigrant, the deport them. No ifs, no ands, and no buts. They chuck them on a plane and send them back to where they came from.
Question #4: Because you live or work in a sanctuary city or state and a close family member is killed or seriously injured by illegal immigrant, you are okay with the fact that this person will never see the inside of a jail because it is against the law to arrest an illegal immigrant so all that will happen to them is that they'll be deported, and in a few months, they'll be back in America doing the exact same stuff again.
So, tell me the truth, is my questionnaire an accurate representation of a large slice of stupid that happens to run things in America today, or am I just full of shit?
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
19 comments:
Go on, give me your best shot. I can take it. If I couldn't, I wouldn't have created this wonderful little blog that you decided to grace with your presence today.
About that comment moderation thingy: While yes, it does say up above I can take it, I only use it to prevent the occasional miscreant from leaving thoughtless and/or clueless comments.
So remember, all of your comments are greatly appreciated and all answers will be given that personal touch that you come to expect and enjoy.
G. B. Miller
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem is with number 1, I think. One can say that they abhor doing things against the law, as long as the law is just. If someone answered yes to number 1 they'd be in a logical conundrum about the rest, but very few people are going to give an unequivocal yes to number 1.
ReplyDelete100% with you. If you support illegal immigration, you are an IDIOT.
ReplyDeleteIllegal immigration costs our country WAY too much money not to mention lost jobs, crime statistics, etc., etc.
Every other country DEPORTS so why do we have to be all blind to it. What, so we look good? Come one, other countries hate us anyway, why not be freakin' SMART and enforce law. How crazy does that sound, enforce law? Shouldn't even be an argument. Come on AMERICA get with it!
My hair hurts.
ReplyDeleteI wish it was as easy as a questionnaire.
I can't answer your questionnaire.
I need multiple choice, please.
:)Bea
Excellent questions, G!! It is unconscionable that our government has had the gall to SUE the state of Arizona for TRYING TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW, but completely IGNORES so-called "sanctuary cities" that REFUSE to uphold federal law! Where is the logic???
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm getting SO SICK of the cries of "racism" and "anti-immigrant" being spewn all over the media airwaves. How DARE anyone call those of us who strive to be law-abiding citizens "racist" and "anti-immigrant." First of all, the VAST MAJORITY of Americans have no problems whatsoever with immigrants -- we WELCOME immigrants. But, like pretty much EVERY COUNTRY on earth, we have laws against entering our country illegally. And second, as far as Arizona is concerned, please show me where all those illegal Koreans and Swedes are sneaking into the state?? Because last I knew, Arizona had a problem with illegal MEXICAN immigrants. So, it MAY stand to reason that that'd be on the lookout for MEXICANS. Yet somehow this is "racist."
The way the media has been going on about it, you'd think the cops were going to be walking down random streets asking anyone who isn't "white" for their "papers." Uh, no. The cops will stopping speeders and red-light runners, as usual. And by the way, ANY time ANYONE is stopped by the police, they ask for your "papers" -- it's called ID... usually a driver's license. (Oh my gosh!!!! When the cops stop a car with a Mexican driver, they'll be allowed to ask to see a driver's license!!) Again, I am AMAZED by the lack of logic in this country...
Whew... sorry to take up so much space... I should've just posted this on my OWN blog. :)
I think the problem I have with the AZ law is that it's 1) unnecessary - we already have federal laws on the books and 2) goes as far as to call for profiling. As you may know, AZ does not have the greatest track record on that. The new law is very broad - they can stop anyone who "is suspected to be" or looks like they might be (I kid you not) an illegal immigrant. Read: any Latino they want to harass. I appreciate the police as far as public safety goes, but there are enough rogues who engage in racial profiling that I don't want to give them any leeway.
ReplyDeleteYep, Charles nailed it.
ReplyDeleteHere is my take.
ReplyDelete1. Increase opportunities for LEGAL immigration
2. If you are not here on a legal visa or passport and you have a child, they are not automatically US Citizens. Some will say this is in the constitution but there is legal wiggle room.
Charles: Isn’t it possible for someone to give an unequivocal “yes” to #1 and not be in a logical conundrum? I certainly can give a “yes” to #1 and have no qualms about saying “no” to 2,3, & 4.
ReplyDeleteT1G: Absolutely. In Connecticut, it’s not that large of an issue, although the mayor of Danbury has been taking a lot of flack from the college campuses (naturally) for his stance on illegal immigration.
I know, enforcing the law. What a novel concept. Problem is, I think we opened the door for exactly this kind of stuff when we made exceptions for people escaping from Cuba.
Bea: Sorry to make your hair hurt. Wish I could’ve made it multiple choice, but I think it would’ve confused you even further.
EOM: I think it’s a little of both. A lot of people support illegal immigration (hence sanctuary cities/states) on humanitarian grounds and detest racial profiling on any kind of grounds.
Lisa: Woah. I’m not sure even where I can begin to answer your comment. All of what you say is true, and thus lies the crux of the issue that we are doing things above and beyond what other countries do (except for the U.K.). And yes, to put it bluntly, if you’re white (or any other color for that matter) in another country and you’re crossing into another country, you’re gonna be asked to show some kind of papers identifying yourself.
R.K.: While 1) it may be unnecessary, the Feds aren’t doing the job we elected them to do in the first place. If they were, Arizona wouldn’t have done so in the first place. And 2) profiling, for better or worse, will always be here. It is the proverbial 800lb gorilla in a 5x5 room.
And if there are rouges that do it anyways, the law isn’t gonna make one iota of a difference to them.
Let me ask you this as a serious question: do you really want to see Arizona turn into the poor version of Cambodia circa the 70’s via the Mexican drug cartels?
David: Perhaps, but I presented myself as a someone who can unequivocally say "yes" to #1 while saying "no" to the rest.
ReplyDeleteDoes it still apply?
Bearman: 1) No brainer, but the problem is that make one major exception for illegal immigration, which is Cuba.
2) Excellent point. Why should simply being a child of an illegal and you were born here automatically make you a citizen?
Ah, what a fun topic...and ironically, one I wrote on before stopping by...
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly both with your post and some of the thoughts found in the replies.
I am not sure our immigration laws are what they should be...quite the opposite in fact.
With that said, we cannot degenerate into a society that picks and chooses which laws we like and just obey them.
That is a sure path to anarchy.
Oh, wait...too late. We already did.
G, I personally think we should abandon the war on drugs.
ReplyDeleteDarth: We sure already did. Picking and choosing is how we got into this mess. Making exceptions is how we got into this mess. How to get out of this mess, I believe is gonna be a long slow torturous process.
ReplyDeleteR: Really? What part of the war on drugs should we abandon?
Interesting conversation, G. Particularly interesting to me, because my state will probably be the next to try it.
ReplyDeleteMama Z: Thanks. I don't try to have these kind of posts too often, simply because of the amount of passion that is involved on both sides.
ReplyDeleteI couldn't say an unequivacol yes to number 1 because there are too many laws that I don't agree with in total.
ReplyDeleteCharles: point taken, I guess.
ReplyDeleteStill, it would've been interesting to hear your viewpoint on illegal immigration though.
I'm rather with Charles on the logic of the argument, but I am 100% against amnest for illegal 'immigrants.' I am also against citizenship just because you are born here when the birth mother is in the US illegally or on a visitor's visa. I believe Mexico doesn't extend citizenship to children born of non-Mexican citizens; why should be extend citizenship to someone if their mother is in teh United States illegally (e.g. not here on a visa that allows that person to live and/or work in the United States.) In legal circles, the act of obtaining illegal evidence poisons anything that follows in what is called "fruit of the poisonous tree," rendering prosecution based on illegally obtained evidence inadmissable as well. I would think that this should apply for illegal immigrants and their offspring.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is, I feel for folks who want to come into the United States. We do have some liberal laws in place to allow entry. But there is a limit to what a nation should and can do or provide for others; and you cannot expect us to be continually allowing in new residents, paying for their medical and housing and whatever else. The system is strained tot he breaking point already, especially with the aging of Americans from the baby boom.
WW: I probably should've reworked the logic a little better, but I am one of those people who often sees an issue in terms of black and white, with no shades of grey in between.
ReplyDeleteIt really does suck for Mexico to butt into our affairs when they don't do even 1% of the stuff that we do for immigrants, legal or otherwise.
One of my non-resident coworkers rold a story of going to court at default at speeding tix, n the judge saying to him, "What are you doing here? Legally, you don't exist!"
ReplyDeleteSo they don't have to pay fines either!
Personally, I think S.Amer is a bigger prob than MX