The Relationship Between Guns And Amnesty For Illegal Aliens
BY Herschel Smith
11 years, 7 months ago
Citing an observation in Politico that “Immigration reform could be a bonanza for Democrats [and] cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily,” Gun Owners of America warned members and supporters yesterday against S. 744. The bill, introduced by Sen. Chuck Schumer, prompted GOA to predict that if it passes, “by 2035, the American electorate will have changed so fundamentally that California-style gun control could become a very real possibility in this country!”
Read it all at Examiner, and then return here for some additional analysis. There are reasons why amnesty has always been pushed by the progressives and crony capitalists, and reasons why amnesty empowers the progressives in perpetuity.
Regarding the issue of crony capitalists, I have explained that before.
The use of illegal immigrants (migrant workers) is a form of price supports for the agri-industry. The employers who “hire” them do not supply them with medical insurance or pay them enough to afford automobile insurance. When these workers become sick or injured, they do not forgo medical care – they go to the local hospital. Our medical bills and insurance coverage premiums pay for these services to the illegals. Similarly, our uninsured motorist coverage pays for the insurance that the illegals should be purchasing. These are merely two examples (a legion of examples could be given) that show that the employer is receiving a form of corporate welfare at the expense of the middle class in America. The employer is in favor of the use of illegals to do work because it is beneficial to their purse, not because it benefits America. The employer will always favor the reassignment of financial burden to someone else in order to help the “bottom line.” But the bottom line for the employer and the bottom line for the taxpayer and ratepayer is not necessarily the same bottom line. The free market argument to support the hiring of illegals is a smokescreen. America had a free market before the advent of illegal immigrants and migrant workers. The existence of illegals is not essential to the existence of the free market.
The reason that progressives want open borders should be clear enough, although I have also discussed this issue. … “for historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition … one consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology. Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations.”
One of the reasons for this reflexive alignment with leftism has to do with the the mid-twentieth century and what the Sovient Union and allied ideologies accomplished. South and Central America was the recipient or receptacle for socialism draped in religious clothing, or in other words, liberation theology. Its purveyors were Roman Catholic priests who had been trained in Marxism, and they were very successful in giving the leftists a moral platform upon which to build. This ideology spread North from South and Central America into Mexico, and thus the common folk in Mexico are quite steeped in collectivist ideology from battles that were fought decades ago.
GOA is correct. Open borders would cause (and has already caused) a tilt towards collectivist ideology in America, and it is a tilt from which there is no return. Grandparents teach it to parents, parents teach it to children, and those children grow up to teach it to their children. Collectivist ideology is inimical to freedom and gun ownership. Take whatever position you wish, but realize that the politics of control doesn’t want you to know the truth.
There is one other player I should mention in this debacle, and that is the American church, both Roman Catholic and Protestant. My readers know about my lamentations over the ignorance and stupidity of the church. The ignorance of the church doesn’t stop with pacifism, but extends as well to advocacy for broken borders in the name of compassion. This compassion conflates personal morality with national identify and security, but don’t try to explain that to the pacifists. Just know that this problem exists.
If you care about freedom and liberty for your family, you should care about firearms and preparing for the coming national difficulties. In order to understand the context for the difficulties, you should assume that politics isn’t ever really about compassion. It’s always about control.
Prior:
Texas Border Security: A Strategic Military Assessment
On April 29, 2013 at 7:41 am, dad29 said:
Although many US Bishops would rather forget this, John Paul II was VERY clear that immigration should be available….subject to the LAWS of the country.
He was no fool. Charity, yes. National suicide, no. That Polish heritage shows through, ain’a?
On April 29, 2013 at 3:45 pm, Archer said:
Pacifism and compassion are all fine and good in theory, but in reality they harm more than they help. Like Marxism and socialism, the proponents of these ideas mean well, but refuse to see the real end results of their beliefs.
Hearing this from church leaders is somewhat surprising. Of ALL people, clergy of any denomination should be particularly familiar with the paving material used on the Road to Hell.