10 thoughts on “Mike S. Adams: Immigration and Self-Preservation

  1. The statist may, from time to time, claim that his stance on immigration is pragmatic rather than principled. This is at best an unprincipled distortion of the truth. He cannot claim that amnesty is a “solution” to the “problem” of filling low wage jobs that poor people will not fill. It is his stance on immigration that drives down wages in the first place. Surely one cannot claim credit for solving the problems he created himself.

    I keep going back and forth on my opinions of “amnesty”. There are some countries where the conditions are horrendous and beyond my imagination. (Sudan, Congo, Haiti, Colombia are a few that come to mind.) I am far more compelled to grant people from these sorts of countries amnesty. However, people do need to follow rules and be willing to acclimate themselves to the culture that they wish to become a part of.
    One thing that I often wonder: of all the people that claim that the United States is not “superior” to other nations, how many languages do they speak? Are they actually making an effort to learn other cultures and languages? In my limited experience, it’s the conservatives among us that make an effort to do such things. Of all the liberals I know, not one knows something other than their native tongue. Yet, they would be the first to holler “We shouldn’t be arrogant!”
    This an instance where I think Christianity offers the perfect solution. When the focus is missional – to show the other person Christ – there is no need to compete for moral or cultural superiority. When I studied abroad in China, this was something that was talked about often. We were asked the question “What things do the Chinese people seem to do better than Americans?” Hands down, it was respecting those in authority. There was a greater focus on honoring your elders – for the wrong reasons, but a greater focus nonetheless – than there is in the United States.
    No culture is perfect. No political system is perfect. No language is perfect. This why the focus should be on Christ – crucified and resurrected. But we are a hard-hearted bunch on this side of heaven and we will look to our opinions, thoughts, and feelings before looking to the Cross. God help us all.

  2. @Carrie
    “Amnesty” is allowing people who have entered our country illegally, to remain here, with full track to Citizenship, with impunity. This has nothing to do with allowing people from other countries to seek a better life here.

    My dad came here from Iran, as did his brother. They came in through the front door. They had visas. They worked. They learned English. They took no welfare. They did not put it on our educators to show sensitivity to Iranian and other Middle Eastern cultures.

    No…they assimilated to America.

    That’s what this is all about.

  3. I know what amnesty is. I am compelled towards it at times because of the conditions in other countries. I think there are times and circumstances where it is necessary to come in under the radar. However, I also am not a huge fan of people not following the rules.
    I don’t like the welfare system. I don’t like people living here for 10 years and not assimilating.
    I also do not like it when people (i.e. liberals) talk out of both sides of their mouth. They shouldn’t advocate a non-assimilation stance when they act like the United States/English language is the best thing since sliced bread.
    While I agree with you – I think immigrants should aim to assimilate to the best fo their ability – I also think that there are circumstances that would lend some people to have to go an illegal route for a brief time. I would hope that it’s the exception more than it is the rule, but people (er, politicians) tend to make the exception the rule.

  4. Carrie: I am not compelled to Amnesty, ever. It is a slap in the face against everyone who came here legally. There is no case for people having to come here illegally.

    We have provisions for those who wish to defect from oppressive regimes to apply for asylum. This happened often during the Cold War.

    We also allow Cubans–provided they make it here on foot–sanctuary from the Bearded Bastard of Havana.

    Defectors from oppressive regimes ought to be welcome here, but they need to come in through the front door. It is also within our interests that we have a vetting process to ensure that would-be defectors are not actually saboteurs or spies or others who could undermine American society.

    I will not countenance anyone who suggests that granting amnesty to illegals–which endangers American jobs, health care, society, and sovereignty–is somehow more “Christian” than sending the lawbreakers home.

  5. @Carrie
    That may not be a bad idea. It is, after all, the Constitutional duty of federal government to protect states from invasion.

    Illegal immigrants are invaders and should be treated as such. They have no inherent right to Constitutional protections enjoyed by citizens, and we would be right to deport them immediately.

  6. Ok. I see where my error was – I forgot about “asylum”.
    Ooops, sorry ’bout that.
    Maybe I should start drinking coffee if I’m going to comment on a big subject before noon.
    Or I should just wait until noon to comment.

  7. Also, I thought you said you weren’t going to be commenting as you are going to “be out-of-pocket for a couple days” . . . I guess you’re not out-of-pocket yet. 😉

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.