The eminent historian identifies “Six Truths We Dare Not Speak“:
1. … the unspoken assumption of the advocates of open borders (or at least of those who feel that illegal aliens should be exempt from federal immigration statutes): historical grievances have made enforcement of the law rather debatable, given that sovereignty, national borders, and the notion of a definable America altogether are “problematic.”
That is, open borders and amnesty represent a form of backdoor reparations combined with a slow but sure form of surrender of our national identity.
2. … another contradiction that goes to the very heart of illegal immigration, multiculturalism, and assimilation: millions risk their lives to opt for a different paradigm (whether that is primarily economic, cultural, political, or social, as the particular case may be) that entails a sort of rejection of Mexico and acceptance of its antithesis in America.
In other words, millions (as in the case of immigration everywhere) are willing to cast aside cultural, linguistic, ethnic, familial, and tribal ties for something quite different across the border. That said, why then would not both immigrant and the host facilitate and amplify that choice by insisting on English, assimilation, and immersion within the mutually preferred host culture?
Because, as seen in #1, that’s not what they or their self-appointed advocates want.
3. I do not understand how mere transit across the border enables the illegal alien to plug into the industry of affirmative action. … All this is predicated on the unspoken assumption that by virtue of Mexican ancestry the current alien has encountered more discrimination or adversity in a few years of the new millennium than say the Arab- or Punjabi- or Armenian-American immigrant of long duration. This is as absurd as it is an ignored consideration.
4. … without the arrival of the illegal alien in massive numbers without education, capital, legality and English, the Hispanic activists and cultural elite have no reason to be, since soon there would be no disparity that can be blamed on oppression or racism — and thus no need for self-appointed collective representation. La Raza would have no raza when a Hilda Lopez marries Larry Smith and their daughter Linda Lopez Smith marries Billy Otomo and so on.
#4 is an absolutely critical point. Sans illegal immigration and the overgenerous welfare state, La Raza is out of business within two decades (sans the overgenerous welfare state and criminally negligent schools, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been out of business by the late 1980s, if not sooner). Even today, legal immigrants still largely assimilate and become productive members of the larger society. Illegal immigrants do not. Illegal immigrants granted amnesty and their descendants are much less likely to assimilate. Some will keep a chip on their shoulders because their sense of entitlement to automatic citizenship went unrewarded for so long. Others haven’t been and won’t be interested in citizenship even if handed out on a silver platter. The proclivity to assimilate of anyone here illegally is suspect, simply because the very act of coming here illegally marks them as less willing than the average person who hasn’t done so to operate in a country whose origins are in the rule of law (whether we still operate under the rule of law is highly debatable; see Point 6).
5. If the Border Patrol can question those on the American side of the fence on reasonable grounds, then why cannot the policeman do so too a few miles distant?
Give ‘em time, VDH. Unless this illogic is stopped, pretty soon they won’t be able to do that either.
6. There is now no law. Reader, let us walk through the new immigration labyrinth: (a) the federal government has chosen not to enforce, or cannot enforce, immigration law, evident by the continual residence of over 12 million illegal aliens, and an annual influx of some 500,000 to 750,000 more; (b) neither the federal government nor states (nor the courts) can demand enforcement of an existing federal law; (c) those states that pass laws emulating federal immigration statutes will have their legislation either voided by the court or neutered by the federal government; (d) but those cities who pass sanctuary laws in direct violation of federal illegal immigration statutes will have their legislation either validated or ignored by both the court and the federal and state governments.
Conclusion? The federal government and federal courts prefer to ignore laws that violate their own, but void those that copy them.
We are in revolutionary times when the law is a malleable thing, its validity predicated only on its perceived social utility at any given moment.
This is how nations are lost.
Those who don’t think the nation is being lost either aren’t paying attention, or like the fact that it’s happening.
UPDATE: An Arizona sheriff’s reaction –
(The sheriff) told CNSNews.com that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.
“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” (he) said.
You might think that the sheriff making this statement is Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. Though it could have been, you would be wrong. It’s Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu.
Robert Engstrom at Human Events notes that the federal government’s “deployment” of a small number of National Guard troops to the border several months ago “was universally panned as an empty gesture, even sparking outrage when it was revealed that Mexico will receive more funds from the federal government.”
As to Sheriff Arpaio, he has a new problem on his hands. Though he has surely received death threats before, I suspect he hasn’t previously seen a $1 million bounty promised to anyone who kills him. In a sense, he’s now as much of a target, if not moreso based on the amount of the reward, of the drug cartels as law enforcement officials on the southern side of the border.