Comment worth noting: Spartanburg resident answers critic, says American citizens should come first
Editor: From time to time we publish good comments prominently because I am not sure many of you see the comments to individual posts. Here a reader from Spartanburg, SC answers another reader, Ralph from Atlanta, who says that compassion for poor third-world refugees should drive our legal immigration policy. See the original comments here at one of our top posts of the week: Stick’in it to Rep. Trey Gowdy, US State Department contractor World Relief brings first refugees to Spartanburg.
From ‘7delta’ (emphasis is mine):
Spartanburg is not anti-immigrant or anti-Muslim. Neither are we indifferent to the suffering of people anywhere in the world, especially not to our own “least of these.” For this reason, we are pro-wise and controlled immigration. We are not seeing either anywhere within the federal framework and have not seen it since 1965.
“The federal government has no authority to be politically correct or to manipulate its people for political gain or to seek “integration” or “diversity” for its own sake.”
In fact, poor immigration policies and federal neglect to do its Constitutional duty has accelerated and exacerbated the problems of our economy, our own vulnerable citizenry and our precarious national security situation. The citizens are morally, Constitutionally and legally the central government’s primary concern. The central government exists for one reason only and that’s to protect us, our rights, our borders and our sovereignty. Their job is to maintain “domestic tranquility” and provide equal justice. We created the central government–“governments are instituted among men”. They did not create the states or us. We preexist it. It has no moral agency to provide mercy, even though laws can at times provide mercy. The administration of mercy belongs solely to the individual. The churches and all these resettlement agencies are responsible for providing their own funds according to what they are willing or are able to bear. The federal government has no moral or Constitutional authority to provide one dime to resettlement once the refugees pass through the gates of its Constitutional authority to regulate immigration and naturalization.
My problem is that the federal government has nothing it did not obtain from the citizens. It can only obligate its citizens to bear the burdens and to suffer the consequences that result from foolish schemes. Yes, the fiscal and social burdens the federal government is saddling us with matters, but as important as that is, it’s the moral and legal issues that are most concerning. The federal government is not providing equal justice. In fact, the immigration policies, or lack thereof, are horribly unfair and unequal. Its negligent in its duty to enforce its own laws and to uphold its primary reason for existence. The law hasn’t failed. Our public servants have.
What do you think caused Ferguson and Baltimore? Racism? Bad policing? Look deeper. What segment of our society is suffering most from unfair competition for limited jobs and opportunity? Who has been primarily displaced by massive numbers of foreign low-skill workers? Of course, there are other issues involved, but one of the main underlying problems is decades of immigration policy that favors immigrants, both legal and illegal, over our own citizens. Layers of bogus “help” programs and layers of narrative have been thrown over the real issues. These tactics are nothing but cover for political gain. Both parties. The bottom line is the federal government’s failure to uphold its moral and Constitutional mandate to protect its own citizens.
So what is wise immigration? It’s immigration that never harms or risks its own citizens in any way. It’s limited and selective. Next it chooses immigrants/refugees that are best suited to assimilate within its jurisdiction and in numbers small enough to not cause harm. The federal government has no authority to be politically correct or to manipulate its people for political gain or to seek “integration” or “diversity” for its own sake. It is to apply equal justice in everything it does, starting with its citizens. Nature will take care of the rest.
As kind as it may seem to bring in millions of illegal and legal immigrants, it’s anything but kind. It encourages illegal behavior and encourages subterfuge from people who should never have been allowed into this country. The wise policy would be to aid refugees overseas in areas close to their home so they can return when conflicts are resolved. The federal government has no right to take over the responsibilities of their home government or to place them on us. Our goal should be to help bring peaceful resolution to their conflicts and help the refugees go home. If peaceful resolution is not possible, then we aid the refugees where they are until they work out their internal problems.
We cannot save the world and if we’re to be an example, then we need to stand on solid principles, ensure equal justice and be certain aid money is not lining foreign or domestic politicians’, agencies or UN pockets, but is going to where it’s needed. Muslim countries must step up to their responsibilities. The sooner they do, the sooner the conflicts end. We cannot solve their problems for them. We can only guide with morals and principles. We help no one, here or abroad, by taking in hundreds of thousands of people who would rather go home and should.
The sooner the federal government does the right thing, the sooner people like you wrote about will get out of camps and back to their homes. If they still want to immigrate here, great…equal application of the law works when used. The world should be pressuring Muslim nations to fix their own house, not trying to take their responsibilities off their hands. That is immoral.
We welcome immigrants that come here to be Americans. We welcome people of character, like the people you wrote about, but diversity for the sake of diversity is conflict. Diversity within the shared framework of common values and principles enhances our culture. Cultures and beliefs built on rejection of our culture and values does not. People must come here because they want to assimilate, to be Americans. I wouldn’t go to Saudi Arabia and demand they adapt to me. I have every right to expect the same from foreigners entering my country and every right to expect my central government to ensure that’s the case with every immigrant allowed into its jurisdiction.
We have the right and the moral imperative to hold our central government responsible for its duties. Compassion not based in morals and principles is not compassion at all. It’s manipulative. Our responsibility is to first stand in the gap for vulnerable Americans, then to provide principled aid to the needy overseas so they can go home. We can do both.
Thanks ‘7delta’ for this clear, articulate response to the “compassion” argument. I’m too impatient to be good at writing like this (in addition to not being able to write this well no matter what!).
Hey, I have an idea, maybe ‘7delta’ should write the opening statement for hearings that Rep. Trey Gowdy should hold in his subcommittee that is responsible for the Refugee Admissions Program of the federal government.
This post is archived in our “comments worth noting” category here.
For new readers, the controversy in Spartanburg began in March. See our original post with updates, here.
Posts
