Hypothetical situation: A father uses a stolen credit card to make a big FanDuel football bet. He’s taking a risk because he wants to have the best Feliz Navidad ever for his family. But to his shock and dismay he finds out there’s a big difference between futbol and football and his entire “investment” is wiped out.
Even worse, authorities are notified, and now he’s jailed and facing a long stretch in prison. So the question is: Are we obligated to boycott FanDuel if they don’t demand dad’s release and refuse to cooperate with the prosecution? Because otherwise the family will be broken up and the children frightened.
If you answered “yes,” please stop reading now.
If you answered “no,” explain to me why the identical thought process is currently protecting millions of illegal aliens in the U.S.? In effect they’ve taken their own families hostage and the federal government and Congress are surrendering to their demands.
In our hypothetical situation padre takes a risk and he should pay the consequences. In our immigration debate padre takes a risk and the citizens pay the consequences. Illegal families crossing the U.S. border do so in full knowledge they’re breaking the law, but they take the risk anyway. And why not, when the Democrats are welcoming the votes and establishment Republicans are part of the conspiracy.
Two examples were on stage at the Fox Business News Debate. John Kasich, the angry, high-energy RINO, attacked Donald Trump’s insistence on expelling illegal aliens and securing the border: “But if people think that we are going to ship 11 million people who are law-abiding, who are in this country, and somehow pick them up at their house and ship them out of Mexico...think about the families. Think about the children.”
Juan Bush, the low-energy RINO, piled on, “...they’re doing high-fives in the Clinton campaign right now when they hear this.”
No, actually they’re doing high-fives in Mexicans Without Borders HQ because they know if either of those two collaborationists win the nomination South and Central America will continue to annex the U.S.
Why are taxpaying citizens responsible for the children and families of lawbreakers from another country? It’s the greatest moral inversion since “choice” became an accepted excuse for sacrificing unborn babies on the altar of convenience.
Citizens have absolutely zero obligation to illegals and their relatives when they are caught. Any more than you have a moral obligation to supply the burglar with a copy of your extended warranty if the TV he stole goes on the fritz.
There is an established civil and criminal legal principle that posits one is not allowed to benefit from the result of crime. That’s why the drug dealer’s family doesn’t get to keep the nice house when he goes to jail. Or the grieving widow doesn’t get to keep the insurance payment after it’s discovered she helped her husband along.
The “immigration reform” debate turns all the precedence on its head. Allowing the families of illegal immigrants to attend U.S. schools, benefit from free U.S. healthcare and children born on this side of the border to be citizens are all benefits that are only made possible by the law being broken. Politician’s compassion for members of a slow-motion invasion at the expense of their own citizens is just exploitation with a veneer of sanctimony.
If Kasich’s 11 million were really “law-abiding” they wouldn’t be on this side of the border.
This wailing and moaning about the impossibility of deporting 11 million illegals is a false issue and it’s surprising Trump fell into the trap of advocating a policy that should never happen. Taxpayers aren’t responsible for keeping illegal’s families together and they aren’t responsible for arranging transportation either.
They can leave the same way they got here.
Citizens will be happy to help them hit the camino by removing all economic incentives that attracted them initially. No jobs, no welfare, no earned income credit, no Medicaid and no tuition. Two conservative Supreme Court appointments and the country can also remove free schools and birthright citizenship for illegals.
Then our immigration law will be almost identical to that 21st Century pacesetter: Mexico.
Donald Trump currently leads the polls because he identified immigration as the defining issue and was not afraid to make it the centerpiece of his campaign. Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Fiorina and Graham are all Quislings on immigration. Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal are not.
For conservatives there can simply be no other issue. Continuing to import poorly educated, impoverished, low-information voters will end of any chance for limited government. Granting amnesty to 12 million lawbreakers undermines the rule of law and will only serve to attract millions more.
Michael Shannon is a commentator and public relations consultant, and is the author of “A Conservative Christian’s Guidebook for Living in Secular Times.” He can be reached at email@example.com