Immigration and the “House of America”
Immigration and the “House of America”- “Controlling our borders and securing the House of America is not only not on their agenda; it is the very opposite.”
by Bill Lockwood
America is on fire. Mobs rove about the streets, harass passengers at airports and erupt over social as well as Main Stream Media and a placard-bearing rabble has become a daily sight around the country. Hollywood itself has become one gigantic Democratic Political Action Committee as awards banquets turn into more vitriolic spleen-venting against our president. Disruption of society is socialism on the march.
Just what is their beef today? Obedience to and enforcement of immigration laws by President Donald Trump. According to PolitiFact the presidential order “targets people from countries originally listed by the Obama administration as terrorist hotbeds—Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.” Refugees fleeing from Syria are also affected. President Trump pointed out that “This is not about religion—this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.”
But the riotous left is unhappy. Controlling our borders and securing the House of America is not only not on their agenda; it is the very opposite. Let’s examine it—assuming that there are enough lefties remaining out of socialistic clutches who will soberly consider facts instead of ranting about the countryside.
First, consider the Founders’ position on immigration. As explained by Thomas Jefferson in his Notes on the State of Virginia, it is for the happiness and tranquility of a society that states actually join league together to form a federal government. Regarding that union, “Every species of government has its specific principles. … To these [principles] nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. …They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, form one extreme to another.”
America will change dramatically from the God-given principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence in which “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.” Instead of individual rights we will see, Jefferson warned, a “heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass” precisely because they will “infuse into it [America] their spirit” and “warp and bias its direction.”
That this has already occurred cannot be doubted. Sharing identical or similar values is the key. For this reason, until the late Ted Kennedy practically single-handedly changed our system, immigration into America was regulated by the federal government taking into consideration the countries of origin of immigrants. Today, masses of people pour across our borders with little regard for our laws or Constitutional system founded upon God-given individual rights.
Second, America must beware of Muslim immigrants, period. Trump and the Republicans are laboring to explain to recalcitrant hordes that “this is not about religion” as evidenced by the fact that Muslims from over 40 different countries are not affected by this order. Be that as it may. In spite of the words of former president Obama on “Climate Change”– “the debate is closed”—the debate has not yet even occurred on Islam. Islam is much less a religion than a political system which is in the world to conquer. Islam is defined by three books called “The Trilogy.” All three volumes, the Koran, the Biography of Mohammed, and the Hadith, are nothing but basic strategy manuals on how to conquer a civilization by violence and bloodshed.
When Mohammed himself died in Arabia there was not a single person on the peninsula that disagreed with the man. This cannot be explained on the basis of freedom, but upon an authoritarian system at war with mankind—and America. If America cannot come to grips with this fact it is doomed.
Third, mob-actions mobilized by the socialists to disrupt society are unabashedly hypocritical. Elliot Abrams, in Newsweek (9-13-16), pointed out what has been obvious to many. His article is entitled “The U.S. Bars Christian, not Muslim, Refugees from Syria.” Abrams recognizes that “the headline for this column—the U.S. Bars Christian, Not Muslim, Refugees From Syria—will strike many readers as ridiculous. But the numbers tell a different story.”
Abrams goes on to show that as of September, 2016, America has accepted 10,801 Syrian refugees, “of whom 56 are Christian. Not 56 percent; 56 total, out of 10,801. That is to say, one-half of 1 percent.” However, “10 percent of all Syrians are Christian, which would mean 2.2 million Christians. It is quite obvious, and President Barack Obama and Secretary John Kerry have acknowledged it, that Middle Eastern Christians are an especially persecuted group.”
“So how is it that one-half of 1 percent of the Syrian refugees we’ve admitted are Christian, or 56, instead of about 1,000 out of 10,801—or far more, given that they certainly meet the legal definition?” This gross injustice, Abrams explains, is because even in the refugee camps, there is a persecution against Christians by refugee Muslims. Christians are therefore forced to flee their own United Nations refugee camps. The result: very few Christians enter America.
The point here is: Where were all those righteous placard-carrying street organizers or Hollywood elitists to protest this injustice against Christians? Why no protests against Obama or the Muslims he consistently defends in spite of their persecution of Christians? The legs of the lame are not equal.
Further, perhaps the American people ought to awaken from the stupor of political correctness to recognize that what is mentioned above regarding Islam in general is valid. Even less violent Muslims, who do not as consistently practice Mohammed’s jihad, are dangerous themselves, even if persecuted by their own kind. This is what America is allowing to enter the doors of our house.
Fourth, it is admitted that travel bans and immigration enforcement alone will not solve the problem. But it is a start. The real issue is the welfare state. Our republican government, as conceived by the Founders, was designed to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.
Samuel Adams stated, “The utopian schemes of leveling [redistribution of wealth], and a community of goods [central ownership of all the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impracticable as those which vest all property in the Crown.” He adds that these concepts are “in our government unconstitutional.”
But what has occurred? Over the past 75 years our nation has repudiated sound constitutional principles and turned into a socialistic morass in which government regularly plunders its citizens for redistribution. Ron Paul, former Congressman from Texas, adequately sizes up the situation in a recent column.
“The solution to really addressing the problem of illegal immigration, drug smuggling, and the threat of cross-border terrorism is clear: remove the welfare magnet that attracts so many to cross the border illegally, stop the 25 year US war in the Middle East, and end the drug war that incentivizes smugglers to cross the border.”
Paul adds that, “The various taxpayer-funded programs that benefit illegal immigrants in the United States, such as direct financial transfers, medical benefits, food assistance, and education, cost an estimated $100 billion dollars per year. That is a significant burden on citizens and legal residents. The promise of free money, free food, free education, and free medical care if you cross the border illegally is a powerful incentive for people to do so. It especially makes no sense for the United States government to provide these services to those who are not in the US legally.”
Get America back to a Constitutional government is the true solution.
Fifth, the Leftists in America complain against Trump’s immigration policies that they are “unchristian.” Christianity should be about caring for the poor and downtrodden, not closing borders against the persecuted.
Confusion reigns here. America has always cherished its Christian principles. Above and beyond the Welfare Plunder State which is the legacy of the FDR’s and Lyndon Johnson’s, American churches continue to give away much more than any other peoples in history, whether it be to the foreign poor or to the home-born poverty-stricken. It is with little grace or reflection that street hordes denigrate the charity of America.
Charity, however, only encompasses individual action or congregational action. Government programs do not begin to answer God’s demands.
The centerpiece of socialism, on the other hand, is that individuals or groups are entitled to the wealth produced by society— to the material goods produced by others. The “poor” are entitled to education, healthcare, food and the necessities of life. But these necessities are provided by someone else. Dig deeper into this idea.
The transfer of necessities or goods may occur in only one of two ways: (1) Free-will giving (contribution); or (2) Theft. As every American understands, our national leaders, both Republican and Democrat, are solidly in the second category. This has created the modern welfare state. But this is only about one thing: government forcibly removing from one citizen to re-distribute to another. To call this Christian charity betrays an abysmal ignorance as to the true nature of Christianity as well as of socialism.
To mask the real nature of this stealing the Left uses the phrase “Social Justice.” Liberals are demanding forcible redistribution, but are re-branding THEFT as “Justice.” As the National Association of Scholars defined it: “social justice” it is the “advocacy of egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution.” That is, others have a “right” to my income. So preaches Obama. So preaches socialists.
The French economist of yesteryear, Frederic Bastiat, provided us with a simple test to determine if something is actually “giving” or “stealing.” He wrote, “See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. . . It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.”
This is exactly where we are in America. So accustomed have the insurgents in our nation become to this mass stealing under socialism that they are now rioting from the State House to the streets and airports when any attempt is made to curtail it.
What all of this really is about is explained by Ann Coulter when she noted that “Democratic political strategists Ruy Teixeira and John Judis have been gloating for 20 years about how post-1965 immigration would soon produce a country where Republicans could not win an election, anywhere. Then Democrats could do whatever they want. They called the new emerging majority ‘George McGovern’s Revenge.’”
Nothing we are seeing in the wake of Trump’s executive orders has a thing to do with Christianity or charity. It has to do with turning America’s house upside down.