A concept in American jurisprudence missing from the brains of *illegal* aliens like Mexicans and other latrinos bombarding our country, *illegally*, is “accomplice to a crime”.
What they don’t know, and admit they don’t know in the only honest moment of their lives [as they’re being SENTENCED as accomplices to crimes in which many of the actual perpetrators received lesser sentences], is that it’s not only a crime to ROB a bank and KILL the bank guard, but it’s a crime to simply be driving the get-away car even though it was parked blocks away, you were never even in the bank, and you never even knew anyone was going to pull a gun or kill a guard. There’s a reason for such laws, and it’s not just because Whites hate latrinos, or Whites are “racists”, or Whites are “ugly”, “counterproductive”, or “paralyzing any effort toward immigration reform”. The REASON is to stop the rampant crime wave brought on by the very *illegal* aliens who the NY Times protects, at ALL costs, including and particularly our racial integrity.
Probably it doesn’t work, but so what? What ELSE can we do? Well, a LOT.
FIRST of all, we need to reconsider who’s the worst criminal: the *illegal* alien who kills a bank guard, or the *accomplice* to the crime of supporting *illegal* aliens. I submit to you that if we upheld our immigration laws as vigorously as we uphold our robbery and murder laws we’d see a lot less of both crime and *illegal* immigration, which means that the *accomplice* to the crime of *illegal* immigration is already worse, much worse, than the actual bank robber. Needless to say, he’s infinitely more dangerous to our delicate social fabric than the mere *accomplice* to a crime of robbery or murder than he is to the mere murderer.
Not only that, but it’s a disgrace to “OUR” Founding Fathers who spilt blood at places like The Alamo to keep this filth OUT, to now let that very filth ROB OUR Founding Fathers’ posterity of social security and welfare dollars they NEVER contributed to, and NEVER will contribute to. Already, 75% of our “social security retirement fund” is paid to people who either aren’t retired or never contributed to it in the first place, yet Mr. Downes equates parking tickets to *illegal* immigration JUST so he can call us “ugly” for NOT wanting to reward our ENEMY. As if to underscore his own STUPIDITY, he ends his missive with “At least they don’t reward illegals, and that, for now, is all this country wants”, as if though the QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY which is *already* paid ONLY to latrinos [in EXCESS of their contribution to GDP] is not some kind of “reward”.
For WHAT do latrinos deserve this *REWARD*? Because they lost the Spanish American War? Because they got Tijuana and we got San Diego? Because we’re such a “rich” country [we’re not, we’re the biggest debtor nation in human history] and latrinos would starve if they were denied an annual lump sum payment of $14 THOUSAND EACH [40% more than the total GDP per capita of Mexico]? How many of them would go BACK to Mexico if this lump sum payment to latrinos here were REDUCED to something less than they could EARN back in their homeland?
MOST of all, we must call a spade a spade. Mr. Downey is an *accomplice* to a CRIME, and as long as *illegal* immigration is *illegal*, he will REMAIN an accomplice to a crime which is MUCH worse than murder or bank robbery. This is not to say that we quit punishing murderers, but that we START punishing those who would flaunt our laws so freely, and “think” they can get away with it because of “free speech”.
Free speech does not permit you to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, any more than it permits you to yell “go home yanqui” in our OWN homeland, nor calling the pristine concepts of our Founding Fathers “ugly”, “counterproductive”, or “paralyzing any effort toward immigration reform”.
The ONLY acceptable immigration “reform” to OUR Founding Fathers is to *imprison* such accomplices, goose step all latrinos to the Mexican border, and SHOOT those who refuse to go.
By LAWRENCE DOWNES
Published: October 28, 2007
I am a human pileup of illegality. I am an illegal driver and an illegal parker and even an illegal walker, having at various times stretched or broken various laws and regulations that govern those parts of life. The offenses were trivial, and I feel sure I could endure the punishments — penalties and fines — and get on with my life. Nobody would deny me the chance to rehabilitate myself. Look at Martha Stewart, illegal stock trader, and George Steinbrenner, illegal campaign donor, to name two illegals whose crimes exceeded mine.
Good thing I am not an illegal immigrant. There is no way out of that trap. It’s the crime you can’t make amends for. Nothing short of deportation will free you from it, such is the mood of the country today. And that is a problem.
America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it. Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.
“Illegal” is accurate insofar as it describes a person’s immigration status. About 60 percent of the people it applies to entered the country unlawfully. The rest are those who entered legally but did not leave when they were supposed to. The statutory penalties associated with their misdeeds are not insignificant, but neither are they criminal. You get caught, you get sent home.
Since the word modifies not the crime but the whole person, it goes too far. It spreads, like a stain that cannot wash out. It leaves its target diminished as a human, a lifetime member of a presumptive criminal class. People are often surprised to learn that illegal immigrants have rights. Really? Constitutional rights? But aren’t they illegal? Of course they have rights: they have the presumption of innocence and the civil liberties that the Constitution wisely bestows on all people, not just citizens.
Many people object to the alternate word “undocumented” as a politically correct euphemism, and they have a point. Someone who sneaked over the border and faked a Social Security number has little right to say: “Oops, I’m undocumented. I’m sure I have my papers here somewhere.”
But at least “undocumented” — and an even better word, “unauthorized” — contain the possibility of reparation and atonement, and allow for a sensible reaction proportional to the offense. The paralysis in Congress and the country over fixing our immigration laws stems from our inability to get our heads around the wrenching change involved in making an illegal person legal. Think of doing that with a crime, like cocaine dealing or arson. Unthinkable!
So people who want to enact sensible immigration policies to help everybody — to make the roads safer, as Gov. Eliot Spitzer would with his driver’s license plan, or to allow immigrants’ children to go to college or serve in the military — face the inevitable incredulity and outrage. How dare you! They’re illegal.
Meanwhile, out on the edges of the debate — edges that are coming closer to the mainstream every day — bigots pour all their loathing of Spanish-speaking people into the word. Rant about “illegals” — call them congenital criminals, lepers, thieves, unclean — and people will nod and applaud. They will send money to your Web site and heed your calls to deluge lawmakers with phone calls and faxes. Your TV ratings will go way up.
This is not only ugly, it is counterproductive, paralyzing any effort toward immigration reform. Comprehensive legislation in Congress and sensible policies at the state and local level have all been stymied and will be forever, as long as anything positive can be branded as “amnesty for illegals.”
We are stuck with a bogus, deceptive strategy — a 700-mile fence on a 2,000-mile border to stop a fraction of border crossers who are only 60 percent of the problem anyway, and scattershot raids to capture a few thousand members of a group of 12 million.
None of those enforcement policies have a trace of honesty or realism. At least they don’t reward illegals, and that, for now, is all this country wants.