Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Respecting the Law ... but not my intelligence

I am perhaps more critical of writing which starts by pissing me off.

America, we have a problem. Millions upon millions of people want to move here. Permanently. Even a country as prosperous as ours cannot possibly absorb so much humanity.
1st sentence of the NRO article Respecting the Law

bullshit.

So what happens now? The bullshit detector is on.

next sentence:

As problems go, however, this is not a bad one to have. For the day that “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” no longer besiege America is the day we will have to admit that America has lost its “magic formula.”

well, maybe an intelligent neo-nationalist

8th paragraph, following rah-rah-ain't-we-wonderful self-aggrandizement of the United States of America:

Respect for the rule of law seems natural to most Americans, what America does he live in? and can I get a visa? but it is largely an anomaly in the history of other nations. really? Would this be the 'other nations' whose legal system we adopted, like England? Or China, the oldest country in the world, which has had a rule of law for centuries? Or maybe he really means a 'democracy', which really has little to do with a rule of law? Nowhere is this more evident than in Latin America. South and Central America have seen scores of military dictatorships and autocracies, despite endorsing democracy and democratic institutions, since freeing themselves from the shackles of Spanish colonialism. Because we keep funding the groups which remove the democratically elected people we don't like. ... Far too many of the region’s leaders have learned the fine art of manipulating electoral politics FROM US in order to install themselves as autocrats or dictators with our money and political backing.


The inconsistent adherence to the rule of law has made it difficult for democratic institutions to flourish in Latin America. there? what about here?
Moreover, repeated flouting of the law by political and military leaders undermines respect for the law among the general public. only if you're a progressive This is evidenced in everyday life: Consider the streets of many Latin American countries, where simple traffic laws are violated almost universally, and with near-total impunity. Jesus, Mary and Joseph! Has this man seen the streets of America? oh, right ... we've already established he doesn't live in the same America I do. Like Michigan, which treats stop signs as general guidance, and Minnesota where running red lights is a local sport on par with jay-walking in Michigan.


It’s no surprise, then, that some immigrants from Latin America evince a residual disrespect for the rule of law in this country. trans: I come from a country without traffic enforcement, therefore I will become a felon here, rape your daughters, steal your dogs, and suck on the teat of American social security.

It explains why so many ______ remain convinced that they have done nothing wrong by _________. Their desire to work hard and provide for their families is, for them, enough to justify their actions — the rule of law is an extraneous concept.

Now, class, let's fill in the blanks above. Is the correct answer:

American politicians // fucking the poor
American politicians // fucking our children's future
American politicians // waging unfunded wars abroad
unemployed illegal aliens // being hired by American companies
undocumented workers // entering our country illegally

If you answered a, b, c, or d - your head is sufficiently far enough out of your ass to smell shit when it's there.
If you answered e, you read Mr. Ortega's article.

Why is it that I think they assigned this piece of propaganda bullshit to a person with an Hispanic family name?


So, in summary:
Latinos have no traffic control and therefore are inherently incapable of obeying any law and therefore are unworthy to enter the hallowed borders of a country which worships the rule of law.

by the way ...

I filed suit yesterday in small claims court against someone in this Rule of Law Worshiping Society who rear-ended me, stove in my back hatch, and has no insurance while driving a vehicle belonging to someone else with no insurance, who then drove off before the cops came, after being monumentally stupid enough to stop and talk to me. If she'd just driven off, no one would ever have been able to prosecute her, since it wasn't her car.
She must have been an illegal immigrant.

2 comments:

ccyager said...

I'm glad to see you reading an article in the NRO by someone from the Heritage Foundation. It's absolutely essential to know what the conservatives are saying out there.

Mr. Ortega ends his article with a rather strong plea to uphold immigration law -- law that's already on the books in the USA -- rather than undermining it by granting an amnesty to illegals. While his route to this conclusion may not have been the best, I think his point is still well made.

Is US law perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Of course, there is. I've been complaining for years about marriage law which is actually PROPERTY law, because owning human beings as property became illegal a long time ago and that should include wives and children. Our system is supposed to allow for change within it, but it won't change unless enough people agitate for the change in a lawful manner......

Gopher MPH said...

How do you see marriage as property law regarding the persons? I understand and I think everyone would agree that it's property law regarding the mutual physical and financial assets. But about the people...?

Would your assessment be different if a pre-nuptual agreement was in place?

Mr.Gopher & I have a pre-nuptual agreement; but, it addresses our financial/physical assets not our personal freedom. Of course, in today's society those are pretty much the same thing:

financial control = personal freedom.


Our immigration law is just stupid. People (of all political flavors) spend much, much, too much time pissing and moaning about granting amnesty to illegal aliens. And we keep doing it. There was a really big one in 1986, and it wasn't unique.

No politician wants to argue for real honest-to-goodness reform, because the opposition - regardless of party - would tear her apart.

The idea of America as the Melting Pot of the World is a farce. I'm not sure if it was ever true in the sense people want to use it. Immigrants were welcome to do scut work, just like today. I doubt anyone wanted Immigrants just to be diverse.

Hypocrisy is one of the most vile of sins. It ought to have been one of the 7 deadly sins.

It's easy to claim the U.S. is a 'melting pot' when you are safely ensconced behind a barbed-wire-concrete barrier living your isolationist, nationalist life safely away from the brown-skinned huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

It's equally important for a progressive to read what the liberals - and everyone else - is advocating. How else can you avoid being taken to the cleaners and fleeced by shysters who are counting on your ignorance?

I just wish Mr. Ortega had used a more rational - and infinitely more defensible - argument. This I just found offensive. He ought to have used a point where immigrants are different than native Americans [as opposed to Native Americans, a whole different rant].