Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Interview: Border security is not a conservative or progressive issue, The Remembrance Project says

This is the final article of my discussion with Maria Espinoza and Tim Lyng. Read the first, second, and third articles.
Story by Joseph Ford Cotto
After several years on the back burner, serious talk about enforcing immigration law finally returned – thanks to the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. With his election, executive-level action was at long last taken. (Read more here)



Joseph Ford Cotto: Opposition to illegal immigration is often portrayed as a key aspect of right-wing politics. Traditionally, though, immigration restriction has enjoyed broader appeal. More than anything else, what made the sands of public sentiment shift?

Maria Espinoza and Tim LyngFirst, why should securing our borders from foreign invaders be reserved for those Americans you describe as “right-wing”?  What is “right wing” anyway?  It is simply a label placed upon Americans who understand that the government has a very limited and well defined role in our lives and that the government is of, by and for the people, not the other way around.  

Many opponents to the Founding Fathers declarations and writings are Godless socialists and believe that the government, not God, give us our rights.  They believe that the “community” is supreme, not the individual.  They are wiling to cede our God-given unalienable rights to a “One World Order” government, opening the door to the types of tyranny seen in the 20th century, only many times worsened through technological surveillance of today. They label protectors of the miracle called The United States of America…“Right wingers”. 

So why is it true that “Traditionally, though, immigration restriction has enjoyed broader appeal”?  In my opinion, until recently, Americans have long understood that the Constitution provides the blueprint for our unalienable rights, and sets up a form of government that provides a framework for all of this to work.  We understood that a primary role of the federal government’s is to protect its citizenry.  And that the borders are necessary and were legally defined and agreed upon by our nation and our neighbors.  

Below, I state my answer to “what made the sands of public sentiment shift” over time.  Also, part of the answer is also in Question 6, above.

Where things began to unravel, in my opinion, was during the mayhem that ensued during  the late 1960’s.  Viet Nam. The sexual revolution. The sudden emergence of vast quantities of cheap and easily available drugs. The rise of feminism.  Coinciding with this cultural shift, only followed by a few years, was the manifesto of the left to infiltrate and control the educational  institutions, to mold the minds of the young.  As stated by the founder of the Soviet Communist movement, Vladimir Lenin, “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.”  Leftist ideas were sown into the minds of the children, who grew to adulthood carrying these ideals, passing them on to the next generation through the education institutions, the churches and synagogues.  Well done, my leftist enemies.  Well done.  Only it is time to undo the damage. 

Cotto: Economic fairness is a huge aspect of contemporary American politics. Even though the Great Recession has technically long since ended, the jobs many Americans find themselves eligible for fall beneath traditional expectations. Are immigration trends responsible for this in any meaningful way?

Espinoza and Lyng: “Economic fairness” has NOT been “a huge aspect [of what I view] of contemporary politics.”  What I believe is that this has been a rallying cry only of leftist politicians needing a new topic to divide (not unite) Americans.  A whole other discussion for another time.

But if you mean that Americans have awakened to the fact that their own government has betrayed them through anti-American worker and anti-family policies over the last several decades, you are obviously on to something.  Americans are sick and tired of losing their livelihoods and their children’s futures to illegal aliens who come here under the guise of simply “wanting a nicer life.” 

We ask, “at whose expense shall we hand you a nicer life?”  Certainly, when an American citizen loses his job to an illegal alien, he is entitled to rightful indignation and anger toward the illegal alien.  This may be somewhat mis-directed, as the illegal alien can only take an American’s job that an American employer offers to him (or her).  

To answer your question, “Are immigration trends responsible for this in any meaningful way?”, I say “Yes.”  Look at it this way.  (This is about LEGAL immigration, the only kind of “immigration” there is.)  Americans who have lost their white-collar jobs to H1B or other visa programs are still faced with the bills and responsibilities they had they day before the immigrant took their job.  So, into the unemployment line they go.  Benefits don’t often come close to what they previously brought home.  They are often faced with is what you call jobs that “fall beneath traditional expectations.”  Another way to say “a low paying job”.  They lose their savings.  And then their cars or other financed belongings.  Eventually, they lose their homes.  And often their families. They lose everything they had worked for their entire lives.  Yes, immigration trends ARE responsible for this in a meaningful way, especially if it is you who loses his job to the immigrant.

American jobs and American workers MUST be protected and foreign applicants must always go the the end of the line for these jobs.  It is only fair.  To do otherwise is un-American.

No comments:

Post a Comment