You Stay Classy San Antonio
By now, you may or may not have heard of the rancher who lost his ranch to some illegal immigrants who he attempted to help in stopping cross another rancher's property. The 70-acre ranch the immigrants won in the lawsuit is not the one they tried to cross, merely property the accused individual owned. Still, let's look at the facts. Set aside the fact that the illegals and Casey Nethercott might have gotten into some kind of scuffle. Set aside the fact that he's a previously convicted felon who will now do more time for illegal possession of a firearm. The lawyer-portrayed victims in all of this, are two El Salvadoran immigrants.
Now comes the obligatory "I'm all for immigrants because immigrants are what made this country great" statement. Please stop beating that dead horse. Here's the reality. If you want to emigrate to the US, do it legally. We let in almost 1 MILLION people every year legally. That's right kiddies. Plenty of folks bust their hump to get into the US legally. So when people enter illegally, not only does it cheapen the effort of those who try to enter legally, it allows for a ready pool of virtual slave labor for employers who utilize the illegals and weakens our already ridiculously unguarded borders.
The most notable aspect, I believe, to an illegal alien, and one that is almost always omitted, is that he or she has, by definition of being an illegal, broken the law. By breaking the law to get into the US, illegally trespassing on rancher's land (ranchers who can't tell the difference between Juan and Maria coming to work the strawberry fields and a drug gang moving product or smuggling something worse), and then getting into an altercation with US citizens who are again by definition here LEGALLY, I'm curious how they then gain the right to sue those same citizens. So if I try to force people off my land who shouldn't even be in the country, I'm somehow the bad guy? This goes beyond being a travesty, and if I have to explain to you why that was likely the worst judicial outcome in the history of border law, then you're seriously missing the point of what consitutes a sovereign nation.
Look, I'm all for people coming to the US wanting to make a better life for themselves. God bless them for wanting to, but there is a legal way and an illegal way, and only one is legitimate. We don't make productive citizens out of immigrants by first teaching them it's ok to break our laws.
We either control our borders, or we let the people that own the land on the border control their land. There is no third option other than anarchy along the border, where criminals (surprise) have more rights than the citizens who live there. Explain, please one of you out there, how this is a good thing, because all I can wonder is which country I woke up in this morning. Everyday we slip one step further away from the country this was meant to be to the country socialists want it to be. Which would you choose?
By now, you may or may not have heard of the rancher who lost his ranch to some illegal immigrants who he attempted to help in stopping cross another rancher's property. The 70-acre ranch the immigrants won in the lawsuit is not the one they tried to cross, merely property the accused individual owned. Still, let's look at the facts. Set aside the fact that the illegals and Casey Nethercott might have gotten into some kind of scuffle. Set aside the fact that he's a previously convicted felon who will now do more time for illegal possession of a firearm. The lawyer-portrayed victims in all of this, are two El Salvadoran immigrants.
Now comes the obligatory "I'm all for immigrants because immigrants are what made this country great" statement. Please stop beating that dead horse. Here's the reality. If you want to emigrate to the US, do it legally. We let in almost 1 MILLION people every year legally. That's right kiddies. Plenty of folks bust their hump to get into the US legally. So when people enter illegally, not only does it cheapen the effort of those who try to enter legally, it allows for a ready pool of virtual slave labor for employers who utilize the illegals and weakens our already ridiculously unguarded borders.
The most notable aspect, I believe, to an illegal alien, and one that is almost always omitted, is that he or she has, by definition of being an illegal, broken the law. By breaking the law to get into the US, illegally trespassing on rancher's land (ranchers who can't tell the difference between Juan and Maria coming to work the strawberry fields and a drug gang moving product or smuggling something worse), and then getting into an altercation with US citizens who are again by definition here LEGALLY, I'm curious how they then gain the right to sue those same citizens. So if I try to force people off my land who shouldn't even be in the country, I'm somehow the bad guy? This goes beyond being a travesty, and if I have to explain to you why that was likely the worst judicial outcome in the history of border law, then you're seriously missing the point of what consitutes a sovereign nation.
Look, I'm all for people coming to the US wanting to make a better life for themselves. God bless them for wanting to, but there is a legal way and an illegal way, and only one is legitimate. We don't make productive citizens out of immigrants by first teaching them it's ok to break our laws.
We either control our borders, or we let the people that own the land on the border control their land. There is no third option other than anarchy along the border, where criminals (surprise) have more rights than the citizens who live there. Explain, please one of you out there, how this is a good thing, because all I can wonder is which country I woke up in this morning. Everyday we slip one step further away from the country this was meant to be to the country socialists want it to be. Which would you choose?
posted by Rob Beck | 9:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home