Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Another impotent State Legislature inadvertently reveals the reason for its impotency

One of the most destructive and oft repeated lies that was ever perpetrated on the American public is the lie that immigration is an exclusively federal issue:

Most opponents also point out that immigration is a federal issue, and most legislators say Congress should handle it – Texas has a budget to pass, jobs to create and public schools to monitor, all in less than five months.

Many of this year's bills are unsuccessful repeats from the last session, when only three immigration bills – out of 72 – ultimately passed. Supporters acknowledge that most were kept at arm's length even by devout conservatives such as former House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, who felt they belonged in Congress. And the measures face even longer odds under a moderate speaker and a House that is almost evenly divided now among Republicans and Democrats.

Am I the only one to see that immigration has a direct impact on all of the above (Texas's budget, creation of jobs, the monitoring of public schools, etc.)? Moreover, am I the only that sees that the unwillingness of the Texas legislature to deal with the immigration issue and to declare it a "federal issue" which belongs in Congress is what's leading Texas and the Texas legislature to become ever more democrat(ic) and liberal?

Allow me to echo the prediction of Mark Krikorian who recently said in a video-interview dealing with the subject of immigration that Texas will soon follow in the footsteps of California in that it will become a swing state progressively moving more to the left until it is firmly in the Democrat column. Why? Because as I've pointed out more times than I care to count, immigrants to this country are, and always have been since the inception of this country, by and large, natural democrats. Among the best explanations for this tendency among immigrants to gravitate to the Democrat party was stated by Noah Webster who wrote:

Many of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.

They don't make a great distinction between the two because they do not and cannot know the difference. In other words, the regimes they've lived under all of their lives, and the regimes their parents and grandparents have lived under all of their lives, etc., have always been oppressive and arbitrary. This being all they've ever known, how could they possibly be aware of the difference (I'm speaking in generalities; I admit of the occasional exception, as did Mr. Webster)? Moreover, whenever our government acts in a way that does not suit them or their way of thinking, how could they possibly understand the distinction between the arbitrary enactments of their own governments and the lawfully executed legislative enactments of our own?

The bottom line here is that it is, always has been and ever shall be, a losing proposition for non-democrats to cater to immigrant groups whether they be Hispanics or any other ethnicity. The best that can possibly be accomplished by doing so is to corrupt your party's principles for the sake of gaining votes you're never going to get, and to simultaneously alienate your base which will result in a net loss, not a net gain, of voters loyal to your party. In other words, to turn your state and your nation over to liberal multiculturalist Democrats.

Wake up Texas!


Call Me Mom said...

May I add that if we are planning to continue to grant every person who can get across the border access to entitlement programs, including education for their children, the very least our legislators can and should do is to bring back the teaching of citizenship in our schools. At least we might then have some hope of their children learning how the free and independent people of our republic ought to behave.

A lesson most of our legislators and media have clearly forgotten.

Terry Morris said...

Perfectly reasonable suggestion, Mom. But good citizenship as you and I would define it is not (necessarily) what good citizenship is as our liberal friends would define it.

Terry Morris said...


I meant to say "...as our liberal friends and masters would define it."