Tag Archives: libertarians

Immigration and the Suicide of the Right

Republicans in Congress are debating the passing of an “immigration reform” bill that would grant amnesty to 11 million aliens living in the U.S., as well as make it easier for non-immigrant workers to enter the U.S.

Today’s wishy-washy “moderate” Republican “leadership” (McCain, Boehner, & co.) would have us believe that this is somehow a good thing for America and for their party.  For time now, I’ve heard the line from many Republicans and self-described conservatives that Mexicans and other Hispanics are natural conservatives, who will happily flock to the GOP if only we do more to grant amnesty and open the borders.

This is despite the fact that Hispanics, as well as most other immigrant groups, consistently and overwhelmingly vote Democrat.  Democrats won over Hispanic voters by landslide numbers in every single presidential election since 1980, including two years after Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to millions of Mexican immigrants in 1986.  And this was with the GOP running largely “moderate” candidates who would do nothing to restrict immigration, such as Dole, Bush II, McCain, and Romney.

However, I keep seeing conservatives casually state things such as, “all the Republicans need to do is grant amnesty, and their problems with Hispanic voters will be over.”  (While on the internet, this appeared to be said with a straight face.)  This, despite the fact that Republicans granting amnesty has completely failed to win over Hispanics in the past, and the fact that polls show that the majority of Hispanic voters oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.

The truth of the matter is that the majority of Hispanics and those from other immigrant groups vote Democrat rather than Republican, not because of perceived Republican opposition to immigration and amnesty, but for the simple reason that they tend to be more liberal/socialist on just about every issue.

Polls show, for instance, that they are far more in favor of big government policies, and things like gun control, than most Americans.

But, aren’t Hispanics religious, pro-family, pro-life people who are socially conservative?  Some years back, a pro-life conservative woman cheerfully informed me, with a tone of absolute certainty, that Mexican immigrants would create a pro-life Republican majority in America.

Well, not exactly.  Polls show that Hispanics are actually more in favor of legal abortion than Americans as a whole, as well as somewhat more in favor of “gay marriage.”  (That last one actually surprised me.)

The reasons Washington politicians like unrestricted immigration and amnesty are clear enough.  The big-gov Jackasses like it because it ensures a steady supply of new Democratic voters, ensuring that they become a permanent majority and remain in power forever.  The big-business corporatists who have the GOP “leadership” bought and paid for like it because it ensures a steady flow of cheap labor to be exploited.  (Even though it will ultimately ensure the end of the GOP.)  In neither case does it have a damn thing to do with genuine concern for the poor and downtrodden stranger.

However, plenty of well-meaning ordinary folks, including many conservatives and Catholics, have their heads far up their pious posteriors on this issue.  The US Bishops, those reliably enthusiastic cheerleaders for welfare state socialism, continue to crusade for amnesty and open borders, as well as universal tax-payer-supplied benefits for illegals – all in the name of hospitality for the stranger.  (At least one good Bishop went so far as to declare that those opposing amnesty or “immigration reform” are “not pro-life.”)

One conservative commentator (a family friend) even condemned alleged conservative opposition to immigration as a form of “right-wing idolatry of the state.”  This sparked pious gushing from a reader about how much the influx of those holy Mexicans with their “deep devotion to the Virgin of Guadalupe” would improve our country.

And plenty of libertarians adamantly support open borders on “anti-statist” grounds.

The brutal truth is that unrestricted immigration and easy amnesty policies will in fact do nothing to advance the cause of either social conservatism or of liberty, but will result in the increased destruction of both, by ensuring continued left-wing statist rule into the indefinite future.

In fact, it will ensure that Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians will lose on almost every single issue.

The brutal truth is that unrestricted immigration and easy amnesty policies will in fact do nothing to advance the cause of either social conservatism or of liberty, but will result in the increased destruction of both, by ensuring continued left-wing statist rule into the indefinite future.

In fact, it will ensure that Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians will lose on almost every single issue.

Hospitality to the stranger does not mean we must blithely accept and welcome anyone who sneaks or breaks into our homes, much less that we make them members of our household.

Conservatives want enforcement of existing reasonable restrictions on immigration, and not granting law-breakers the same path to citizenship as those who played by the rules.

And anyone who thinks that a country can maintain its unique culture and identity while being flooded with new-comers who do not share it need only ponder the fate of the American Indian after the coming of the white man.

The irony is that if our current trends continue, America will no longer be prosperous land of opportunity that for hundreds of years drew immigrants from over the world to her shores.  Immigration from south of the border actually slowed considerably in the Obama years, not because of increased border security, but because of lack of jobs in the dismal U.S. economy.

My point here is not to bash Mexicans, Hispanics, or immigrants in general (of which, in fact, there are many wonderful, and even conservative, individuals). Rather, Catholics, conservatives, and libertarians, need to wake up and get their heads out of the sand before they give enthusiastic support to policies that will ensure their own demise, as well as that of America.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Gay Old Time

Well, as you probably are aware by now, that oracle of leftwing propaganda, Newsweek, has proclaimed Obama to be, on its front cover, “The First Gay President,” complete with an absolutely fabulous little rainbow halo, thereby confirming what the National Enquirer has been claiming for years now. The President’s “evolution” on the subject of homosexual marriage (after all, evolution is always good, wouldn’t want to be a backwards Neanderthal like me!) paid off handsomely, gaining him buttloads of cash from various liberal advocacy groups, but that of course is of no account, as any endorsement of the sacred cow of “gay rights” earns one automatic canonization in today’s religion of political correctness. Nor does it prevent the continuing orgasmic gushings of homosexual “conservative” Andrew Sullivan, who has a full-fledged schoolgirl crush on the current POTUS. It’s a damn shame that Barry lost out to Bill Clinton on having the honor of “the First Black President.”

While whether this (rather unsurprising) declaration by Obama ultimately helps or hurts his re-election prospects remains to be seen, I thought this would be a good opportunity to discuss the whole issue regarding so-called “gay marriage,” an issue which puts me at odds not only with liberals, but increasingly with libertarians, “conservatives,” and “Catholics” (including self-proclaimed “orthodox” or “conservative” “Catholics”), a disheartening number of which seem happy and willing to directly contradict the teachings of their Faith to jump on board the latest politically correct craze. I suppose this should not be shocking, considering that overwhelming majorities of American “Catholics” reject the Barq of Peter’s moral teachings regarding contraception and other unpopular issues, and that what passes for “Catholicism” in all too many parishes is little more than a vague and fuzzy mixture of warmed-over Marxist socialism and pc sentiments (much like the Democratic Party platform, but with vaguely religious overtones).

Proponents of state-recognized homosexual “marriage” typically would have us believe that if states do not grant legal recognition to same-sex sodomitic relationships as “marriage,” this creates some grave new threat to our American liberties. After all, it’s a short and slippery slope from state governments not handing out marriage licenses to same-sex couples to cops posted in bedrooms, homosexuals being burnt at the stake, women being stoned in the streets for adultery, and all the other various and sundry horrors of the Christian American Taliban which is eminent unless right-wing Republicans are kept out of office. (In short, it’s the same list of horrors which are eminent if all employers are not forced to pay for contraceptives.) In fact, we’ll be forced all the way back to the benighted Dark Ages prior to May 17, 2004.

A few points:
First of all, contrary to much of the hysterical shrieking on the left (and libertarian right), this is not a case of “letting government in the bedroom.” Without state recognized “gay marriage,” homosexuals are free to bugger each other to their little hearts’ content without fear of jack-booted government thugs showing up at the door to haul them away. The truth is that the state not recognizing homosexual marriage keeps the state out of gays’ bedrooms. Homosexuals would be neither punished nor rewarded for their sexual activities, but the state would be kept out of the fudgepacking business altogether.  Of course, in today’s sloppy thinking, a “right” to engage in a certain behavior, usually equates to demands for government rewards or subsidiaries for it.  (Thus, “sexual freedom” means a right to taxpayer-subsidized rubbers and abortions.)

Secondly, there is no constitutional right to state recognition of marriage of any kind. As marriage and marriage laws are nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the matter of state marriage law belongs, per the Tenth Amendment, to “the States respectively, or to the people.” Per the Constitution, federal judges have no right to interfere with the decisions of the people of the respective states on marriage law. Gay marriage proponents like to appeal to the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the law for all citizens, but the truth is that state recognition of something as a “marriage” is a privilege, not legal protection.

I don’t have any intrinsic right to have a contract with my mother, sister, and brother, best pal Joe and his grandmother recognized by the state as a “marriage.” Our relationship may be non-sexual and otherwise morally unproblematic, but it would simply have nothing to do with marriage, which has traditionally been a very specific kind of contract. Trying to redefine marriage to absolutely any grouping of any number of “consenting adults” wanting to have a legal contract (as the more consistent same-sex marriage advocates argue for), would render “marriage” essentially meaningless. But if we are not to include absolutely any and every grouping of consenting adults wanting a marriage license for absolutely any reason, there is certainly nothing special about homosexual sodomy that merits this privilege above others.

This brings us to the central issue of why marriages are recognized by the state in the first place. While liberals and others will try to deny it, the fact is that marriage between man and woman has always been tied to the begetting and raising of children, and forms the best framework for such activity. It is the most basic and fundamental building block of human society. Homosexual buggery can never result in the procreation of children, and has no more intrinsic relation to the purpose of marriage than masturbating to porno videos. While it’s now fashionable for conservatives and libertarians (including many Catholics) to say that government should “get out of the marriage business” altogether, I’m not so sure that the state failing to give any legal recognition to marriage period is such a wonderful thing.

Neither is the Pope, who as head of the CDF, wrote this masterful document, which all Catholics would do well to read and study (though few do): CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS.

It includes a number of arguments from philosophical, anthropological, and legal grounds, but concludes:

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

Sadly, however, whenever I get into online discussions of this issue with  my fellow “orthodox Catholics,” I’m usually one of the very few who actually agrees with the Church on this issue.  Political correctness has indeed become our new religion, and homosexuality (traditionally numbered by the Church among the Sins that Cry out to Heaven for Vengeance”) is chief among its sacred cows.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,