GUEST WORKERS AND THE BURGLARY OF AMERICA
GUEST WORKERS AND THE BURGLARY OF AMERICA
By: Reed R. Heustis, Jr
LET'S PLAY MAKE BELIEVE!
Imagine that you're a homeowner and your backdoor is insecure. Imagine further that burglars break through the backdoor into your home and take up residence in one of its rooms.
You call the police, but the police soon realize that these burglars are homeless with families of their own. The police explain that there is nothing further they can do. If the burglars are arrested, then they'll be back, but in greater numbers, even if you secure that backdoor. To arrest them and throw them in jail would be very inhumane and just downright mean-spirited.
You then desperately contact your elected representative, to no avail. You learn that this is a widespread occurrence, and the legislature has already begun deliberations as to whether "outmoded" Biblical common law principles of private property should be superseded by more "progressive", "modern" and "intellectual" considerations. Real property owners enjoy a mere "expectancy" of exclusive ownership, it rationalizes. If "more pressing" humanitarian motives, such as food, clothing, shelter, and a "better life", are the root of burglaries, then new state programs must be developed that do not penalize the burglars. If a burglar is willing to do some work around a homeowner's property, then the burglar should be allowed to stay, work, be paid, and be provided benefits that other residents would reasonably expect - all at the expense of the homeowner.
The homeowners protest by arguing that their homes are their own property, and no individual, or group of individuals, should dictate how homeowners can manage their own property.
The chief executive officer acknowledges the merits of "both sides" of the argument and proposes a compromise: burglars are allowed to stay and work, but only if it can be proven that the chores around the house are those that the homeowner does not wish to do himself: menial tasks and "those kinds" of things. If he is unable to rebut such proof, the homeowner must then forfeit his right to hire someone of his choosing, and must instead "hire" the burglar and provide housing and shelter for the burglar's entire extended family. Another provision of the Compromise Proposal calls for the burglars to be renamed "Guest Workers". This way both interests are upheld, conciliation and harmony is achieved, and the dignity of all parties concerned is preserved. (Not to mention political victory for his own cronies....)
If only I had secured that backdoor, you muse!
But of course the problem runs a lot deeper than mere locks, keys, and doors. The real problem is an entire prevailing worldview that is at odds with the Biblical principles that property owners hold dear. Those truly dedicated to these principles would have seen the pro-burglary argument for what it truly is?an absolute rejection of the Eighth Commandment of the Law of God. When leaders reject Biblical principles, any old argument will do, especially when political perks and benefits are the orders of the day.
FLASH BACK TO REALITY:
Ironically, the same exact situation is occurring today but with regard to the immigration issue; and it is happening live, in real time, and for those in southwestern states such as California, in THX even!
The United States of America is the house. The American people are the collective homeowners. The southern border is the backdoor. Illegal immigrants are the burglars. The police department is the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The legislature is Congress. President George W. Bush is the chief executive.
Immigrants should never be compared to burglars, argue the anti-borders advocates. To a certain degree, they would be correct. However, if immigrants enter the nation illegally, then they are no longer mere immigrants; they would be illegal aliens by definition. The United States Code sets forth the law in Title 8, ยง1325 that aliens who "[enter] or [attempt] to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers...." are guilty of improper entry. To put it even more simply, they are federal criminals.
Should we then compare them to burglars? You bet your bippy we should.
Burglars are criminals because they broke into and entered the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime therein. That's classic burglary. Illegal immigrants are likewise criminals because they broke into and entered this nation in violation of the U.S. Code. That's classic illegal entry. Both crimes deserve appropriate punishments.
Perhaps illegal aliens don't feel the love of this country that patriotic Americans do, but this land is our land, and this land is our home. It is our house, and if you're in our house, then you live by our rules.
But why isn't our Federal Government acting swiftly in protecting our house from the illegal entrants? Where are the police (INS) when you need them?
To my horror, last week by a vote of 62-36, the United States Senate approved the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 2611). I call it the Compromise/Sellout Immigration Reform Act, and President Bush supports it. Instead of prosecuting illegal aliens and punishing those companies and businesses that hire them, Bush proposed awarding the law-breakers, and nearly two-thirds of the Senate embraced the idea.
Silly me, I thought that the President and the United States Senate were on our side. Obviously not. The Senate bill creates a guest-worker program that allows illegal aliens to work in the country for three years and be eligible for a three-year extension.
If a burglar broke into your house, should he be awarded with a similar program at your expense?
"It's not amnesty," Bush explains.
It?s not?
According to Black's Law Dictionary, amnesty is "[a] sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts, granted by a government to all persons (or to certain classes of persons) who have been guilty of crime or delict, generally political offenses, -- treason, sedition, rebellion, draft evasion, -- and often conditioned upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time."
When a person commits burglary or illegal entry, and is awarded with a guest worker program instead of a stiff penalty to the fullest extent of the law, how is that not a sovereign act of forgiveness? Forget the double-talk. It is amnesty, plain and simple.
Thankfully, the version in the House of Representatives is much stiffer than the Senate version, so hope still remains that the Bush Amnesty Plan (and it is amnesty?no it?s not?yes it is?no it?s not?yes it is?no it?s not?yes it is?) will fail.
However, regardless of which version we're speaking about, this Southern California dude is ticked off. Why is any version necessary? Why hasn't the President used his executive powers to stop the border invasion pursuant to the laws that are already on the books? The President does not need any bill from Congress to accomplish this. When foreigners invade, it requires executive police power to repel them. As Commander in Chief, the President does not have to wait for a congressional declaration of war when the nation is under an imminent attack. An ongoing foreign invasion indeed is an imminent attack, and the President must act immediately.
This is what happens when politicians don't hold to principle. The Biblical principle of national sovereignty demands that the President act in accord with such principle. President Bush obviously has no loyalty to such principle. His loyalty is to global hegemony. When it comes to sending people?s kids to spill their blood on foreign soil that most Americans cannot even locate on a map, he does not delay. But when it comes to halting the breaking and entry into his people?s own house, Bush did nothing but promote constant delay until the political pressure forced him to address the issue, which he has done so, but with a big, fat award. Meanwhile illegal aliens flood the country unabated. More time wasted. More criminals unpunished. More of the same.
I would have much more respect for the President and the two-party duopoly if they simply came right out and told the American people what they obviously believe.
Namely, that the Biblical principle of nationhood is "outmoded".
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
By: Reed R. Heustis, Jr
LET'S PLAY MAKE BELIEVE!
Imagine that you're a homeowner and your backdoor is insecure. Imagine further that burglars break through the backdoor into your home and take up residence in one of its rooms.
You call the police, but the police soon realize that these burglars are homeless with families of their own. The police explain that there is nothing further they can do. If the burglars are arrested, then they'll be back, but in greater numbers, even if you secure that backdoor. To arrest them and throw them in jail would be very inhumane and just downright mean-spirited.
You then desperately contact your elected representative, to no avail. You learn that this is a widespread occurrence, and the legislature has already begun deliberations as to whether "outmoded" Biblical common law principles of private property should be superseded by more "progressive", "modern" and "intellectual" considerations. Real property owners enjoy a mere "expectancy" of exclusive ownership, it rationalizes. If "more pressing" humanitarian motives, such as food, clothing, shelter, and a "better life", are the root of burglaries, then new state programs must be developed that do not penalize the burglars. If a burglar is willing to do some work around a homeowner's property, then the burglar should be allowed to stay, work, be paid, and be provided benefits that other residents would reasonably expect - all at the expense of the homeowner.
The homeowners protest by arguing that their homes are their own property, and no individual, or group of individuals, should dictate how homeowners can manage their own property.
The chief executive officer acknowledges the merits of "both sides" of the argument and proposes a compromise: burglars are allowed to stay and work, but only if it can be proven that the chores around the house are those that the homeowner does not wish to do himself: menial tasks and "those kinds" of things. If he is unable to rebut such proof, the homeowner must then forfeit his right to hire someone of his choosing, and must instead "hire" the burglar and provide housing and shelter for the burglar's entire extended family. Another provision of the Compromise Proposal calls for the burglars to be renamed "Guest Workers". This way both interests are upheld, conciliation and harmony is achieved, and the dignity of all parties concerned is preserved. (Not to mention political victory for his own cronies....)
If only I had secured that backdoor, you muse!
But of course the problem runs a lot deeper than mere locks, keys, and doors. The real problem is an entire prevailing worldview that is at odds with the Biblical principles that property owners hold dear. Those truly dedicated to these principles would have seen the pro-burglary argument for what it truly is?an absolute rejection of the Eighth Commandment of the Law of God. When leaders reject Biblical principles, any old argument will do, especially when political perks and benefits are the orders of the day.
FLASH BACK TO REALITY:
Ironically, the same exact situation is occurring today but with regard to the immigration issue; and it is happening live, in real time, and for those in southwestern states such as California, in THX even!
The United States of America is the house. The American people are the collective homeowners. The southern border is the backdoor. Illegal immigrants are the burglars. The police department is the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The legislature is Congress. President George W. Bush is the chief executive.
Immigrants should never be compared to burglars, argue the anti-borders advocates. To a certain degree, they would be correct. However, if immigrants enter the nation illegally, then they are no longer mere immigrants; they would be illegal aliens by definition. The United States Code sets forth the law in Title 8, ยง1325 that aliens who "[enter] or [attempt] to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers...." are guilty of improper entry. To put it even more simply, they are federal criminals.
Should we then compare them to burglars? You bet your bippy we should.
Burglars are criminals because they broke into and entered the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime therein. That's classic burglary. Illegal immigrants are likewise criminals because they broke into and entered this nation in violation of the U.S. Code. That's classic illegal entry. Both crimes deserve appropriate punishments.
Perhaps illegal aliens don't feel the love of this country that patriotic Americans do, but this land is our land, and this land is our home. It is our house, and if you're in our house, then you live by our rules.
But why isn't our Federal Government acting swiftly in protecting our house from the illegal entrants? Where are the police (INS) when you need them?
To my horror, last week by a vote of 62-36, the United States Senate approved the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (S. 2611). I call it the Compromise/Sellout Immigration Reform Act, and President Bush supports it. Instead of prosecuting illegal aliens and punishing those companies and businesses that hire them, Bush proposed awarding the law-breakers, and nearly two-thirds of the Senate embraced the idea.
Silly me, I thought that the President and the United States Senate were on our side. Obviously not. The Senate bill creates a guest-worker program that allows illegal aliens to work in the country for three years and be eligible for a three-year extension.
If a burglar broke into your house, should he be awarded with a similar program at your expense?
"It's not amnesty," Bush explains.
It?s not?
According to Black's Law Dictionary, amnesty is "[a] sovereign act of forgiveness for past acts, granted by a government to all persons (or to certain classes of persons) who have been guilty of crime or delict, generally political offenses, -- treason, sedition, rebellion, draft evasion, -- and often conditioned upon their return to obedience and duty within a prescribed time."
When a person commits burglary or illegal entry, and is awarded with a guest worker program instead of a stiff penalty to the fullest extent of the law, how is that not a sovereign act of forgiveness? Forget the double-talk. It is amnesty, plain and simple.
Thankfully, the version in the House of Representatives is much stiffer than the Senate version, so hope still remains that the Bush Amnesty Plan (and it is amnesty?no it?s not?yes it is?no it?s not?yes it is?no it?s not?yes it is?) will fail.
However, regardless of which version we're speaking about, this Southern California dude is ticked off. Why is any version necessary? Why hasn't the President used his executive powers to stop the border invasion pursuant to the laws that are already on the books? The President does not need any bill from Congress to accomplish this. When foreigners invade, it requires executive police power to repel them. As Commander in Chief, the President does not have to wait for a congressional declaration of war when the nation is under an imminent attack. An ongoing foreign invasion indeed is an imminent attack, and the President must act immediately.
This is what happens when politicians don't hold to principle. The Biblical principle of national sovereignty demands that the President act in accord with such principle. President Bush obviously has no loyalty to such principle. His loyalty is to global hegemony. When it comes to sending people?s kids to spill their blood on foreign soil that most Americans cannot even locate on a map, he does not delay. But when it comes to halting the breaking and entry into his people?s own house, Bush did nothing but promote constant delay until the political pressure forced him to address the issue, which he has done so, but with a big, fat award. Meanwhile illegal aliens flood the country unabated. More time wasted. More criminals unpunished. More of the same.
I would have much more respect for the President and the two-party duopoly if they simply came right out and told the American people what they obviously believe.
Namely, that the Biblical principle of nationhood is "outmoded".
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
posted by shummer60 at Thursday, June 01, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home