Take a look at commentator Michael Shannon’s analogy on the state of the illegal immigration debate in America today.
Hypothetical situation: A father uses a stolen credit card to make a big FanDuel football bet. He’s taking a risk because he wants to have the best Feliz Navidad ever for his family. But to his shock and dismay he finds out there’s a big difference between futbol and football and his entire “investment” is wiped out.
Even worse, authorities are notified, and now he’s jailed and facing a long stretch in prison. So the question is: Are we obligated to boycott FanDuel if they don’t demand dad’s release and refuse to cooperate with the prosecution? Because otherwise the family will be broken up and the children frightened.
If you answered “yes,” please stop reading now.
If you answered “no,” explain to me why the identical thought process is currently protecting millions of illegal aliens in the U.S.? In effect they’ve taken their own families hostage and the federal government and Congress are surrendering to their demands.
In our hypothetical situation padre takes a risk and he should pay the consequences. In our immigration debate padre takes a risk and the citizens pay the consequences. Illegal families crossing the U.S. border do so in full knowledge they’re breaking the law, but they take the risk anyway. And why not, when the Democrats are welcoming the votes and establishment Republicans are part of the conspiracy.
This is exactly why the Left demands illegal aliens not be called “illegal.” They refuse to acknowledge that every single illegal alien is a lawbreaker. And it allows them to then make demands on actual American citizens:
Why are taxpaying citizens responsible for the children and families of lawbreakers from another country? It’s the greatest moral inversion since “choice” became an accepted excuse for sacrificing unborn babies on the altar of convenience.
Citizens have absolutely zero obligation to illegals and their relatives when they are caught. Any more than you have a moral obligation to supply the burglar with a copy of your extended warranty if the TV he stole goes on the fritz.
There is an established civil and criminal legal principle that posits one is not allowed to benefit from the result of crime. That’s why the drug dealer’s family doesn’t get to keep the nice house when he goes to jail. Or the grieving widow doesn’t get to keep the insurance payment after it’s discovered she helped her husband along.
The “immigration reform” debate turns all the precedence on its head. Allowing the families of illegal immigrants to attend U.S. schools, benefit from free U.S. healthcare and children born on this side of the border to be citizens are all benefits that are only made possible by the law being broken. Politician’s compassion for members of a slow—motion invasion at the expense of their own citizens is just exploitation with a veneer of sanctimony.
If Kasich’s 11 million were really “law—abiding” they wouldn’t be on this side of the border.
