November 22, 2009

Where Jeff Jacoby has it wrong

So, he starts out with this,

You want America to be a land of boundless opportunity and freedom, where people are treated as individuals and judged on their merits. You reject the divisive identity politics of the left - what matters most about any of us, you would insist, is not race or class or ethnic origins: it is personal character and achievement. There are few things about contemporary politics you deplore more than the demonizing or scapegoating of entire groups (“white males,’’ “the rich,’’ “the Christian right,’’ “gun owners’’), as though every member of the group is interchangeable and indistinguishable, wholly defined by a single disparaging label.

Okay, sure, go on.

But let someone mention “illegal immigrants,’’ and your principles fly out the window.

Oh this better fucking be good.

He references Soviet of Massachusetts Premier Patrick's effort to allow illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition rates for college.  Then offers,

This is outrageous, you protest. It rewards people who broke the rules. It’s unfair to the taxpayers who subsidize public higher education. Why should an illegal immigrant get a valuable tuition break that Massachusetts wouldn’t give to a kid from Maine or New Hampshire?

Yeah, pretty much what anyone who isn't a complete fucking retard would say, then quotes Charlie Baker, who is apparently making a run for governor in the Soviet of Massachusetts, who pretty much agrees with the statement above.  Jacoby accuses Baker of shallow sloganeering, then condemns opponents of amnesty,

It is even more dispiriting to see conservatives assail immigrants instead of the insane immigration system that gave most of them no legal way to enter the United States.

You dishonest motherfucker.

The idea that conservatives are "assailing immigrants" is obscene, that Jacoby would accuse conservatives opposed to amnesty of such is even more obscene.  For starters, all but a handful of goofball Buchananites are anti-immigrant (and we all know how I feel about that Nazi fellating anti-Semite piece of debris), so to equate opposition to illegal immigration with legal immigration is a dirty fucking rat move.  Most, if any attacks on illegal immigrants, have been on the ones who run around waving their home countries' flags, demanding they be granted amnesty.  Excuse me?  Let me say that again, these are people in violation of our laws, and have the fucking audacity to demand, angrily we grant them amnesty, and you're criticizing those of us who condemn it?  Fuck you, Jeff.

As for attacking the insane legal immigration system, yeah Jeff, we've been doing that all along, but just like the political elite, for you, it's easier to pretend we haven't and do whatever destructive insane plan you've got cooked up.  The immigration system is FUBAR'd, bigtime.  That doesn't mean we get to pretend it doesn't exist, that doesn't warrant violation of the law, and it damn well doesn't justify giving people who broke the law a pass.  Laws barring marijuana possession and use may be stupid, but that doesn't mean I'm going to roll myself a fatty the size of a Pringles can and expect not to get my ass arrested if caught, and I guarantee Jacoby would think I was fucking stupid if I then angrily demanded that I get a free pass.

We of course get the, "What about so-and-so from (foreign nation here), who was brought in by their parents when they were a baby, why should she have to suffer, her family payes taxes, why should she have to pay the out of state rate, blah, blah, blah," story.  Which of course is an appeal to emotion, not a rational argument.  He then accuses conservatives of being irrational,

How is that a rational public policy? How is Massachusetts improved by making it impossible for an accomplished high-school graduate, a lifelong resident of the state, to gain a university degree? Who benefits when her education - along with the higher earning potential it would lead to - is cut short? She doesn’t. You don’t. Massachusetts taxpayers certainly don’t.

Okay, I have my own question:  How does making the concept of equality under the law void improve Massachusetts?  Or in any state for that matter?  No amnesty supporter has answered this question for me in a satisfactory manner. 

If Republicans really believe, as Baker says, that “it doesn’t make any sense’’ to allow illegal immigrants to enjoy the same benefits as other state residents, why stop with in-state tuition? Why not bar them from driving on state highways? From camping in state parks? From using libraries?

Well, yeah, that kinda the idea behind deportation of illegal immigrants.

Those immigrants didn’t come here in order to be lawbreakers; they broke a law in order to come here.


The concept of equality under the law is central principle of America, you don't try to experience the benefits of a nation that works because people are equal under the law by demanding that you be given extralegal privilege, you dumb motherfucker.  How fucking hard is this for people to understand?  Does Jacoby even recognize the kind of internal instability we could be welcoming by rewarding lawbreakers in this manner?  Or does he not care?

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 08:38 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 866 words, total size 6 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.03, elapsed 0.2376 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.2255 seconds, 133 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.