Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner?

©2014  Ross Williams

 

There's been a political cartoon published criticizing the National Savior's regal proclamation about the nation's 4.3 million … 8.7 million … 11.2 million … whatever the figure the immigration hounds happen to settle on this week … illegal immigrants.

 

 

The cartoon is being decried, naturally, by ignoramuses — go figure — as "racist".

Clue, simpletons: even if the people crawling in the window are hispanics [and that would be an appropriate guess], "hispanic" is still not a race.  I'm getting tired of having to explain it.  "Hispanic" is a regionalism which — according to the very definition of the term, invented by the US Census Bureau for the 1970 US Census — transcends race: "a person of [list excised for brevity] general Spanish-origin culture regardless of race". 

Identifying someone as "hispanic" on an employment application is the equivalent of using "Yankee" [or "Damyankee",  in the south] on the demographic portion of the same employment application to identify someone from north of the Potomac.  Or, for the sake of equivalence, it is also the same as using "Redneck" [to be polite] or "Peckerwood" to identify someone from south of same.  Further juxtaposed examples: Sissy Easterner and Cowboy; Left-Coaster and Mudstuck Midwesterner.

In short, moonbats, "Mexican" is not a race; "Guatemalan" is not a race; "Dominican" is not a race.

"Hispanic"! Is not! A race!  Get it through your heads.

But the idiot disingenuity does not end there.  Of all the vacuous critics available I shall use the criticism offered up by one Timothy B Lee for no other reason than his was the most succinct of the competing moronicals, cramming the standard ignorances into a smaller space than his simpering cohort.

Beyond betraying his cluelessness on race, he admits to a gross noncomprehension of the purpose of political cartoons: broad burlesque — gross exaggeration for the purpose of making a larger point.  He piously sniffed "Hispanic Americans celebrate Thanksgiving like the rest of us…".   Then he whined that the National Savior's imperial pronouncement doesn't actually allow in more illegal immigrants [except when it does], it simply allows those already here to stay.  A-a-a-and congratulations on missing the point, there, bozo.  You had to be pretty spry and flexible to dodge those.

Finally, he very adeptly refuses to honestly address the primary problem with this subject in the first place: the word "illegal".  Like so many dishonest nitwits who prattle on about illegal immigration and should keep their mouths shut instead, he endlessly equivocates the matter, watering down the subject with euphemism, until it resembles in their minds [and their minds only] nothing more errant than showing up at a classmate's graduation party without having strictly been invited.

In the spirit of the season, he equivocates the modern illegal immigrant from Central and South America to the "uninvited" Pilgrims of the Plymouth colony.  With a command of language this honest and literate, I would be unwilling to get in a car the boy was driving where he needed to read, comprehend, and act on various road signs.  My life would be in peril.

Illegal does not mean uninvited.  The Pilgrims were not illegally in residence.  Random millions of [often] hispanics and [less often] Chinese and ex-soviet bloc Eastern Europeans, however, are.  In order to make an honest parallel, you'd need to demonstrate that the Narragansett, or the Pequot, or the Pawtuxet, or the Wampanoag [et al] had a law against people landing on their shores and squatting thereupon; they did not.  The United States — for better or worse — does have laws [too many, actually, and I am on the "worse" side of the better/worse dichotomy] against people entering our country without filling out reams of paperwork and submitting themselves for imperious background investigation.  Failure to follow our immigration laws makes an immigrant, by definition, illegal.  It isn't hard to understand.

Without a similar Amerind law against improper immigration, the Pilgrims would not have been and could not have been [again, by definition] illegal.  A good argument could be made, on the other hand, that they were, unlike most modern illegal immigrants, uninvited — as that class of modern American who cannot tell the difference between "illegal" and "uninvited" often goes out of its way to invite illegal immigration.  Case in point: the National Savior's nonconstitutional imperial edict, and the eternal rationalization of it by illiterate morons who cannot see a difference between "illegal" and "uninvited".

Indeed, as Lee continues to sniffle, the US for centuries "welcomed wave after wave of immigrants", yet he fails to acknowledge that those immigrants uniformly followed the rules of the day in coming here, thus not becoming illegal immigrants.  Following the laws of the day for those centuries involved buying a ticket on a ship heading to the US, walking off after making port, and signing the log book in English [or in as near English as possible].  Following the law and avoiding becoming illegal was trivially simple.

It is this comprehensive failure among the critics of American immigration policy marked by the recriminatory designation of "illegal" to get through their thick, hidebound, granite skulls that the immigrants they are so fond of would cease being illegal if those critics themselves were not so enamored of endless [and endlessly complex] laws upon every goddammed thing they can think of.  Today's immigration laws were crafted by the liberal boobs of the 60s and 70s who sought to place region-of-origin limits upon new American arrivals, and required that those arrivals be free of untoward political contrariness and have certain demonstrable skills — all subject to painstaking [and costly] investigation and verification by the US government.  Among the chief architects of these laws was one balloon-headed boob by the name of Edward "Ted" Kennedy.

Most of the hispanic immigrants Lee and his ilk get all teary-eyed over would not be "legal" under the best of circumstances; they don't have any of the statutory skills required to comply with US law.  Hispanics having those skills stay home and work for comparatively high wages in their own countries, and only come to the US as tourists.  That same thing cannot be said about the majority of the immigrants from China or the ex-soviet bloc.

Those who whimper and whine about immigration, and decrying the word "illegal" to describe a large portion of it, are simply demonstrating they are too dim to fundamentally understand the nature of the real problem: themselves.  They are the ones who seek to "fix" perceived "problems" by slathering it with inextricably complex federal law.  Then, when the law has been enacted and imposed for a generation, they act all flummoxed by the inevitable unintended consequences, blaming those who had nothing to do with it in the first place for their own self-righteous vanity in believing they could alter reality by plastering it with a law.

Once again: law does one of two things, and usually both at the same time:

1] create a new bureaucrat class;

2] create a new criminal class.

Those who seek to "solve" "problems" with laws are, whether they understand it or not [and in the case of Lee and his runny-nose gang, I'd guess not], demanding to reclassify a large portion of their fellow humans as criminals.  Forty-five million criminals were instantly created by Obamacare; various millions over a generation by US immigration law.  Feeble-minded dolts did this themselves; they have no claim to piety when others point out the consequences of their actions.