Immigration or Invasion?
Immigration is a legal process controlled by the host nation. That host nation decides who gains legal entry.
In post-WWII America, illegals were deported by both the Truman and Eisenhower administrations.
The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 was an attempt to address issues of quotas, labor force requirements, and foreign policy considerations. The liberalization of immigration policy reflected in 1965 legislation (Hart-Celler Act) can be traced to the evolutionary trend in federal policy after World War II to end legal discrimination based on race and ethnicity — essentially, the immigration bill was mainly seen as an extension of the civil rights movement, and a symbolic one at that, expected to bring few changes in its wake. The Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986 was presented to the nation as a “final solution” to the shortcomings of the 1965 law.
That brings us to the problems of today. We are awash in a sea of illegals. It is not an exaggeration to state that the lawmakers have aided and abetted the lawbreakers. Even the language of immigration has been sanitized. Yesterday’s “illegal alien” is today’s “undocumented immigrant." What we are experiencing on our southern border is not immigration. It is an invasion facilitated by a federal government that has chosen to ignore and circumvent our own statutes. This mockery of federal immigration law has the support of both political parties, one seeking voters, the other cheap labor. Those who came here illegally were given a tacit invitation, a wink-wink nod-nod approval of their illegal entry. Now, after years of living on our soil, they find themselves vulnerable because the "gate-crashing” has reached critical mass and created problems of assimilation and crime. Furthermore, because this large subset of brown-skinned illegals are beginning to flex their muscles in the political arena, the rest of American society has become aware of the magnitude of the problem. Those of us whose families came as legal immigrants to become law-abiding American citizens have every right to expect that our lawmakers enforce the laws that they imposed on the rest of us and not pander to a select constituency out of political expediency, and those citizens who insist on a secure national border are neither racist, bigoted, nor xenophobic.
What of those Latinos who came to America legally — are they good citizens? Yes, of course. Their family-centric tradition, their Christian religiosity, their work ethic, their commitment to education, and their distinguished service as members of the military have earned them the respect of all of us. Why, then, do some encourage and justify breaking America’s immigration laws? Why do they counsel that a newcomer’s first steps on America’s soil be those of a criminal? Those “in the shadows” find themselves both trapped and exploited. To whose benefit? What are we to infer about fealty to our Constitution from an association of Latino lawyers named La Raza? La Raza…The Race. Al Qaeda…The Base. Is not "The Race,“ standing alone, racist and offensive to others? How are these names less inclusive the "The Klan”? These groups are not benign fraternal organizations such as B'nai B'rith or the Sons of Norway. La Raza is strident in its pursuit of a political agenda and is not loathe to employ a certain level of militancy to achieve its objectives. Hence, we are treated on the evening news to young Latinos, wrapped in the flag of Mexico, torching the flag of the United States on America’s turf.
We are eyewitnesses to what happens when a nation abandons the “rule of law” for the “rule of men.”
“Rule of law" describes a nation that has a government; "rule of men" describes a government that has a nation.