The Irony and Immorality of the Left’s Anti-Arizona Position

The Irony and Immorality of the Left’s Anti-Arizona Position

The Left’s uproar over Arizona’s new anti-immigration law reveals just how wrong-headed the Left can be regarding some issues.

Borders exist for a reason.

For example, just as a woman has a right to her private space not to be invaded by a man; and just as an American citizen (supposedly) has the right not to be asked for their identity papers, a nation or a state has the right to ensure the security of its national or state space by enforcing the security of its borders.

The irony of the Left’s anti-Arizona position is that the basis of their argument is to say that the private space of individual Hispanics is now at risk of being violated by Arizona police officers while the exact same argument can be used to justify the new Arizona law: Arizona has the right to protect its private space from being violated.

The U. S. Border Patrol routinely profiles Hispanics in the U. S./Mexico border region now, and has done so for years. This is how they do their job.

What does the Left want the U. S. Border Patrol to do in order to secure the U. S. border? Only arrest those people that are caught in the act of crossing the border illegally? To not question people found near the border, in the middle of the desert, whom they suspect (for good reason) of being in the country illegally?

I suspect that the Left wants illegal immigration to be decriminalized. In other words: for the U. S. to have an open border with Mexico.

The immorality of this position should be evident. The United States, just like a woman, has the right to protect its space from unwanted and illegal invasion.

Seriously folks . . . the Left needs to think about this and not just react to it without thinking, because they’re just making themselves look ignorant.

A nation that cannot secure its borders is not a nation.

Shame on the Left, for its ironic and immoral position (and immoral behavior) regarding this important issue.

See my previous post for the only, two, commonsense solutions to the illegal alien-U. S./Mexico border problem.

About ajmacdonaldjr

writer, author, blogger
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Irony and Immorality of the Left’s Anti-Arizona Position

  1. woborders says:

    I’m shamelessly anti-borders, but you might care to listen to me anyway. Neither a nation nor a corporation is a person. When you start talking about the latter having rights or “personal space,” you start talking in metaphors, and throwing in the idea of “invasion” of “a woman’s personal space” only borrows emotional tension which all too easily merges with long-standing stereotypes of brown men violating pure white womanhood.

    By the logic of this post, the United States was not a nation until around the 1880s, and then only as it distinguished itself from Chinese immigrants. From 1790, naturalization was freely handed out to any free, white person. Heck, until around 1920, citizenship was not even checked at the ballot box.

    Another way to look at the identity question is to think of cities: cities have always been magnets for incoming streams of humanity. In fact, few cities would have survived without attracting newcomers until modern sanitation made their natural growth outpace their losses due to epidemic diseases. A city with a ban on new residents, built around a fear of “invasion” of outsiders, has always been an impoverished, limited city. Rome, London, Paris, or Beijing, and classic-era Granada, Baghdad, or Moscow, shone because of their openness to diversity. Why not the United States of America?

    • Societies will always have borders (e.g., cities, states, nations) and the laws societies enforce are always based upon these borders (e.g., taxes, zoning, police, schools).

      Personally, I am a big believer in focusing our attention upon our own hemisphere and leaving the other side of the world alone to sort out their own problems. I think we should (eventually) form a more cooperative economic union of the Americas (North, Central, and South); but within this cooperative economic union each nation must still retain their individual identities as well as the ability to enforce their own national immigration (and other) laws.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s