The View From 1776

Good Fences, Good Neighbors?

How can we expect illegals to obey complicated registration and naturalization provisions in the proposed immigration bill when we fail to enforce the most fundamental provisions of the law?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 05/29 at 10:48 PM
  1. Civil law is minimal criteria for civilization. Ethic and moral criteria raises a much higher standard than civil law.

    If civil law requires little or no respect, how can morals and ethics expect more. Cannot and will not.

    Thus, civilization begins its downward movement that cannot be halted by police action, wayward politicians, or tyrannical government behavior.

    The gutless humanists have no 'solution' except compromise and tolerance and submission - because there is no solution - other than enforcement of law.

    Talky-talk? Patty-cake!

    vincit veritas
    semper fidelis
    Posted by Choicemaker  on  05/30  at  10:50 AM
  2. Contingent parts of any bill are always, repeat always conveniently, and politically ignored. Anyone remember Gramm-Rudman? The famous "Read My Lips-No New Taxes" deal with GHWB? The lefties agreed to cut $2.00 in spending for every $1.00 in increased taxes. Only problem was the lefties forgot to do their part. Same with the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill of twenty years ago.
    What I find most reprehensible about this is the way the administration treats us who have deep and quite legitimate concerns. GWB, Kennedy and Reid all demagogue the issue and attack us without once offering a cogent response.
    Reminds me of GWB calling the Minutemen "vigilantes". And the irony of his nusing that term completely escaped him (Committees of Vigilance came into existence when the government proved incapable of or derelict in providing basic security for the citizens).
    I agree with Peggy Noonan in her WSJ column about GWB and GHWB ( )
    Posted by Amendment X  on  06/06  at  12:03 PM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.