By Arthur Christopher Schaper ——Bio and Archives--January 4, 2015
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
No worries. I reject anyone who can't discuss immigration without sounding racist or mean. It's our fault the borders haven't been secure.I found this statement particularly offensive. Am I responsible for the lack of border security? Should public institutions shoulder the brunt of the costs, whether in crime, health concerns or economic demand, because of rampant illegal immigration? Since when did debating an issue lead to charges of "racism"? And what does "sounding mean" have to do with the soundness or salience of an argument? It is not the fault of We the People that the border is not secure. Taxpayers should not have to fund public benefits for immigrants, period. The United States federal government should not be subsidizing or supporting illegal immigrants, either. The fact that borders security has been lax, that crime rates are increasing, that state legislatures have enabled mass illegal immigration, is not the fault of "We". In 2014, the voters of liberal Oregon rejected two-to-one drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. The necessary push against illegal immigration is not a partisan issue, but a national concern in which Democrats and Republicans share blame and responsibility. Legal immigration and border enforcement fall into the category of social conservatism, to some. The argument that defending borders, life, and marriage is an extreme argument is in itself an extreme reproach, and no one should have to suffer it. As I pondered my former candidate’s comments, the more I realize that much social debate has devolved into shaming the other side, rather than responding with truth, evidence, and comparison of other options. Social conservatives should not lie down for these unfounded attacks, but rebut the strain of extremism with the truth. One other point: as I was debating briefly these concerns, the gentleman tried to turn away this argument with “I don’t want to debate this. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.” That appeal to non-debate is not an answer. The liberal agenda to up-end marriage, terminate life as a matter of inconvenience, or ignore the Constitution in the name of elitist self-esteem cannot be ignored, nor tolerated.
View Comments
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a teacher-turned-writer on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A life-long Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance.
Twitter—@ArthurCSchaper
Facebook
aschaper1.blogspot.com
asheisministries.blogspot.com