Turning here into there

Anyone who dares to initiate a discussion about immigration to establish some sort of standards expected of immigrants is at risk of being labeled “racist” by liberal elites. Even if the discussion has nothing to do with race. Liberals, whose guilt complex has grown to psychotic proportions, insist that the imposition of standards on immigrants is an undesirable imposition on their rights motivated by racist sentiments.

---

The incessant verbal flogging of Americans by media elites, such as the New York Times and the Washington Post is a case in point. Just because two-thirds of Americans oppose the construction of a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero, they are labeled “Islamophobic,” America’s newest form of racism. Given that those who hijacked the airplanes that flew into the World Trade Center did so in the name of Islam is a point lost on these halfwit pundits, who appear to see everything that Americans stand for as suspect. Never mind that locating an Islamic cultural center so close to the site of that outrage seems insensitive. Imposing American values on those emigrating from countries whose values are inconsistent with our own makes good sense. You know, countries, where thieves routinely have hands amputated as punishment, or women who are accused of committing adultery are stoned to death, or murderers are crucified. Recently an eight-year old boy was caught stealing bread in an Iranian market. His punishment under Shariah law was the crushing of his arm by having a car driven over it. I’d say that this kind of legal system is definitely inconsistent with what the Constitution or the Charter of Rights guarantees North American citizens, despite Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s assertion to the contrary. And while we are at it, a certain amount of “Islamophobia” is justified in light of the fact that of the 1.5 billion Muslims on the planet it is estimated that between 1% and 10% support terrorism to advance the cause of their religion. For those whose math skills are rusty, that’s up to 150 million supporters of terrorism. But in talking about immigration and the consequences that unbridled immigration by Third-World citizens have on our culture, we aren’t just looking at Islam. In India there is a movement among Sikh extremists to secede from that country and establish their own nation. That conflict resulted in the Air India Bombing of 1985 that took the lives of 329 passengers and crew over the Atlantic near Ireland. The bomb was smuggled aboard the flight in Vancouver, British Columbia by Sikh extremists who had immigrated to Canada. In addition there are numerous intra-sectarian disputes among Sikhs that originate in the old country and find their way onto our shores, sometimes resulting in violence. A similar conflict is playing out with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers), who immigrate to Western nations just so they can continue the war against their Sri Lankan “oppressors” in their quest to establish a separate Tamil homeland on that Island. It seems they have the routine down pat by arriving on the shores of a country like Australia, Canada or the US and claiming to be refugees fearing for their lives from the government of Sri Lanka. Most civilized nations are now legally obligated to extend sanctuary to anyone who reaches their borders claiming to seek refuge from oppression. But what’s interesting (certainly about Tamil “refugees”) is that a study by the Canadian immigration department ascertained that a significant percentage (77%!) of so-called refugee claimants sought a visa to return to Sri Lanka either for family visits or vacations before their refugee claim had even been adjudicated. Clearly, many Tamil “refugees” are playing western sentiments for all they’re worth, as our own laws hamstring us in the protection of our borders. More disturbing, however, is that many of these “refugees” wind up raising money through criminal activities in their sanctuary countries to purchase weapons and ammunition to wage war against the government they say is persecuting them. The US is seeing its share of immigration woes from south of the border, as violent drug cartels from Mexico have launched a virtual invasion of American Border States. It’s unimaginable that the Obama Administration has sought to stymie the law that Arizona passed in order to protect its citizens by challenging it in federal court on the basis that police asking for proof of legal residence would be violating a subject’s civil rights. It’s hard to understand how enforcement of a federal law by state or local police forces amounts to violating the civil rights of those arrested. Yet the liberal elites have continually and stridently mischaracterized the Arizona law as consistent with a police state. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
 The Obama administration submitted the first ever report on the status of human rights within America to the United Nations Human Rights Council, intimating that America was guilty of human rights abuses and specifically named the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law as evidence. The law was passed according to Constitutional standards by the elected representatives of that state. So, what the Obamites are really reporting to the laughably named Human Rights Council is that the American people are guilty of human rights abuses that need to be remedied by the federal government. Any attempts to debate “comprehensive immigration reform” results in immediate charges of racism, as America’s ruling elites are on a roll, attempting to impose legislation on the American people that is inconsistent with North American values and community standards. It is illegal immigration that has turned Phoenix, Arizona into the kidnapping capital of North America, as Mexican drug gangs run amok. It is illegal immigration that has resulted in the deaths, assaults, thefts, home invasions and other crimes Americans along the Border States have to endure every day. Yet the liberal power structure accuses those same Americans being victimized by individuals that have no right being in the United States in the first place, of racism for wanting to impose some standards on who does and does not deserve to immigrate. Historically, the reason that people have come to this continent is to seek a better life, to enjoy the freedom we all enjoy and to have the opportunity to improve one’s standard of living. By coming here they have entered into a tacit contract with the nation that they would become one of us. After all, they came here to get away from there. If the opportunities that are present here had been present there, then chances are they would not have come here. Yet Western liberal elites have somehow managed to turn the idea of protecting a nation’s borders and sovereignty into a racist concept. If this kind of thinking prevails, then “here” stands a good chance of changing into “there.”