Saturday, April 28th 2007
Ignacio De la Fuente has reaffirmed Oakland as a “city of refuge”, meaning they accept and welcome illegal immigrants and will “discourage” federal immigration raids. Law-breaking? check. Obstructing the government’s job? check. Stupid economic move? Check. Here’s what I mean.
First, it’s illegal. The immigrants are here illegally or have stayed longer than legally allowed, and the companies that hire them (occasionally) get punished, meaning it’s not ok to hire them. (Caveat: companies that hire illegals need to be punished much more severely and consistently or else no message is sent and bad behavior is condoned. Fines won’t hurt big companies too much, but enough to actually get them to comply). So it seems to me that all the folks who support this are accessories to a crime, or crimes. You can spin it however you want, but it is STILL ILLEGAL. Yes, they are people, yes they are looking for a better life, yes we need to change the system, but it’s still illegal.
Also, preventing (although the media uses the much more vague term “discourage” or “not co-operate) the federal agents from conducting raids is an obstruction of justice. If you are preventing justice from being served by refusing to co-operate with those searching for illegals, it is no different than destroying or withholding evidence in a murder case. How can these things be different? They aren’t. The difference is that these leftist areas don’t like to obey laws that don’t suit them.
I will of course recognize the economic benefit of those who will work for less than native born Americans. (Although I also take issue with it, see the Swift meat-packing plant example in Chicago, can’t find the link at the moment, but the story went: after the raid, there were lines around the block of the area’s low income blacks and whites looking for jobs that supposedly Americans “won’t do”). So, we gain cheap labor, but we also gain higher health care costs from emergency room visits, etc.
How will this affect Oakland? And how will it affect Berkeley, considering the proximity?
Tony Blair said this week that the world’s greatest threat was bar driving. Car accidents kill “on the scale of malaria or tuberculosis”. While bad driving is a huge killer of people, it seems absurd to call it a “threat”. It would be like saying our greatest threat is obesity. Semantics aside, this bothers me on two levels.
First, ignoring other rather large global “threats” like the spread of terrorism, AIDS, pandemic diseases in general, or global warming, if that is your preference. Some people would list it, I ordinarly wouldn’t. Ignoring these things that are much more sinister (possibly because we have less control over them) seems negligent and kind of stupid, given the current world situation. It would be like saying, during World War II, that the greatest threat was the rubber shortage.
Second, why do car accidents occur? Lots of reasons, traffic, road rage, negligence/lack of paying attention, bad weather, intoxication of varying sorts, etc. Some of these things we can’t change, like weather and traffic, but some we CAN. Drivers are responsible for driving and dealing with things they can’t change. Just like with obesity, people are responsible for their eating and life choices while dealing with the genetic obstacles they might have. These things are individual decisions, not “threats”. Let’s stop fueling the culture of victimhood by giving people the message that these health hazards are faceless threats rather than choices we can make.
Comments Off