Montana Politics

To: Coobs, Pt. 1

Eric Coobs and I have had a few good discussions, and as they tended to stray from the main point, I’m following forum etiquette and posting the main points here so no one has to wade through dozens of comments to get to them. Because really, he’s a smart guy, and his comments deserve to be seen, if only to show that a smart, decent guy can still have misguided, horrifying ideas.

First, immigration: I’m putting it out there again, Coobs. The foundations of American conservatism lie in (frequently martyred) criminals: Socrates, Jesus, and our Founding (traitorous) Fathers. If a law hurts everyone involved, and is keeping you from supporting your family, is it a forgivable offense to break it? I’m not saying is it Okay to break it, or that its admirable to break it (though both positions are held in relation to the founders of conservative thought), but merely that it is not an unforgivable offense that cancels out any contributions or suffering of the ‘criminal’ – for example, giving them a chance to become legal, or giving them access to 9/11 relief benefits?

If you appreciate an independent voice holding Montana politicians accountable and informing voters, and you can throw a few dollars a month our way, we would certainly appreciate it.


Click here to post a comment

Please enter an e-mail address

  • Nothing against immigrants Polish Wolf.

    My Great-Grandparents immigrated from Germany in 1885.

    The immigrated, became citizens as soon as possible, raised their families, and they were Americans. Legally. My Grandparents & Uncles served in the military.

    That's not in the same ballpark as somebody sneaking across the border, not assimilating into our society, taking jobs (illegally), many of them ending up in jail for breaking our laws, and driving some States like California into bankruptcy.

    If they want to immigrate, the legal way, they are more than welcome to me to join this country of immigrants. I'd invite them over for a Taco and a Corona if I knew any new citizens like that.

    BUT – let's face it. Right now, with The Great Leader losing support from independents, and even his own base, the dems are courting illegal aliens as a voting block. They think that if they are 'Santa Claus' that they can get the hispanic votes, and it'll be easier to get & hold power.

    That's what's at the core of the Dems love for illegals.

    That's what's behind the backdoor amnesty program that was started last month, where the Justice Dept. stopped deportation actions against illegals.

    That's my beef – and it is quite valid.

  • It is valid…ish. Do you support making it easier to become a citizen and immigrate legally? Do you support strengthening the anchor babies law? If you support these actions, as I do, you have a right to be angry at illegals. Frankly, illegals commit fewer crimes (besides that which defines them) than citizens; most economic studies indicate they actually make a slight contribution to state budgets (since they still pay most sales taxes, etc.), and most of them would assimilate if they weren't being threatened with deportation if they join open society. I'm not saying illegal immigration is great, but its the only real option until the electorate wakes up and makes legal immigration a real possibility. But we do agree on one thing – legal immigration is preferable for all involved. Sadly, it is made impossible by a xenophobic electorate, so now we have a 'compromise' that is worse for everyone.

    BTW, in 1900, there was a higher percentage of people speaker Deutsche as a first language (including some of my ancestors) than there are speaking Espanol now. Now who refused to assimilate? Thankfully, with our enlightened anchor babies law, illegality only lasts for one generation, and we thus have far fewer problems with non-assimilation than other industrialized nations.

  • Also, Coobs – I admit that your grandfather and mine were both 'better' immigrants in terms of contribution and assimilation than illegal immigrants (though I argue that is really a consequence of the times), but you have yet to defend your most radical claim that illegal victims of 9/11 don't deserve compensation.

    And, you fail to defend the most ridiculous point – demanding and detaining legal immigrants, even citizens, for refusing to carry around their papers if they look like they might be illegal, as a legitimate, constitutional way to fight illegal immigration. But maybe you don't go so far as the State of Arizona.

  • I would also point out that in order to legally immigrate from Mexico, you have to own a house. Not only do you have to own that house, you have to have it completely paid off.

    I can't envision too many wealthy Mexican home-owners who are yearning for the American dream. The ones who have cause to come over here literally cannot do it legally. It's easy for Americans, who can travel as we please (though most of us choose not to), to harp on them for coming here illegally. But the bottom line is that even if a Mexican wants to come here, there's literally no path for them to do it.

0 /* ]]> */

Send this to a friend