What we believe, part 6: Immigration

posted at 3:30 pm on November 13, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Declaration Entertainment’s Bill Whittle continues his series of videos, What We Believe, with the sixth entry this week covering immigration.  Whittle first dispels the myth that Tea Party activists are anti-immigration; instead, he explains that the Tea Party movement wants immigration to occur through lawful channels, and then he explains why.  Along the way, Bill also punctures La Raza’s agenda, the notion that illegal immigration doesn’t represent a security threat to the US, and suggests that open-borders advocates in the entertainment industry might try a little personal experience with fence-free living to see how that might work for them:

The US has no real ethnicity, no unique language to unify us.  What unifies this nation is the rule of law.  Our nation is conceptually founded on the principle that a free people can set its own laws and those who wish to live free agree to abide by them.  Laws that don’t work can be repealed or replaced through the open processes of representative government, and in some cases direct democracy (referendums, in some states).  Those who break the laws of a free people should be subject to prosecution — and those who break the law of a free nation in order to gain entry into it should not profit from that lawbreaking.

Thus, as Bill states, illegal immigration and tolerance for it insults those who legally migrate to the US, a process almost everyone supports.  It also insults the rule of law to offer those lawbreakers amnesty, especially a second time.  Besides, securing the border is one of the few legitimate duties that the federal government has under the Constitution, and perhaps it should focus on doing that right before arrogating other authorities and jurisdictions to itself.

Declaration will release its final installment in the What We Believe series, at least for now, late next week.  At that time, expect some news about Bill’s plans to spread this message.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

You’re a nut.

darwin on November 15, 2010 at 3:59 PM

If so, I’m in good company if I have Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the basket with me.

unclesmrgol on November 15, 2010 at 4:15 PM

To me, the problem with the current law is requiring one (in most cases) to have a sponsor in the first place. That being said, I agree with all your points.

rukiddingme on November 15, 2010 at 3:54 PM

See http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis

Sponsorship is one way of vouching for the good character of the immigrant. I have no problem with family sponsorship, for instance.

unclesmrgol on November 15, 2010 at 4:19 PM

If so, I’m in good company if I have Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the basket with me.
unclesmrgol on November 15, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Don’t forget Lincoln.

Sponsorship is one way of vouching for the good character of the immigrant. I have no problem with family sponsorship, for instance.
unclesmrgol on November 15, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Thanks for the link.

I am not opposed to family sponsorship either. I should have been more clear.

I was referring to those that do not have family here, being required to have an employment offer before being granted the green card.

How does one get a job offer, if one can’t be here legally to apply for said job?

Fulfilling that requirement is next to impossible.

rukiddingme on November 15, 2010 at 4:30 PM

If so, I’m in good company if I have Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the basket with me.

unclesmrgol on November 15, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Your statement confirms your delusion.

darwin on November 15, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Your statement confirms your delusion.

darwin on November 15, 2010 at 4:39 PM

Which of my delusions does it confirm?

unclesmrgol on November 16, 2010 at 10:10 AM

Darwin, most but not all legal immigrants, excepting refugees and asylees, are supposed to have sponsors who will provide for them if they cannot. However, there is no enforcement if an immigrant goes on welfare. Immigrants also are legally eligible for all welfare programs. Since Bush I, the government stopped enforcing the laws that prohibit immigrants from using welfare, called a public charge in immigration law.

federale86 on November 16, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3