“The federal government has failed on border crime and border enforcement, and no candidate for president has done more to secure the border than Governor Rick Perry,” Arpaio said in a statement. “I have been watching Governor Perry and Texas closely and know his border surge operations with state, local and federal law enforcement officials have helped shut down the illegal trafficking of weapons, drugs and people. I’m endorsing Rick Perry because we need a tough-on-crime president who will champion and fund full-time border security operations from Brownsville to San Diego. Governor Perry has a superior border security record and plan to make our border and our nation safer.”
The "broad brush" had more to do with Darrmad’s post concerning illegals and legals and clumping them together as if they were the same legal class (pun intended).
The implication in that post is that to oppose ALL immigration, both legal AND illegal, is racist in nature. I take exception to it. The illegals to which Darrmad refers, imo, are Hispanic illegal immigrants, who for no other reason than proximity to our land borders have come into our country. Why should proximity have anything to do with getting any benefit from America's largesse? Should we assume that French people in the Alsace-Larraine region of SW Germany be given a free pass to German jobs, health benefits, etc provided for German citizenry because of its proximity? Ahhh, but this is the crux of Darrmad’s argument, imo. That region of Germany has been disputed for centuries. That it USED to belong to France (pre-WW1) and was “taken” away is at the heart of current arguments over who “owns” the area (and who has the "right" to it). But that’s really not the point that should be made at all. The point is, it is now in Germany’s hands, it is now considered German soil. The residents are required to abide by German law, Not French law, not EU law.
Darrmad’s statement, imo, is about the past, when the United States in the war with Mexico annexed much of their land. That was then. That land in the SW is now United States of American soil. Now it exists under U.S. law which allows for immigration, but on a legal quota scale. It begs the question, should we tilt the scales towards a certain nationality because of the past? Of course, since the assumption is that America is and always has been a racist country! It is really nothing more than a perverted view of Christianity, liberation theology in disguise.
The sheriff doesn’t care if you are anglo or Hispanic or whatever. He treats them all the same (tents, pink outfits, etc). It is sheriff’s position on protecting American sovereignty (in his county) that Darrmad has a problem with, although the pseudo-argument is about American “racism”.
Just because someone of a nationality other than U.S. American has physical access to this country and is capable of crossing a street, hiking through a desert, wading a river or just driving through a border checkpoint shouldn’t grant them entitlements to the same benefits of taxpaying American citizens. They need to get in line like anybody else that is not a legal visitor or citizen, just like my own mother did after WW2.
Darrmad may be only stirring the pot for discussion. If that’s the case, he “dun good”.
Ooooohhhhh, I knew that. I just had to use that as an excuse to use my brush on the liberals. I figured that it might stir the pot a bit.
__________________
I am an Apostolic Pentecostal. Apostolic in teaching, and Pentecostal in experience.
. I just had to use that as an excuse to use my brush on the liberals. I figured that it might stir the pot a bit.
Linear Mode
