Obama’s upcoming amnesty maneuver is an attempt to alter the demographics of the USA and still more disastrously to establish his power as above constitutional restriction. Democrats defend it by bleating predictably that it’s okay because everybody does it — those last three words constituting the liberal moral creed. Specifically, they claim Reagan and Bush 41 did the same thing, without any talk of constitutional crisis. Even the left-leaning Atlantic points out four key flaws in their argument:
1) Reagan and Bush acted in conjunction with Congress and in furtherance of a congressional purpose.
In stark contrast, Obama’s amnesty “is intended to overpower and overmaster a recalcitrant Congress.”
2) Reagan and Bush legalized much smaller numbers of people than Obama is said to have in mind.
Scale matters. Few people will get worked up about a handful of immigrants, even if they are here illegally, and are mostly unskilled and highly likely to be a burden on society. But any sane person would object to numbers that will permanently alter the country to make it more like the Third World.
About 140,000 gained legal status through Bush’s order. Between Obama’s unilateral imposition of the failed Dream Act and the power grab he will announce tonight, he will have legalized by executive decree more than twice as many invaders as the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli Act, a law passed by Congress that was until now the most massive amnesty in US history.
3) The Reagan-Bush examples are not positive ones.
The 1986 amnesty in particular was a total failure, mainly because it was supposed to be the final amnesty before the border was secured, which to this day has not happened due to liberal perfidy. Naturally it led to still more illegal immigration, just as Obama’s amnesty will do. The only difference is intent. By now we all know what the result of amnesty will be if the border is not secured first.
4) The invocation of the Reagan and Bush cases exemplifies the bad tendency of political discussion to degenerate into an exchange of scripted talking points.
This is particularly characteristic of leftists, who argue mainly by yelling, “Oh yeah, well Republicans are just as bad!” Virtually every argument made by liberals reveals the intellectual rot of relativism. Jesus might have jaywalked, so who is any Christian to say it’s not okay to break the law?
Liberal noise about Reagan and Bush notwithstanding, the real argument is this: Do we want our country — which is mainly characterized by our Constitution and our demographics — to continue to survive, or do we want it “fundamentally transformed” out of existence?
If the answer is the former, it begs a follow-up question: How are we going to save our country from its enemies, who pose a greater threat to it now than ever before?
Another follow-up question: If Obama can get away with this, how do we know he will leave office in 2017?
On tips from Petterssonp and Varla.