What Country Would That Be?

The Supreme Court has deadlocked on immigration, resulting in a sort-of defeat for President Obama. No precedent is set by the ruling, but the lower court is considered upheld.
Obama said Thursday's impasse "takes us further from the country we aspire to be."
What country would that be?

I aspire towards a country in which our Constitution and its traditions are upheld, and one in which the government at least is required to abide by such laws as are properly Constitutional. My sense, governed by the fact that they keep writing books proclaiming that this is in fact the case, is that the move towards unfettered immigration is favored by establishment Democrats precisely because the immigrants favor a different form of government than the one we inherited.

If America is really a philosophical project, they aspire to being a country that is no longer America. I don't have a problem with immigration at any level, provided that the immigrants are devoted to the American project. When the point of favoring high immigration is precisely to make it possible to rewrite the Constitution and change the basic project, of course I am opposed -- no matter where the immigrants might come from originally, or what they might look like. It's their philosophy I care about.
on

2 comments:

  1. E Hines2:03 PM

    Frankly, the greater ill IMNSHO is that the same Supreme Court, via a 4-3 vote (because Justice Kagan had recused herself), voted to uphold the nakedly racist and sexist parameters of affirmative action in the UT case.

    Because, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy, it's appropriate to give great deference to institutions' desire to define themselves in their own terms, even when those institutions are government entities, even when those government entities openly espouse racism in their defining parameters.

    Eric Hines

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ymar Sakar6:32 PM

    The Demoncrats need slaves, not voters. Voters are outdated by now.

    ReplyDelete