ON HILLARY CLINTON AND IMMIGRATION

It is an unstated but obvious goal of the left in the United States that under the guise of “humanitarianism” we should open our borders to any and all of the world’s “oppressed” so that they may come and enjoy the government benefits so richly awarded thanks to the efforts of the ever-diminishing working class who earn the money and pay the taxes to provide them.  This is all done in the name of equity, social justice and (less obviously) the ultimate goal of getting a sufficient number of voters to the polls so that the policy can be even further expanded and America may join the ranks of third world socialist countries in which everyone can enjoy an incredibly low level of income equality.

There seems to be some confusion among certain Democrat politicians regarding their family origins and backgrounds.  We all remember Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D – MA) decision to claim a Cherokee background because of her remembrance of her Aunt Bea’s looking at a family portrait, telling the young Elizabeth that their venerated ancestor, captured forever in oil on canvass, “had high cheekbones – just like yours.”  Well, that seems good enough for government work.

Now cometh Hillary Clinton on her van tour to Iowa claiming that all her grandparents had immigrated to the United States, when in fact three of them were born here.  Not that it should matter – other than Hillary’s version makes for a more compelling story.  And heaven only knows, Ms. Clinton needs something to talk about to help the average undecided independent voter see beyond the makeup base and blush to want to cast their ballot for her.  There is certainly little that is positive in her background to cause that to happen – and a lot of baggage that, at the very least, has a certain air of privilege and impropriety.

But returning to the subject of immigration and why our porous borders should be converted into open floodgates, the left makes the argument that the Europeans who came to this country were usurpers, stealing the land from the aboriginal residents who were already here.  Coterminous with this argument is the beginning of their objection to guns since the displacement of Native Americans was accomplished through the use of the blunderbuss which proved to be a far more efficient killing device than either the arrow or the tomahawk.

The most current theory on the inception of the human race is that from an original “earth mother” somewhere in Africa, all humanity sprung.  It’s the sort of scientific community’s version of the Adam and Eve story – but with God eliminated as an unnecessary addition to the cast of characters.  Well, let’s run with that theory.

So our original progenitor had a child or children and presumably they had children and before long there were a whole lot of children and adults running around this one spot on the African continent.  We can certainly imagine that after a not so long time on the evolutionary scale of things, it got a little crowded in this African oasis.  And as new generations and more children came along, some of them decided to move to newer, less populated areas.  They might only have relocated a few miles away – or perhaps they went further.  Much further.  In fact, some of them moved to Asia and Europe and the Americas and Australia.

If the the scientific theory is right, there is no other explanation for how so much of the earth’s land masses got populated.  So while the various Native American tribes were here before the European settlers, they were in every respect immigrants and usurpers just as much as those who followed and largely displaced them.  It might be argued that anyone other than the descendants of the original “earth mother” who still live in the same spot whence all of humanity originated are in fact immigrants and usurpers – all of us.

While I hear the left spout off all the time about how unfair minorities are treated in the United States I have yet to hear any talk of any movement for all of us to hop on a plane and go back to Africa so that we cleanse ourselves of the sins of our fathers and forefathers who had the nerve to come here looking for a better life.  Of course, were we to do that, we would obviously put some stress on the local economy and populace – but we can deal with that issue when the planes start to unload their passengers.

Until that happens, which may be awhile, we can not only admit but agree that we are all immigrants – and be proud of it.  It is not so much what we did to get here but what we do while we are here that is important.  Personally, I would prefer the company of a law abiding immigrant to that of a fourth generation American who is a serial murderer.  And just as we weed out people who have a legal right to live here through our judicial system, it is incumbent on those in government to weed out those who wish to come here before they are permitted entry.

Any of us who is charitable might invite a hungry stranger into our homes to share a meal.  But most of us would recoil if that stranger showed up unexpectedly at our doorstep and demanded that we share our bounty with him or her.  And it is for that reason that in the interest of the common good, we ought to have a strong and strongly enforced policy on immigration, welcoming those who have the desire and the potential to add quality to the fabric of American society and rejecting those who will detract from it.

While I have no interest in providing constructive advice to Hillary Clinton on how she should conduct her campaign, it should seem obvious to a woman of her extensive background that most of us who will make a decision on the person who will receive our vote in the next presidential election would like to feel that we are treated as smart enough to know when someone running for office is telling a whopper.  So if Ms. Clinton wants to do the best thing she can to promote herself, it might be to try a little honesty.  Not only would it be refreshing – it would certainly be unexpected.