Tuesday, March 15, 2005

Pat Lynch Cries 'Foul', Plays By His Own Rules

[Click comments for article]

1 Comments:

Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Mr. Toast has been wanting to comment on Pat Lynch's column, The Case for Playing Fair in the March 10th Arkansas Democrat Gazette. The original article can be read free by ADG subscribers here, or is available here for purchase.

The premise of the piece is that if an illegal alien who was a super athlete graduated from an Arkansas public school, wouldn't some university come up with a way to "finagle" him in? The answer is, yes, I'm sure they'd at least try. But Lynch's point is merely an extension of what has gotten us into the mess of illegal immigration in the first place (And it IS a mess. You need only look to places like California and Arizona to see where this is all headed real fast). In fact, what has been going on for years has been patently unfair. Certain people in the business sector have taken it upon themselves to break immigration laws so that they would have an advantage over their competitors and personally gain as a result. In the case of a university trying to squeeze in this super athlete, the university would be trying to gain an advantage in its sports program. Although no one disputes that such a maneuver would be in the best interest of the athlete and that particular school, what would that say to other immigrants who want to legally immigrate here but are patiently waiting in line? You're not as important because you're not a great athlete(?). Possession is 9/10ths of the law, and the athlete's here already, but you're not(?). What would this say to other sports programs run by those who refuse to bend the rules? You're suckers for not admitting such a player just because it's unethical(?). And this is an extreme case. Most of the illegals here are not being accorded special benefits because of exceptional aptitude. Most of them are being exploited. Their employers pay them criminal wages while soothing their own consciences with the racist claim that they're doing them a favor: "After all," they say, "back in the Marshall Islands, or Mexico, or wherever, you'd be lucky to get this $50 a week." How charitable. But now that these employers have been so 'charitable' for these illegals, they want the taxpayer to pick up the tab for the children's college education! I've got an idea; why don't the employers set aside a few bucks from each illegal's paycheck for an education fund? You know, like they already do for their 401K and health care. What? They're not only paying them a meager $50 a week, but they're not giving them any benefits?! Oh, we must remember, they're doing them a favor as it is. They shouldn't push their luck. Yet keep in mind, patient taxpayer, that subsidized college education is only one of numerous benefits we have been and will yet be asked to provide so that employers can sport a more attractive bottom line.

Lynch then makes a fallacious point that he considers a "slam dunk," saying that everyone should be judged on merit. That is, in the case of the illegal immigrant athlete, he should be given subsidies as citizens because of how well he plays his sport. The only problem is that merit, by definition, takes into account governing rules. Just how enjoyable would your next basketball game be if the referees refuse to recognize when one team's players travel out-of-bounds? I think we all know how that would go. I wonder if people like Lynch would advocate changing the law which currently considers the children brought over by illegals as illegal themselves. I wonder if they realize the insanity of such a policy. I can just imagine the various scenarios whereby children are used as pawns by their own parents for the purpose of establishing a family presence in the U.S. Indeed, Americans are already calling for a repeal of the "anchor baby" provision in Article XIV of the U.S. Constitution. No, we certainly couldn't fix the problem by changing the rule for everyone. So instead, the Lynch-mob argues for certain exceptions to the rules so that star 'players' can join the 'team' at taxpayer expense. That's not very fair to the B-string lineup who are waiting for the INS/USCIS/ICE to process their paperwork.

At one point Lynch taunts the conservative reader by saying "I thought that the cornerstone of conservative philosophy was taking 'personal responsibility' for one's actions and living with the consequences." I'm sure he normally has no use for this philosophy, and he makes a pitiful attempt at utilizing it here. Lynch's aims are long on taxpayer actions and short on consequences. The strongest argument that people like Lynch use is that it's not the fault of the children that their parents came over and brought them along. I agree. Such children are caught in a quagmire of their parents' making. But how can Lynch ask taxpayers to smooth over the lawbreaking of others when he makes no similar efforts toward having the lawbreakers held accountable? Shall we pass legislation requiring Arkansans to pay for the rehabilitation of pedestrians mowed over by drunken drivers, yet make absolutely no effort at enforcing drunk driving laws or punishing those who drive drunk? And, no, I'm not comparing illegal aliens with drunk drivers, although both are lawbreakers. I'm referring to the companies who knowingly hire illegals. These businesses are killing our culture by flooding Arkansas and the rest of America with the third world cultures possessed by people who are generally not interested in assimilating into America. These businesses are driving out legitimate companies that refuse to break the law by hiring illegal labor. These businesses are constantly lobbying spineless politicians who then bypass real solutions by creating substandard taxpayer funded fix-em-ups that are endless in scope and cost. Of course, I also blame these politicians who refuse to even support immigration law enforcement.

Advocates like Lynch are also pushing substandard solutions to a problem that didn't have to exist, yet still has no end in sight. For, contrary to what the Open Border Lobby says, an efficient immigration policy is neither unachievable nor unreasonable, at least not if we get serious about giving TRUE citizenship to qualified immigrants--those who want to come here the legal way. But that wouldn't benefit the exploiters who want an unfair advantage. And that wouldn't pacify those who think an American border is an antiquated concept. But when our politicians finally get the hint that the majority of Americans demand a sufficient immigration policy that is enforced, then we can talk about how taxpayers can clean up any aftermath. Until then, I'll do my best to keep both hands on my wallet. For Mr. Lynch and others who think my attitude is not very compassionate, please click here.

12:42 PM, March 15, 2005  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home