The Article “Arizona blasted for denying licenses to Deferred Action recipients” at “Fox News Latino” this morning set me off!
First of all, why is there a special Fox News for Latino News? Does the news at Fox News not apply to everyone? I understand there being special sections for Religious news or Political news, etc. but a special section for Latinos? Is there perhaps a special Fox News for Irish people or African Americans or Caucasians? (I’m immediately demanding a “Fox News Old White Guys” section!) Perhaps I’ve done something illegal by reading the “Latino News” at Fox News when I’m not a Latino?
But of course in the 21st Century I couldn’t have intentionally done anything illegal because the word “Illegal” no longer means what It did back when it was on my vocabulary list in Elementary School. Back then “illegal” meant anything that is against the law, I would have had to repeat 5th grade if I would have suggested to my English teacher that “the law” was just a phrase with no real meaning and “breaking the law” was a phrase that does not apply to some special groups of people — as it apparently does not today.
Illegal immigrants are no longer “illegal”, they are now either “undocumented” or, in the case of those who qualify under the terms of Obama’s latest ‘obamanation’ — his version of the “Dream Act” — they are not only undocumented they may be “deferred.” This latest special category of illegals was not, by the way, the result of a law being passed — it was the result of this extra-legal obamanation. REAL laws are passed by Congress and then signed into law by the President. Oh well! As Mel Brooks King Louis of France character exclaimed in “History of the World Part 1”, “it’s good to be the king!”
In the previously mentioned Fox News Latino article there was another new word introduced by Alessandra Soler, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. When Arizona Governor Jan Brewer states the FACT that Arizona law requires that all applicants for a driver’s license ‘show proof of U.S. citizenship or legal status,’ Soler corrects her by saying “there is a difference between “legal status” and “legal presence.” Imagine that, the all powerful ACLU now has the power to reinterpret and reword a state’s law — that is something that not even the president is allowed to do — unless, of course, we’re talking about King Barack the First of the United States.
What to do? What to do?
My personal view is very unpopular but (to my mind) unquestionably correct. If a person enters the United States without the express LEGAL permission of the United States government they are here ILLEGALLY; as such they are NOT entitled to any licenses, any benefits, any jobs, any free health care, any food stamps or anything else. These things are reserved for American citizens or LEGAL immigrants. If an illegal immigrant ‘drops a baby’ here in the United States, both she and the baby are here illegally. There are thousands (or more likely millions) of people “waiting in lines” to gain access to the United States the right way. Why should we allow any law breakers to “cut into that line” ahead of them?
Other lost words: the United States government has also lost the meanings of the words: right, wrong and integrity.