LANGUAGE AND CULTURE WARS: THE BATTLE OVER AMNESTY
April 25, 2011
[Disclaimer: The opinion expressed in this article are solely those of Frosty Wolldridge and not necessary the opinion of NWV, its staff or other writers.]
My friend Dr. Diana Hull, living in the midst of California’s cultural, linguistic and population fiasco—talks about the serious consequences of injecting America’s culture with antagonistic foreign paradigms. You may find her work here.
Please give us an overview of what we face Dr. Hull:
“The problem for us is the extent to which Americans have accepted this inoffensive sounding but meaningless phrase, “comprehensive reform.” It is no more of a solution, by sounding more nuanced and sophisticated, than simply asking for an up or down vote on amnesty.
“Rather it is actually a recognition by proponents of legalization that in the present climate asking for another amnesty is a non-starter for sure. And by adding the word comprehensive, there is the slightest hint that other factors like border security could stand some chance of being included.
“But don’t count on it. With “comprehensive reform,” enforcement of our laws will go the route of the 1986 employer sanctions requirement.
“Even supporters of border security, like some on Fox News, seem to accept the deception that “comprehensive reform” has some positive meaning and is a possible solution to the 12 million illegals — the better estimate is 20 to 30 million — or foreign nationals, too many, it is claimed, to insist they go home. Even friendly TV commentators like Bill O’Reilly agonize endlessly about the possibility of deportation.
“But even those who want to be open-minded about solutions will point out that many illegals have “American children.” Unfortunately, they need to better understand the Fourteenth Amendment and its history, which is almost never discussed on TV.
“The real problem with the “comprehensive reform” terminology is that it has morphed into a slogan and is now “embedded” language. It certainly sounds like something everyone should want, right? And “comprehensive reform” is so general it could be applied to thousands of issues or existing problems or policies that warrant rethinking. So the term has acquired positive “baggage.”
“No matter what change is being considered, it should be thorough, not inadequate, nor slipshod, right? That means “comprehensive.” And any “reform” should by definition make things better, right? But better for whom?
“The actual meanings of these two words “comprehensive “ and “reform” are both too general and too vague. They are bland in the extreme and so unprovocative they can’t offend anyone. The question is whether this artful two-word phrase is an accurate description of what is actually planned.
“Unfortunately, this seemingly positive yet amorphous goal has now morphed into a topic-specific, stand-alone, positive meaning that is widely accepted.
“Comprehensive reform, whatever its literal meaning, will absolutely move us in the wrong direction if passed. It actually means making legal residents of the 12 to 30 million illegal aliens now present in the U.S.
“So instead let’s have a clear goal, reject a purported solution absent of substance, and insist on an up or down vote on awarding or not awarding amnesty to illegal aliens. At least we will have a clear idea of what we are supporting or rejecting.
“That kind of clarity will lead to recalling the failure of our previous attempt to solve the illegal alien problem by this means and remind voters in how many ways the 1986 bill made the problem much worse.
“Notice that only opponents of amnesty use the word amnesty now. Proponents have abandoned that language completely. This is because “forgiveness” for what Americans label wrongdoing is not what is sought by our opponents. Amnesty also smacks of a favor that can be granted or withheld by a dominant other, and since non-Hispanics may be a vanishing majority, it’s open season on us.
“You see, Americans don’t have a choice about “comprehensive reform” anymore, its supporters imply, because we will soon be a voiceless minority, no matter the arguments on our side or the equities.
“But there are other misunderstood deceptions, contradictions, and agendas in play. Most of Mexico’s leadership has taken this same position and has encouraged and done everything in their power to made this “retaking” a fact.
“They see letting illegal aliens stay forever, no matter how they came or whether we even know who they really are, as only right since Hispanics are so close to being the dominant force in America. So now’s the time to go for amnesty, by any name, and cinch the deal quickly before the next election.
“We have known for years that this idea, that they, not we, are in America to stay, is taught in the schools. But it’s an idea that can be enunciated in more aggressive language in street demonstrations, where Hispanic ownership of America is trumpeted and brazenly communicated via inflammatory signs, like “gringos go home.”
“But is it possible that Americans are finally waking up from their longtime passivity on this issue? Have we reason to finally cheer that the passive acceptance of illegality we always hoped wasn’t bred in the bones could actually be seriously challenged by Americans?
“And if this is so, to what can we attribute new public recognition of immigration reality? Are Americans catching on that neither amnesty nor the meaningless phrase “comprehensive reform” does anything practical or positive for most Americans, and that nothing would make this latest push for legalizing illegals a change that would benefit anyone except illegals themselves and those that employ them?
“These facts have been obvious to opponents of amnesty for the last two decades, but how come most Americans are just catching on and putting up a struggle now that could actually be a game changer?
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
“Being overly righteous about obligations to those perceived to be downtrodden springs from excesses of feel-goodism for its own sake and flourishes best in the presence of satiety and guilt over abundance. But life is not as good as it was. Fear is in the air, personal and government indebtedness scary, murders and stabbings and robberies more threatening, gangs and graffiti a more common sight, and children now cannot walk to school unattended. In short, the American sense of safety at home and in the community seems gone or increasingly uncertain. So we are finally daring to ask, is welcoming the world worth the price Americans are paying for compassion? And is that price now too high?”
Dr. Hull is the former director at www.capsweb.org in California. She writes for www.TheSocialContract.com and can be contacted at that website.
Listen to Frosty Wooldridge on Wednesdays as he interviews top national leaders on his radio show "Connecting the Dots" at www.themicroeffect.com at 6:00 PM Mountain Time. Adjust tuning in to your time zone.
© 2011 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved