Fox Cranks Up the Scare Tactics by Saying Obama ‘Releases’ Criminal Immigrants

starnesTrigger Warning: Violent rhetoric; Anti immigrant rhetoric; Racism

I try to make it a habit to not focus on the anti-immigrant hysterics. My friends and neighbors already have enough to worry about just trying to live, work, worship, play, and go outdoors while being mindful of ICE, detention, and the possibility of being ripped from their families. But when a right-wing hate group masquerading as a moderate immigration policy think tank releases a misleading report about released undocumented criminals; when Fox News picks up on it and warns of the “dangerous illegals”; and when its readers vow to “shoot on site,” this anti immigrant sentiment becomes an issue that can’t be ignored.

The Center for Immigrant Studies is an innocent-sounding name for an immigration think tank that claims bi-partisanship. But it is anything but bi-partisan. The group releases study after study highlighting and manufacturing negative attributes of immigration, all in accordance with its founder. From the Southern Poverty Law Center:

Although you’d never know it to read its materials, CIS was started in 1985 by a Michigan ophthalmologist named John Tanton — a man known for his racist statements about Latinos, his decades-long flirtation with white nationalists and Holocaust deniers, and his publication of ugly racist materials.

Right Wing Watch has a list of articles based on some of CIS’s “findings” and statements available here. At a Tea Party event in March, for example, a policymaker for CIS responds to a question about the so-called “Muslim invasion” of the US. Stephen Steinlight:

I don’t know what on earth we can do about Muslim immigration, I really don’t. I mean, if I had my druthers, we would bring back something like the McCarran act in the 50s, which barred communists and fascists on the grounds that they believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution. Well, Muslims believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution…

I think Islam is not so much a religion as a hideous totalitarian political creed looking for world supremacy.

So, we’re back to the fifties because some people apparently don’t believe in whatever version of the US Constitution that Steinlight believes they should. So much for freedom of religion. Oh yeah, that silly amendment to the US Constitution..

Steinlight also alleges that Latinos in the US don’t have “strong family values.” I do not know how to respond to this because I do not know what kind of “family values” SS is thinking of here. Much like the mythical “Islamic invasion,” this is an attempt dehumanize Latino families. Not too much unlike the lies during the slavery period about black people not having familial relations*, this myth makes it easier to separate undocumented citizens from their families.

Contrary, Latino families have a deserved reputation for having strong familial bonds, making community development and grassroots organization indispensable. Maybe the “family values” Steinlight and the Center for Immigration Studies is concerned about are their values – poor people keep to your status; don’t bother the white Anglos with your petty problems.

This kind of rhetoric, these lies about immigrant populations lead to dehumanizing views, bad policies (such as we see in Joe Arpaio’s and Jan Brewer’s Arizona), and direct violence. Not only do immigrants have to worry about the undeserved threat of deportation, now they have to worry about Fox Nation picking up guns to shoot at supposed dangerous criminal immigrants.

So imagine a perfect shit-storm where ultra-conservatives like Fox News’ Todd Starnes can label immigrants as dangerous felons, scare White nativist fans, and blame Obama for not being a merciless killer. CIS makes such a thing possible with its *ahem* misleading report saying that ICE has “released” 68,000 immigrant criminals a year

Of course, the numbers lie. “Being released from ICE custody” means bonds, ankle bracelets, under supervision, or other arrangements to await trial, according to the American Immigration Council, much the same as with other prisoners. Having someone wait in a jail for their trial – which can take months – is a waste of lives, time, and tax payer dollars.

But not only is the report bogus, Todd Starnes and the fine people at Fox News take CIS’s liberties with language and add some of their own:

Obama Unleashes Hordes of Dangerous Illegals onto American Streets.”

Anti-immigrant slurs! False accusations! danger white people! Danger! Danger!

First, human beings are not illegal, no matter if they jumped a fence in order to survive or not. No matter where they’re born and no matter where they reside. To call a human being “illegal” is to represent her or him as something less-than. It is to say she is innately sinister and evil, or that he is in need of “fixing” and “punishment.” It justifies cruel and unusual punishment and treatment. It is a justification for genocide.

Second, words like “hordes” conjures up ideas of zombies, of Visigoths and barbarians storming the castles, of beasts, of throngs of dangerous thugs roaming the streets. It is fear-baiting, and equates undocumented citizens with life-threatening, mindless undead looking for flesh.  It sets up a scenario where White US nativists imagine themselves needing to protect their homes, possessions, and daughters from the imminent threat of criminal immigrants. We can see this scenario play out on Starnes’ Facebook page, actually, with his readers admonishing each other “to lock and load, shoot on sight” and “time to go hunting” along with the usual cries of socialism and martial law.

Third, there is no “unleashing”, as stated above. An ankle bracelet is certainly not an unfettering. Related, according to data compiled by Media Matters, Obama’s ICE has been prioritizing deporting immigrants with prior convictions. They consist of up to 88% of deportations caught and detained while in the US (there are larger numbers along the borders).

As a matter of fact, most immigrant advocates point to the fact that deportations have actually risen dramatically during the Obama administration (a policy that this progressive believes needs to be reversed). So pushes like this from Euro-American nativists persuade the current administration and Homeland Security to continue their practices of separating families from each other and embolden White Supremacists in their attempts to harm and kill immigrants and their families.

Starnes, of course, is a Christian. But I wonder how he can quote a Bible verse every morning on his page and yet miss all the passages about welcoming strangers and immigrants. All the verses that command Christians to be hospitable to immigrants as if we’re welcoming angels unaware, or the ones admonishing us to treat prisoners well. On this issue, the Bible is much more to the left than the president could ever be.

———————————–

*These patently false myths made it easier to severe family members from each other while ‘selling’ husbands, wives and children as separate entities despite protests, begging, and cries to the contrary from the enslaved.

jasdye

When he’s not riding both his city’s public transit system and evil mayor, Jasdye teaches at a community college and writes about the intersection of equality and faith - with an occasional focus on Chicago - at the Left Cheek blog and on the Left Cheek: the Blog Facebook page. Check out more from Jasdye in his archives as well!

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Sandy Greer

    President Obama has deported more than any other president I can remember. So much so, that recently a 10-year old girl from California went to Rome, to see the Pope, prior to the presidential visit. She begged the Pope to intercede on her father’s behalf; he faces deportation.

    I can see both sides to the Immigration debate. Yes, they broke the law. But I could be driven to that, if I couldn’t feed my family (or myself)

    We have enough, we can afford to share. There is room to fit these people into our society. Doesn’t have to be an ‘us against them’. We are all sojourners on this Earth. Let us do our best to better EVERYONE, that we make this world a better place. There is Strength in Diversity, if we but see it so.

    Traditional argument by The Right is “illegal immigrants are undocumented Democrats”. It’s what they most fear – it’s not that they stand fast on the ‘law’ – they fear a new influx of Dem voters. But *I* look at those ‘traditional family values’ so valued by Latinos (mostly Catholic) and I wonder.

    Too, if The Right didn’t take such pride in a mean-spirited begrudging of any/everybody with ‘less’ than them (seeing a hand up as a hand out, and every hand reaching into their pocket like it was their last dollar they got a death grip on) – they wouldn’t have to worry about losing ground to Lefties.

    • JosephCain

      My problem with “sharing” is the fact that our nation has worked constantly, done so much to try to make things right, to the point that we have this wealth. If we keep sharing said wealth, we will have no wealth for ourselves. They will continue to take, and take, and take, and when nothing is left, they will claim that it’s a shit pit and move on.

      What they could do is do what our forefathers did. Fight for it. Fight for their country, make it a decent place to live. They refuse to fight for their freedoms, and instead they want our freedoms. Those who won’t fight for their freedoms don’t deserve them. These are the messages we relay to our citizens, what we hold in our hearts, and what we expect of others.

      • Sandy Greer

        Hm. Seems like you think there is ‘finite’ wealth in this world, to be clung to, and guarded fiercely. That’s not the case. Wealth begets wealth – like an avalanche, it builds. A rising tide lifts all boats.

        By the Laws of Attraction: We get what we give. In spades.

        Did you fight for your freedom? Or was it handed to you, an accident of birth, as was mine? Don’t take credit for what your forebears did – if they were even here during the Revolution.

        Karma. God. Whatever there is, we must know we did our best.

      • If all those other countries would only work hard by exploiting the poor and enslaving like the good ol’ US of A!

        If only they would export their drug empires overseas like we do! If only they were as courageous as us to have their internal intelligence agencies stage proxy wars and install dummy dictators like we did in the name of democracy and capitalism.

        Goooo MURIKA!!!

      • Phil Keast

        OK, I’m about to make myself very unpopular.

        It is only recently that America has fought a war of their own since the Civil War. In the intervening years every war the USA has come late to the party.

        Woodrow Wilson was elected to his second term on the basis of keeping the USA out of the First World War when non-interventionist sentiment was strong. The USA only entered the war when the German submarines began unrestricted commerce raiding against US registered ships and tried to enlist Mexico into attacking the USA.

        During the Second World War, the War in the Pacific had been underway for years involving Japan, China, Australia, Borneo, Indonesia, and other pacific nations until the atrocity of Pearl Harbour overcame the again prevalent anti-interventionist sentiment. Likewise, the USA entered the European theatre of the Second World War years after Germany invaded Poland when the Atlantic shipping of the US came under attack by German U-boats, finally honoring their treaty obligations with their European Allies.

        The Korean War was fought on behalf of South Korea. Allied nations fought beside the troops of the USA from day one.

        The Vietnam War was fought on behalf of South Vietnam. Again, allied troops fought beside troops from the USA from day one.

        The First Iran War was fought on behalf of Kuwait and American Oil companies. Again, their allies fought beside them from day one.

        The Second Iran War and the War in Afghanistan were initiated as a response to the totally justified shock and anger resulting from the abominable attack of 9/11 (and because daddy didn’t manage to kick Saddam’s arse the first time around). It is worth noting that the allies of the USA didn’t hesitate to unconditionally go to war at the side of the USA. [Russia and France have no allies, only markets for their weapon manufacturers, hence their obstructionism in the UN.]

        I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone, but one gets very tired of hearing how the USA has single handedly saved the world for freedom and democracy, and won every war during the 20th century.

        America’s freedoms lie not in the wars you have fought, but in the international recognition of the assistance the USA has provided in other peoples wars.

  • Eddie Krebbs

    What about that little phrase of bearing false witness ? The way the Ten Commandments are featured seems to indicate that they are central to both the Christian and Jewish faiths.

    Count the instances from representing himself as a moderate immigration group to missing that Obama has deported more illegal aliens than previous press. Or that Latinos in the USA don’t hold family values (when many are here strictly to work hard under oppressive conditions so they can send some money home. Or that Latinos are very often social conservatives). etc. etc. etc.

  • Eddie Krebbs

    On a pragmatic note: combining this article with ForwardProgressives Article today on the Bush/Jindall reform of the repub party: This sounds like a surefire winner to get those non-WASP votes you say you want.

  • Phil Keast

    The language, and its implications reputedly used by the Right Wing Lunatics is disgusting, however there are a couple of points I wish to make (down under we are having an ongoing debate on refugees, but fortunately with less vehement rhetoric).
    Firstly, it is not illegal to be human, that is nonsensical.
    Secondly it is not illegal to be a refugee (as defined by international treaties and UN resolutions, which incidentally relate almost entirely to those individuals fleeing persecution [such as incarceration or death] in the country of their origins], however once they are no longer in danger (ie: they have reached a “safe haven” where they are no longer at risk of persecution they are no longer refugees in the intent of those same resolutions, and continuing to travel to other countries in search of a better life makes them economic refugees).
    And finally, however their is the legitimate use of the term illegal. All sovereign states have the right to enact and enforce laws regarding the passage of persons or goods across their borders. Crossing those borders in a manner that breaches those laws is illegal.
    There is no such thing as an illegal refugee, but there is such a thing as an illegal immigrant. How such illegal immigrants are treated can tell you much about the character of a nation, but acknowledging that they have entered the country in a manner not in accordance with that country’s immigration laws is not the debate anyone should be having.

    • strayaway

      Human being are not illegal. However, “illegal aliens” is a legal term. US residents come in two varieties, citizens and aliens. Aliens, in turn, are either legal or illegal. I would add that Congress is delegated the exclusive power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” not the UN.

      • Phil Keast

        that’s pretty much what I said, the only substantive difference being that you are specifically referring to USA law, whle I am referring to international law and UN resolutions, since, believe it or not, there are counties in the world other than the USA where these issues are also important. BTW: it is the United States of America, please don’t abbreviate it to just the US, because that implies either a US versus the rest of the world attitude, or some superiority complex where the USA is so important that they don’t need to introduce themselves, Both attitudes are offensive to those of us who don’t live in the USA

      • strayaway

        I don’t think we were that much in disagreement. I was attempting to compliment rather than disagree with your comments. I will keep using US as shorthand but thank you for your perspective. While I regard the UN as a great place to air differences, work things out, and effect a measure of charity, the US Constitution, rather than the UN is what I recognize as my basis of law.

      • Sandy Greer

        I see your point about US. But here, we say US with no superiority, especially to those in the lucky country. We guiltily call ourselves Americans, ever conscious there is a North, South, and Central America.

        This seppo shiela appreciates what a bloke from Oz did – taking over with a ‘philosopher’ – when I’d come a gutser and lost my patience. I was stoked to see his kangaroos loose, and you – corker – beyond measure. It’s deadest, you have no match. Thanks, cobber!

        How’s my Aussie strine? ;D

      • Phil Keast

        Your strine isn’t too bad, needs a little work, but so does my American-English (there I go doing it, ignoring Quebecois, New Orlean’s patios, Mexican/Central American Latino, etc.). The important thing is that language exists to facilitate communication, and communication is successful when all involved understand the message of the others. So I’d say, whether it be strine or otherwise, we’ve both managed to get our message across successfully.

        And honestly, I’m not actually that sensitive about the US vs USA business, it is obvious in context what is meant, I merely pointed it out because I thought it might provide a slightly different perspective on these discussions.

        As for our anarchist friend mister reece, people like that are just too tempting not to play with. Having read that of course he will break his self-imposed silence to object strenuously, pointing out that he ceased replying to me because I was not worth attempting to educate in is unique perspective on how the world revolves around him. However, in so reacting, he proves that he is insecure in the validity of his own beliefs, having a constant need to repeat and redefine them despite being the subject of almost universal amazement at his arrogance. (Hook baited, line in the water, bourbon and coke in hand, come in little fishy).

      • Sandy Greer

        You are so funny! You’ve a wicked, clever, sense of humor that’s a delicious little secret – to be savored, long after the meal is over, and the guests have gone home.

        I see you’re new here. Welcome to Forward Progressives. I hope to see more of you.

        Noticed the new avatar. It fits your sense of humor. Though I really liked the old one – like a Phoenix Rising, it was. I once wrote a poem called Phoenix Rising. Wasn’t very good, but your (old) avatar called it to mind.

        Oh. And, I suspect he’s a Dominant; needs to dominate. That’s what set off my Creep Alert.

      • Sandy Greer

        Alien is inflammatory; conjures up images of the ‘other’.

        I realize some don’t line ‘immigrant’ because it assumes they’ll be staying.

      • strayaway

        If ‘alien’ is inflammatory, so is e.g. ‘robber’. May i suggest that henceforth ‘bank robbers’ be referred to as ‘non-passbook borrowers’. After all, why should their children suffer a loss of status just because their daddies are non-passbook borrowers.

        ‘Alien’ is a succinct legal term for US residents who are not citizens. ‘Non-citizen’ is the only synonym I can think of for ‘alien’. Of course it conjures ‘other’ with respect to citizenship. ‘Alien’ has a legal and an illegal category. The illegal alien category includes any of the planet’s 7B inhabitants who chose to come here as immigrants without documentation, people who come to temporarily earn some money here without a permit, and most of Mohammed Atta’s crew members. As you noted, ‘immigrant’ assumes they’ll be staying whatever their intent. Unlike, citizen or alien, “immigrant” fails to reference legal status. ‘Immigrant’ has been used by the PC crowd as a fuzzy Newspeak term to cloud thinking regarding amnesty.

      • Sandy Greer

        >’Immigrant’ has been used by the PC crowd as a fuzzy Newspeak term to cloud thinking

        Agreed. See? There are still things we can agree on, strayaway. 😉

        And ‘alien’ has been used by RWNJs to shut down the convo: Aliens are strange beings from other planets; we’re afraid of them; unsure they’re ‘friendlies’. We don’t want them here.

        PC denotes scorn and contempt. As does RWNJs. See how important language is?

        Phil is right: Language exists to facilitate communication. If we wish to have an ‘honest’ conversation, we should speak in a welcoming – rather than antagonistic – manner.

        ^^^IF that is our goal, of course.

      • strayaway

        I’m more interested in language being succinct. If extraterrestrial aliens show up, I’m fine with having them here as legal aliens as diplomats, guest workers, students. or whatever but I don’t want them here as illegal alien invaders; economic or otherwise. PC does indicate scorn and contempt on my part. I do not intend to welcome either illegal aliens or non-passbook borrowers. However, I would prefer that punishment be dealt out to cheating employers who profit by hiring illegal aliens. If those employers were severely dealt with, I think they would be hiring unemployed Americans instead and a large percentage of illegal aliens would find their own way out to reunite themselves with their families.

      • Sandy Greer

        We agree on employers.

        My point is this: If we turn each other away with antagonistic language – if I tell you to STFU and you me (I know neither of us is prone to that, but just saying) – and if we do that often enough:

        Who will be left to talk with us?

      • strayaway

        Hey, I knew what STFU meant without looking it up. You are beating me in that acronym department. Sooner or later, I will come up with one too.

      • Phil Keast

        Hmmm, late to this debate, but I’ll toss my hat in the ring.

        alien [eyl-yuhn, ey-lee-uhn]
        noun
        1.a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization (distinguished from citizen ).
        2.a foreigner.
        3.a person who has been estranged or excluded.
        4.a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.

        adjective
        5.residing under a government or in a country other than that of one’s birth without having or obtaining the status of citizenship there.
        6.belonging or relating to aliens: alien property.
        7.unlike one’s own; strange; not belonging to one
        8.adverse; hostile; opposed (usually followed by to or from ): ideas alien to modern thinking.
        9.extraterrestrial.

        Clearly definitions 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are the definitions applied by the USA laws, and while they are clearly accepted by dictionaries, I find them somewhat distasteful. Actually, technically, all prisoners are aliens according to definition 3, as is anyone who has been discriminated against. They are legalistic definitions, rather than derived from, and evolving from, the linguistic sources of our (common) English language.

        Definitions 7 and 8 though are down right insulting. We are a single human race, and to suggest that because one is not like one’s self, they are inherently hostile, is to diminish our shared humanity. So long as we treat those who originate from outside the borders of the speaker’s nation as strange, dangerous creatures we have nothing in common with, bigotry and prejudice have free reign to preach their hatred, and their rhetoric is supported by the wording of legalistic definitions of their words of hate.

      • strayaway

        Alien is the legal word for non-citizen. Period. It is neither good nor bad. US legal alien status is coveted by would be immigrants from all over the world. Only in the minds of people who want to promote Newspeak to route out thoughtcrimes is the legal term ‘alien’ objectionable. It is difficult to think thoughts without a precise vocabulary. Were most of Mohammed Atta’s crew ‘illegal aliens’ or ‘immigrants’? Would they have felt better if you called them immigrants?

        I.R.S. definition of alien: “An individual who is not a U.S. citizen or U.S. national.”

        Cornell Law defines alien: “For purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), any person who is not a citizen or a national of the United States. There are different categories of aliens: resident and nonresident, immigrant and nonimmigrant, asylee and refugee, documented and undocumented (“illegal”).”

      • Phil Keast

        Again, you provide the legalistic definition, which I acknowledge as entirely legitimate.

        But it is not political correctness or an unwillingness to recognize the reality of non-citizens of foreign origin that is the source of my unwillingness to embrace that terminology.

        Alien derives from the latin word for “other”, and when we start defining people, individually or collectively as “other”, we are on the road to racism, prejudice, and, inevitably, conflict. Some of us, and not just “bleeding heart liberals” don’t want to see the world, or any part of it, go down that road (again).

      • strayaway

        Alien has always been used to legally define non-citizens. Congress has acknowledged the need of and terms of legally allowing aliens to stay here for a variety of reasons. So far, I don’t think that terminology has discouraged people coming here for a variety of reasons. There are legal pathways to citizenship or visiting for those who want it. Who exactly is outraged about foreign visitors, students, spouses, or temporary IT workers?

        If we travelled to Russia or Mexico, we would be the “other” and rightly so. Why shouldn’t the governments of foreign countries be concerned if we showed up to take jobs, student slots, government benefits, etc. at the expense of their people without permission? I assume that the governments of other countries represent the interests of their own people and not because of racism or prejudice.

      • Phil Keast

        Nazi Germany
        USSR
        Apartheid South Africa
        North Korea
        Pre-World War 2 Japan
        Iran
        Iraq
        Palestine
        Israel
        Osama bin Laden’s fundamentalist supporters.

        They all had/have a very strong sense of us and other. Other is different, strange, frightening, dangerous to the way of life of us, so to defend ourselves from other, there is no action that is unacceptable.

        Confiscation of property
        Revocation of citizenship
        Forced relocation
        People disappearing from their homes never to be seen again
        Incarceration without due process.
        Lynch mobs and public executions
        Labour camps
        Death camps
        Missile strikes against civilian targets
        Military counter-strikes strikes against civilian areas long after the individual that provoked the attack has left the area.
        Flying planes into buildings.

        In the minds of those who classify the world as us and other, all of these thing are natural and justified. Nothing, no matter how abominable, is unacceptable, when defending us from other.

        That is why I object to the dehumanization of peoples of foreign nationality by calling them aliens.

      • strayaway

        The US very much tightened immigration requirements for legal aliens from Nazi Germany and the USSR when we were at adds with those countries. Its called common sense. Although most Germans and Soviet citizens were probably nice people, our government was more concerned about a destructive minority that could come in with all the nice people. had our government instead maintained a similar defensive stance against ‘others’, perhaps we could have avoided 9/11, then Fort Hood, then the Tsarnaev brothers. Instead, George Bush authorized admitting an additional 15,000 Saudi (male) students after 9/11.

        Meanwhile, we have millions of unemployed Americans and our government allows in 9M employed illegal aliens and US students are discouraged from majoring in CS because companies can haul in planeloads of legal aliens who will work for a lower salary.

        I don’t know whose side you are on as you don’t want to differentiate between Americans and everyone else. I am reminded of the extinction of dodo birds who weren’t able to discern danger. My loyalties are with defending this country militarily and economically supporting US workers against others. Step 1 includes a working vocabulary to enable thoughts.

      • Phil Keast

        I am on the side of those who would extinguish all disenfranchisement and dehumanization of anyone, by anyone, regardless of how well meaning or justified their perceived grievances are. Because it is tribalism that will destroy us, it is the failure to aspire to a unified humanity by addressing and overcoming our differences, it is the partitioning of people into categories (us, them, good, bad, agrees with me, is barking mad, etc.) that will lead humanity down the path of the dodo, and it will be self-inflicted.

        It is easier to lump individuals into cohorts of people (Muslims, Saudis, Latinos, Republicans, Democrats, “aliens”) that can all be treated the same, rather than treating each individual as a special case to evaluated on its own merits. Until we start to do so, rather than the intellectual (and bureaucratic) laziness of social carpet bombing, conflict will never end.

        Putin is determined to recreate the USSR under a new name, annexing and absorbing its neighbors, with himself as the new Stalin, but with better media relations as he builds his personality cult.

        North Korea is preparing for a war that exists only in the mind of its tin-pot dictatorial leader.

        Palestine and Israel are engaged in both a military and propaganda war to eliminate each other, polarizing opinion around the world.

        China is following a policy they have embraced for thousands of years of incorporating the foreign and making it Chinese (albeit, so far at least, they are using economic means to achieve that goal).

        Fundamentalists of all religions are inflaming their followers to oppose, denigrate, and destroy those of other faiths.

        Look around, the refusal to embrace our common humanity has placed us on a powder-keg, and it won’t take much to set it off. And it won’t be nuclear, our latest weapon technology makes nuclear weapons obsolete, as precision strikes and target identification create more social and political instability than wiping out an entire city ever could. And no matter who starts it, or how it starts, its not going to be much comfort to be a survivor standing in a post-apocalyptic wasteland saying but we were right.

  • Grazel

    So what happens when Lot tries to relocate from Israel and is denied? Does our country get burned to the ground like Sodom & Gamorrah because these “Christians” are practicing a similar level and type of inhospitality and violence towards visitors that caused those biblical cities to be destroyed.

    • JosephCain

      I think that only would happen if we tried to seal the entire nation off from visitors. That’s the entire point. Thing is, we fully welcome outsiders, but they’re not allowed to just become citizens. They have to learn our language, our customs, our history to become a citizen. Or are you going to say that Canada’s going to burn to the ground too because people are trying to leave the US to get Canadian Health Care?

      Not to mention the headache and the strain this would put on systems like Social Security. The systems are in place for a reason you know. We’d need said alien’s actual birth records and information, which is used by pretty much everything in our society now. We’d have this massive influx of checking backgrounds and papers, trying to get benefits out to them that they could qualify for… the list goes on.

      It’s not as simply as opening the gates and saying come on in.