Unethical Quote Of The Month: Rep. John Lewis


“We are all connected. We can’t just build a wall or a fence and say no more. This is America. Our doors are open. #AskDems”

Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), in a tweet that is part of a concerted Democratic effort to announce to the world that U.S. immigration laws will not be enforced.

“The doors are open.”

“The doors are open”???

How can any sensible, honest, objective American read this, from a leader of the Democratic Party, and not be appalled? This is an assertion of open borders, in defiance of U.S. sovereignty. This is an abdication of the rule of law. Go to twitter and search for #AskDems: Lewis’s tweet is the worst, but many of the Democratic leadership are making similar, and similarly irresponsible statements that undermine the effort to stop illegals, including the current torrent of illegal children, from streaming across the border.

Are open borders truly the official policy and objective of the Democratic Party—which would mean that it has disqualified itself for leadership— or is this just posturing for political appeal to, well, illegals and idiots? If it is the latter, it is shockingly reckless and irresponsible. If it is the former, it is insane, or treasonously unethical. The United States cannot afford to make a general call to all immigrants, poor, uneducated, unskilled and criminal alike, and promise them benefits and a route to citizenship. No nation can. Is it possible, is it really possible, that Lewis and his colleagues are willing to seek this suicidal result so that they can exploit the demographic advantage to achieve permanent political power? Who would want to govern the culturally broken, chaotic, bankrupt and divided nation that such a policy would produce?

And I have to ask again: what kind of citizen supports a political party, whatever its other virtues, that could advocate such a policy?

I understand why the pro-business interests are calling for lenient illegal immigration policies: they are greedy, and want more cheap labor to exploit and to keep wages and prices down. I don’t expect them to care about the damage such a policy will do to the nation. They should care, but we know, do we not, that they care about profits so much more. At least that is a rational, if despicable and venal, position. I don’t understand the Democrats. This shouldn’t be a progressive or a conservative issue if the progressives and conservatives are adults and fully possessed of rational minds.

Should the House Republican pass an immigration reform bill? Absolutely–but how can they, indeed, how can anyone trust the Democrats, and their President, to enforce any of it when they are making statements like Lewis’s outrageous “open door” tweet? Listen to Nancy Pelosi’s jaw dropping speech at the border…

An opportunity? An opportunity to do what, send the message that the U.S. will take in any illegal immigrant as long as he or see hasn’t stopped growing? Refugees? Refugees from what—want? Poverty? Unrest? Lousy governments? It isn’t possible that Pelosi doesn’t know how broad her party’s invitation is, or how crippling it will be to the nation, its sovereignty and the rule of law. Is it? Could the leader of the House Democrats be that stupid? Or is she just willing to do anything to cater to her increasingly unhinged “base”? Either conclusion is terrifying.

And yes: a responsible, competent leader of either party would be obligated to put a stop to such statements. If I were a Democratic President, I would be ashamed of such rank recklessness at such a time as this, and say so.  It is obvious, or should be.

“The doors are open.”




38 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Rep. John Lewis

  1. Would it be ethical to send all border-crashers to Rep. Lewis’ district? We grant all of them citizenship on the grounds that they never leave it. We then build a wall around that (to keep them honest) and he can be a congressman in perpetuity. Win-win?

  2. I also love the way they say the “can’t” build a fence or a wall. Try again, he should say: WON’T build a fence or a wall.

    • We don’t need to build a fence or wall.

      We need to turn off the magnet.

      Reduce the flood to a trickle and the resources we currently have will be enough to control the border.

      • Well, sure if you yank all their welfare benefits AND crack down on their employers… there would be a mad rush in the other direction.

        Thing is, I don’t see those things happening unless we have civil war 2.0 or similar.

  3. Why is a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants a prerequisite to immigration reform. We have a pathway to citizenship for those that follow the existing immigration protocols. If obtaining citizenship was reserved ONLY for those that went through the legal immigration process then we would not see politicians make such absurd statements.

    Here is my plan: Those 11-20 million people that immigrated to the U.S. and are here illegally have 30 days to register with the INS to obtain a permanent registration status card; complete with your photo and fingerprint. That registration would allow you to work and live in the US without fear of deportation. It does however bar you from ever receiving any form of public assistance or achieving citizenship while in the U.S.. You can earn your eligibility to apply for citizenship back by proving that you have been out of the US for the 5 years immediately preceding your legal immigration application. Think of it as a permanent or long-term visa and not amnesty. There would be no fine, because the poorest could not afford the fine. For those with families outside the U.S. then they could apply to emigrate to the U.S. using the existing pathway to citizenship.

    Any undocumented aliens found picked up by ICE, INS, or any police department after the one time registration period would be immediately sent back to his/her home country. This will prevent any more using this one time offer. We will deduct the costs of such deportations against any foreign aid that country might be receiving.

    This would help the current population of illegal immigrants come out of the shadows so they do not fear the police or government, allowing them fight against those that wish to exploit or hurt them; it eliminates the political posturing for these potential votes because it effectively eliminates the wedge issue – what politician will encourage illegal immigration if there is no way to ever get citizenship because they broke the law; and, it more accurately counts the number of people living in a given area because if they move they have to register their new address – we require this of people (citizens)on parole.

    I believe that it is unethical to intentionally divide population segments and pit them against each other for political ambition and gain. I also believe that the rules of the game should not be changed midstream in such a way that benefits those that did not follow the rules over those that did.

    It would be impractical and inhumane to do a mass roundup of all those here illegally but we should not alter our entry rules because a millions of people (noncitizens) got in without our permission. If we get into the habit of changing our rules to suit the rule breakers why have rules in the first place?

  4. “Why is a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants a prerequisite to immigration reform. We have a pathway to citizenship for those that follow the existing immigration protocols.”

    Exactly! This is spitting in the faces of those who went through the proper channels, the paperwork, the waiting, the expense.

    • I don’t know if the feelings of those who did it properly is the consideration. The simple consideration is that our laws are broken and our laws are designed to maintain stability of our society.

      The consideration is that legalizing that many people that quickly is not good for stability or law and order. Chris above has a good compromise plan, but requires us to start believing in the free market again and stop providing hand outs.

      • Tex
        I appreciate your comments. I have not yet become so jaded that the government has obliterated the free market. The sticking point has been what to do with the 11-20 million that are here now. I tried to find a middle ground by eliminating the pull of citizenship and benefits for those who are already here as a consequence of the illegal behavior while avoiding a draconian sweep of people that might otherwise be contributing to our economy. Some of these people are paying into the system. Nonetheless, there is no reason for those paying into the system to gain the benefit of someday becoming a citizen faster by breaking the law.

        Those that are exploiting us to gain the social benefits would lose those benefits upon registration. If they don’t register and are later picked up by a governmental agency then they are immediately deported if they cannot prove they are U.S. citizens. Therein lies the tradeoff between registering and gaining a permanent visa or not registering and trying to claim benefits. We should also ask for proof of citizenship or legal status as a condition of getting benefits. This is no different than requiring an employer to process an I9 form for an employee. As our president likes to remind us, this is the twenty first century, so unless someone was born here more than 80 years ago there is a record of the birth.

        If giving citizenship to gain a political advantage is the end goal for either side they are not acting in the interest of the country and are subverting our laws for personal gain.

        • Your ideas are cogent and would go a long way toward solving the problem with the least amount of harm to people. We need to make sure no Republican gets wind of them.
          Can you think of a way to make them sound touchy feely progressive? A good touchy feely progressive could probably sneak a few of them into the liberal media where they might have a chance in hell to be “discovered” by Obama as he “evolves” on the issue.

        • Therein lies the tradeoff between registering and gaining a permanent visa or not registering and trying to claim benefits. We should also ask for proof of citizenship or legal status as a condition of getting benefits. This is no different than requiring an employer to process an I9 form for an employee.
          Last week I had to get a new FL driver’s license.
          Here is a list of the documentation I needed:

          Previous FL license
          Birth certificate
          SS card or 1099
          Two proofs of address, in my case it was an FP&L bill and
          Voter registration card
          Proof of why I changed my last name (marriage license)

          I had all of that with me (including the $54. fee), because the DMV sent me a post card two months ago informing me that I was going to need it.
          Also, my husband got the same treatment last September.

          Two American born citizens in good standing, taxpayers and so forth; this is what we need to provide to be allowed to drive in FL.

          So, I want to hear more about why these people cannot obtain ID.
          I also want to hear about voters who can’t possibly get ID.
          I want to hear it from somebody who can still say it with a straight face.

          • People who are housebound due to serious handicap and cannot get to the government office for a photo ID. Public transportation in the hinterland is sparse to nonexistent and housing would cost far more elsewhere and I just do not have it. I have been often frustrated because I AM a native citizen on my third career but these stricter rules to prevent immigration cheating have made me a virtual non-citizen. I’m not the cheat or illegal immigrant, but they probably have photo IDs or some kind.

            • Farmstead:
              While I am not housebound or handicapped, I too live in an area without public transportation. I can understand your frustration that you have limited or no means to obtain a government ID. However, the rationale that a very small group of people will be adversely affected to obtain documents so such a requirement should not be enacted is specious. There are numerous laws that adversely impact a small group for the benefit of the entire society. One very specific agency is the DoD. We fund them to provide collective protection while many in this country find the costs imposed upon them to be unfair because they do not support war.
              The cost to provide one time transportation assistance for those that request it would be far less than the on going costs of fraud. Communities could organize to help the homebound get out occasionally to conduct personal affairs. You should not feel that you are a third class or “non-citizen” as you described yourself nor should anyone think you are a cheat or illegal immigrant simply because you don’t have a photo ID.
              If the various political parties have the resources to get people registered and to the polls to vote, then our social service agencies can find resources to help get you an ID if you need one.
              I would like to point out that I am not suggesting that everyone must carry their “papers”; I just think that it is appropriate to mandate proof of citizenship or eligibility before taxpayer funded benefits are requested.

              • RE: Giving rides to the housebound. There is a volunteer organization in VT called “Community Connections” (may exist in other places as well) that gives rides to those that cannot drive themselves and have no immediate access to public transportation.

                In any case, folks there have no excuse to not get around as needed.

        • If giving citizenship to gain a political advantage is the end goal for either side they are not acting in the interest of the country
          Ding, ding ding.
          We have a winner.

      • “I don’t know if the feelings of those who did it properly is the consideration. ”

        It’s one aspect, but not so much their feelings as the impression that’s being created that following the law is for chumps, that it’s easier, faster and often just as effective to get in illegally. I towed the line to get my permanent residence where I live, and I’d feel I’d been had if they started just giving out amnesty, considering what one has to go through.

  5. I don’t think we should be dithering about what to do about the people who are already here and allowing the complexity of that problem to stop us from doing anything.
    We can worry about that later.
    The pressing issue today is the thousands coming in right now.
    Stop it. Today.
    What’s that old saying, the first rule of getting out of a hole is to stop digging?

    • Think how much further ahead we’d be if we’d built the fence 6 years ago and stopped the flow rather than wringing our hands and creating incentives. “But, it would take years to build a fence!” They said. Well, the years have passed and we have this crisis and still no fence. Same with all the oil wells that we could have been drilling and the refineries we could have been putting on line.
      I actually want to pull my hair out sometimes.

    • Finley,
      I agree. One of the reasons that I stated that there would be a very narrow window of time for registering was to close the opportunity for others to avail themselves of the one-time permanent visa opportunity. Such a program could not be offered on an ongoing basis if the goal is to remove the pull incentive. I offered my suggestion as a means to counter the prevailing arguments from both sides that fixate on the existing illegal population.

  6. Emma Lazarus wrote: “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

    Ethics don’t change over time. Was her famous poem unethical, or merely impolitic? In 1883, it was arguably neither. It was a mantra for America.

    This really is about politics, and I would respectfully submit that neither side is on the side of the angels. And frankly, religious conservatives are every bit as much to blame as liberals. In 1950, Mexico had a population of 28 million; today, they have 120 million, and 30-40 million of their descendants live within our borders. Anyone remember Zero Population Growth, and how religious conservatives fought birth control tooth and nail? How attempts to export family planning to other countries were doggedly opposed?

    History may not repeat itself, but it has an annoying habit of rhyming. The Arabs of Palestine couldn’t stop Zionist Jews from invading, and the end result was Israel. America is on its way to becoming a Spanish-speaking country, thanks to NAFTA and explosive population growth. Actions have consequences. Welcome to the future you bequeathed unto us, religious conservatives.

    • Wait… did you really just lay the immigration crisis at the feet of religious conservatives?

      Fish in a Barrel.

      1) Emma Lazarus’s poem wasn’t even a statement of national immigration policy, merely a lovely statement of the sentiment that immigrants may have felt in their quest to get to America.

      2) You need to do a bit more meditation on the line “…yearning to breathe free.” It undoes your entire argument as “yearning to be breathe free” doesn’t mean “yearning to capitalize on handouts generated by irresponsible domestic policy which arguably lead to dependence and subservience to the government in decided opposition to the ability to be truly free” but more accurately means “yearning to find a place where you can carve out your livelihood facing no political opposition to your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

      3) The Mexican population growth is actually quite expected to look exactly like that given its economic history + proximity to the United States. As it is, where Mexico stands now, if every other developing nation is a clue, its population will begin to level off. Families will become smaller as cost of living increases.

      4) A crisis of the late 21st Century will actually be the need for CHEAP UNSKILLED labor. Traditionally European populations will dwindle as maintaining and educating families will continue to increase in cost while materialism continues to increase personal expectations of life. As the current Middle Eastern and Northern African post-WW2, post-oil development population boom (which is partially responsible for the unrest we see today) begins to subside, Europe will be in desperate *economic* need for immigrants right when its native populations will begin refusing their entry. That will lead to an interesting head.

      5) Mexico probably will not see its population level off until after the effect hits the Middle East and will become the world’s leading labor “exporter” – THIS IS NOT A BAD THING – they will stop flooding America and may very well lead to a Mexican diaspora abroad.

      6) It is only a bad thing as long as a nation doesn’t aggressively assimilate newcomers, which presents a unique challenge to the United States – more on this later.

      7) In no way can Mexico’s completely natural population growth – the timing of which is a result of its unique position on the globe and natural chronological expectations – which were mirrored in the US just a generation or two before – be blamed on “religious conservatives” opposing “zero population growth”. Economic considerations (such as need for more children and cost of those children) coupled with medical advancements almost always define population charts. Ever wonder why the Greatest Generation seemed to come from families of 6 or more children? They were born to parents who came from an agricultural mindset that NEEDED many children inside the expectation that many of them wouldn’t survive infancy, yet were born right when medical advancements nearly eliminated infant mortality. They became child-bearers right when children became expensive – material and education, so they all almost had 2 or less kids.

      The same thing will happen to Mexico in a generation or two.

      8) That 120 million Mexicans WILL NOT turn 320 million Americans into a Spanish-speaking country. Certainly huge swathes of it will be bilingual. So? As long as we are mature enough to realize the need for an OFFICIAL language, who cares if individual market behavior occurs on a bilingual basis in some instances.

      9) back to #6. The reason we have to touch Mexican immigration very carefully is because immigrants from nearly everywhere else are completely and utterly cut off from the originating culture. They are compelled to “become American”. Mexicans are not – they can readily, and often do, return home periodically. They don’t need to abandon their home loyalties. This is a strategic threat. This is why assimilation of our Mexican arrivals is of paramount importance, they must be made American far more aggressively than other arrivals – lest some day their loyalties lead to insurrection, which gets us to:

      10) The great competition (in broad generalities) of the Colonial era, as it is an offshoot of Renaissance European competitions, between the English & northern Europeans and the Spanish & southern Europeans would be who controls the North American heartland – even though when colonization started they did not know this. This heartland – the extremely navigable river network of the Missippi – Missouri – Ohio systems + the extremely fertile argicultural region stretching from Minnesota to Texas and the Appalachians to the Rockies – is the key to cultural domination of North America. Whoever’s population occupies it, will be the de-facto hegemon of North America.

      11) This competition really began flaring up as the population centers of the “Northern European” culture expanded West across the Appalachians, and population centers of the “Southern European” culture expanded north across the Chihuahuan desert and the two began to interact in the zone between Texas and Louisiana in the early 1800s.

      12) The Texas Revolution was all a brief chapter in this competition for the Heartland – Houston’s victory over the overextended Mexican population all but sealed the deal.

      13) The deal was sealed in 1848 militarily and politically. Yet the demographic component was only stalled.

      14) As it is, although politically speaking, California (southern), Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas (southern) are American States and Sonora, Chihuaha, Coahuila, and Tamaulipas are Mexican States…culturally speaking we are *easily exchangeable* borderlands and buffer zones between the Core of the USA and the Core of Mexico (the central region from Veracruz to Mexico City).

      15) If the Mexican population in the USA were to agitate back to Mexico – because the European cultural competition which began in the 1500s hasn’t been finished yet. Then we may have need to worry, but likely only about the buffer zones. And if we do lose that phase of the cultural competition when the time comes, we won’t lose the Heartland and that is what is important.

      16) This competition and its results have little to nothing to with “religious conservatives” and everything to do with Economics, Medical advancement, and Geopolitical imperatives.

      • On #8: When I hear Leftists bitch and moan about uncultured American swine and our inability to speak other languages and then I hear Bouldergeist bitch that we might need to speak another language, I’m flabbergasted.

        We don’t need to speak multiple languages in practice because I can travel 6-10 hours in any direction and still find English speakers. Europeans HAVE to speak multiple languages because you travel 3-4 hours in any direction and you may switch languages 2-4 times! Given a Europe with 1 language and I promise their zeal for “language knowledge” would reduce to the same as ours.

        On the latter paragraphs:
        This is why the Democrat approach to “multiculturalism” and its immediate descendent – the divide and oppose method of politics – is so dangerous to the United States. Were a rising Mexican culture to begin agitating for reunification with Mexico City, a divided American population could do scant little about it.

  7. Just think. If Mr. Lewis had just spoken his unethical statement instead of Tweeting it, this whole situation could have been avoided. God only knows what he says, and thank God they only trot him out once a year during the MLK holiday to regale us all of his exploits during the civil rights movement. I ran into him once Christmas shopping in Atlanta. I introduced myself, and apropos of nothing he goes into some story about Dr. King. I just stood there and shook my head in agreement each time he said Dr. King, which was nearly every sixth word. To this day I have no idea what the man said. I think he would be mute if her didn’t have the two words Dr. and King to call upon.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.