Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
A Washington State Reader Wonders If Gingrich’s “Immigration Juries” Would Be Packed With Immigrants
[Previous Letter: A Texas Reader Is Disappointed In Rep. Jason Chaffetz]
From: Brian Riordan (e-mail him)
William F. Buckley wrote: "Following Mrs. Roosevelt in search of an irrationality was like following a lighted fuse in search of an explosion. One never had to wait long." In spite of his flaws , Buckley sometimes got it right. Now just substitute Newt Gingrich for Mrs. Roosevelt. Gingrich's amnesty scheme for illegals who have been able to get away with it long enough was bad enough. But Gingrich now wants "neighborhood boards" to decide who gets to stay and who gets deported because he says he trusts juries more than bureaucrats. [Gingrich: Let Neighborhood Boards Deal with Illegals, By Amy Woods, Newsmax.com, December 4, 2011]
It is strange indeed that Gingrich, a former history professor, apparently doesn't understand that one of the most important differences between our country and corrupt Third World countries is that here we are supposed to have an objective rule of law, whereas people in third world hellholes are subject to the arbitrary decisions of men. Lest anyone imagine that juries are objective, just remember how the jury in the O. J. Simpson Case sided with someone of their own race in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt.
Take a moment to consider how these neighborhood kangaroo courts would work —obviously Gingrich hasn't. In a Muslim neighborhood, who is the neighborhood going to choose to stay and who will they deport—the local Imam who preaches Jihad or the Egyptian Christian? In a black neighborhood, who gets the boot—the Somali or the hated Asian shopkeeper? And do we really believe a Hispanic neighborhood would deport the powerful and terrifying Mexican gangster instead of the blue-eyed gringo from Ireland or Europe? This latest example of Gingrich's foolishness would just further our slide into the corrupt third world.
Newt Gingrich has an endless stream of ideas. But while wild and crazy ideas can be interesting in a mad poet or deranged painter, Gingrich wants to be president—not court jester. The most remarkable thing about Gingrich is how he could possibly reach his present age and accumulate so much political experience without gaining the tiniest bit of wisdom or common sense. Gingrich admits he is like a 4-year-old in pursuit of a cookie—obviously his ideas are like cookies to him—he loves the taste no matter how unhealthy they are. Now it is up to the adults to prevent Gingrich from making our country his playpen.
See previous letters from Brian Riordan, most recently A Washington State Reader Says We Need To Kick Gingrich With A Bigger Boot.
“A fascinating feature of Swiss naturalization policy is that localities can veto applicants for citizenship. For example, the voters of Emmen recently approved the naturalization of eight Italian immigrants, while rejecting 48 other applicants, almost all of them Bosnians. This exercise in democracy caused syndicated columnist Raoul Lowery Contreras to cry out in anguish, "What kind of society would we have in the United States if each individual city in it could decide who was an American citizen? We would have a society like Switzerland." The Horror! The Horror!”
Contreras’s column is still online—it’s called The Rise Of Unamerican Know-Nothings. [CalNews.com, March 23, 2000] Contreras’s view is that you’re not supposed to have a choice about what immigrants settle in your district, they’re supposed to be imposed on you by the Federal Government. (Like the students at your local school, your neighbors, your coworkers, and the man next to you at the lunchcounter.)
Of course, since he doen’t believe that the Federal government should stop illegals from crossing the border, this means that it’s actually the Mexican federal government that’s imposing these immigrants on you. I believe Raoul is OK with that.
However, Riordan has an important point—the jury system works better in a homogeneous community, where we’re judging each other, than it does in a multicultural community, where we’re judging them and they’re judging us.