- The Washington Times - Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Here we go again. Nancy Lyall, legal coordinator of the Woodbridge Workers Committee, says a measure in the Virginia General Assembly that aims to turn off the money spigot to illegal aliens is indicative of the racism and bigotry that lurks in the outer suburbs.

Hers is a reflexive reaction intended to disarm those who object to the awarding of taxpayer money to illegal aliens. This begs the question: Which part of the word “illegal” eludes the intellectual grasp of Miss Lyall and others in her camp? “That’s not based on what’s good for Virginia taxpayers, but truly based on a movement to try to take out people of color from the various communities,” she says.

If America has evolved to the point of rewarding bad behavior — so long as the perpetrators meet a diversity requirement — then we need to rethink our urge to act punitively with all lawbreakers.

How would Miss Lyall respond if, say, a person of Asian descent broke into her home and raided her refrigerator out of hunger? Would she proceed to cook the person a three-course meal? Or would she call police? And however she would react to a hungry Asian person, would Miss Lyall treat a hungry white person the same? Now, I know what you are thinking. You are thinking the hungry Asian person who breaks into a home is an absurd comparison to the illegal alien who has broken into our country.

And perhaps you are correct. Perhaps the analogy is weak at best.

But when a group begins trafficking in the ridiculous — support your local illegal aliens because of their capacity to make a community diverse — finding a like-minded comparison demands a sense of the ludicrous.

Not too many years ago, the notion of an illegal-alien movement would have been laughable. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and being able to cherry-pick which laws to follow is not supposed to be part of the process.

If so, each American undoubtedly could find a law to flaunt. Skipping the dreaded April 15 tax deadline probably would be high on the list of many Americans.

There are plenty of recent arrivals who go about immigration in a legal fashion. It is time-consuming, it is costly and sometimes it seems a grand exercise in hypocrisy, with so many millions illegally here.

What would Miss Lyall say to those from Africa, Eastern Europe, India and the Middle East obligated to fill out small mountains of paperwork? Not that the complexities of our broken immigration system are Miss Lyall’s problem. That is the domain of the jellyfish dressed up as lawmakers on the federal level.

Miss Lyall merely has taken up the cause of the day laborers in Woodbridge, and her ilk can be found in other suburban communities attracting a sizable contingent of illegal aliens.

This is not an issue of race, class and culture. It is an issue of fairness and how we the people want our tax money spent. Our tax money already is being spent to educate and provide health care to illegal aliens. No one should find it surprising if this rankles a good percentage of the electorate.

We all know what would happen if we illegally entered Mexico, El Salvador or Guatemala, to cite a few of our good friends south of the border. Before we had time to demand a driver’s license or a public space to congregate, our friends in uniforms would be escorting us to the nearest pokey. A call to grant us our human rights would produce spasms of laughter.

Here, though, we actually debate such ideas.

Or at least we attempt to debate, amid charges of bigotry and racism.

Sad as it possibly is for those who pray at the altar of diversity, the latter two instruments are becoming dull from overuse.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide