White Privilege and Illegal Immigration

White privilege is a crime, according to Leftists. Consequently, young people are drilled into believing that they are criminal because of their melanin levels.  On the “Teaching Tolerance” site, students are told by author Cory Collins that they "can imagine [white privilege]  as something of a whiteness water cycle, wherein racism is the rain. That rain populates the earth, giving some areas more access to life and resources than others. The evaporation is white privilege -- an invisible phenomenon that is both a result of the rain and the reason it keeps going."

But if white privilege is so awful, wouldn't it be hypocritical to come to a country that is predominantly white and then partake of the wealth and power that white privilege provides?  After all, benefiting from an evil system does not seem ethical.  And leftists always claim the moral high ground -- don't they? 

Collins explains that "Francis E. Kendall, author of Diversity in the Classroom and Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race, comes close to giving us an encompassing definition: 'having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do.'"  Does white privilege count when people of color across the globe have "more access to life and resources than others?" 

So is it racial discrimination or a desire for power? Clearly the left wouldn't want to let slip that raw power is really central to their desires. Instead they use race to cover up the naked truth that this is all about power and influence. Race baiting is a very convenient tool to accomplish their goals.  Furthermore, Collins adds that:

Just as people of color did nothing to deserve this unequal treatment, white people did not 'earn' disproportionate access to compassion and fairness. They receive it as the byproduct of systemic racism and bias.

Since race plays such a huge role in left-wing ideology, may one inquire why people have different skin colors in the first place?  According to Science ABC "...color is determined by a pigment called melanin, and while everyone has melanin (both fair and dark-skinned people) it comes in different forms and ratios. The two forms of melanin are called eumelanin and pheomelanin. Eumelanin comes in primarily brown and black hues, while pheomelanin appears as red and yellow hues."

...there is no such thing as 'black,' white,' 'red,' or 'yellow' in terms of skin color. There are simply mixtures of colors and variations, depending on [one's] genetic makeup.  For example, someone with very dark skin would primarily produce eumelanin, while pale-skinned Europeans might produce a majority of pheomelanin. 

But, of course, the simple facts about skin color will only escalate into a tirade from the left because white equals powerful and evil while dark-skinned individuals are virtuous.  Collins and those who espouse white privilege maintain that "the ability to accumulate wealth has long been a white privilege."  Nary a word that perhaps free enterprise is one aspect on the road to success!

If so, does that mean that blacks like Barack and Michelle Obama, Elijah Cummings, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Frederika Wilson, Eleanor Holmes Norton to name only a few now have "white privilege" since their estimated net worth ranges from six to seven figures? 

As Americans of all skin color watch in dismay and horror at the intended and deliberate assault against our borders, we cannot fathom the deep hatred of the left.  White privilege accusation is but one tool in their arsenal.  George Soros and his ilk mouth compassionate words that belie their ultimate mission to demolish the humane values integral to America.

It is evident that the game plan is to milk the USA while excoriating it. Consider the Hondurans who carry their own country's flag while attacking the President of the United States.  But they have not a scintilla of shame when they accept the largess of the gringo as the welfare rolls swell.

If left-wing leaders were really concerned about Central Americans, why not send their own considerable money to (a) assist with farming techniques in Central American countries; (b) create new entrepreneurs with seed money; (c) assist the people so they can change their own corrupt governments?  It isn't as if the United States doesn't already send financial assistance to Central American countries to help combat "alarming levels of crime and violence," as well as "high levels of poverty and food insecurity and ineffective governance and corruption."

Gee, wouldn't it be novel to see the caravan march in their own countries of birth to demand positive change?

In 1961, President Kennedy worried about the incursion of communism during his inaugural address:

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge -- to convert our good words into good deeds -- in a new alliance for progress -- to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

 

How ironic that the heirs of Kennedy a.k.a. the Democratic Party now openly support aggression and subversion of these United States and seek to become the masters of a "far more iron tyranny."  Socialist Alexandrea Ocasio-Cortez, who represents everything that is wrong with American higher education, is a perfect example of the incursion of ideas alien to the Founders.

Identity politics now overshadow the truth about communism.  Racial politics suppress factual information about immigration procedures that were regularly instituted to help both the prospective immigrant and the citizens of this country.  In fact, "[t]he first major piece of 'modern' immigration legislation was the 1882 Immigration Act, which compelled new arrivals to pay a $.50 tax and denied entry to 'convicts, lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges.'” Moreover,  "immigrants saved money for years just to be able to afford the boat ticket. Depending on the time of the year and the country of departure, the steerage class tickets could range from U.S. $12 to $60 per person (approximately $200 to $1,000 present value). After acquiring the tickets, the families went through a medical and legal screening before boarding the ship."

Thus, the immigrants were checked for "conditions such as asthma, physical disability, and mental retardation by signs such as shortness of breath, limping, and excessive gazing respectively." Furthermore,  "...the doctors continued their medical examination checking for signs of communicable diseases. Those suspected of having a mental disease were taken for further evaluation. The psychologists used puzzle and mimicry tests since the tests neither had to be explained through an interpreter nor require the immigrants to read or write." 

Moreover, "[t]he immigration officers asked the immigrants the same questions that they were asked upon departure. The initial responses were recorded on the ship’s manifest, and the officers would use this to verify the immigrants’ responses. Immigrants were asked up to 29 questions including how much money they had on them, if they were polygamists, and if they had a job already lined up. If they passed this aspect of the screening, they were free to go. The entire process would take between three to five hours per immigrant."

It is not compassionate to fall for leftist scams as they utter pious-sounding words.  As Sarah Hoyt has pointed out, "we must ignore soften-headed liberals atwitter with the plight of 'refugees.'" Furthermore, as churches are so often behind these misguided efforts to help illegals, we should "ignore even softer headed bishops, who think 'Latin America' means an increase of their parishioners." In fact, "[w]e must turn away this cold and calculated attempt at invasion so that the Statue of Liberty can continue holding her torch beside the golden gate, and so that people in the future who want to be Americans and work at upholding our unique beliefs, will have a place to go."

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com

White privilege is a crime, according to Leftists. Consequently, young people are drilled into believing that they are criminal because of their melanin levels.  On the “Teaching Tolerance” site, students are told by author Cory Collins that they "can imagine [white privilege]  as something of a whiteness water cycle, wherein racism is the rain. That rain populates the earth, giving some areas more access to life and resources than others. The evaporation is white privilege -- an invisible phenomenon that is both a result of the rain and the reason it keeps going."

But if white privilege is so awful, wouldn't it be hypocritical to come to a country that is predominantly white and then partake of the wealth and power that white privilege provides?  After all, benefiting from an evil system does not seem ethical.  And leftists always claim the moral high ground -- don't they? 

Collins explains that "Francis E. Kendall, author of Diversity in the Classroom and Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race, comes close to giving us an encompassing definition: 'having greater access to power and resources than people of color [in the same situation] do.'"  Does white privilege count when people of color across the globe have "more access to life and resources than others?" 

So is it racial discrimination or a desire for power? Clearly the left wouldn't want to let slip that raw power is really central to their desires. Instead they use race to cover up the naked truth that this is all about power and influence. Race baiting is a very convenient tool to accomplish their goals.  Furthermore, Collins adds that:

Just as people of color did nothing to deserve this unequal treatment, white people did not 'earn' disproportionate access to compassion and fairness. They receive it as the byproduct of systemic racism and bias.

Since race plays such a huge role in left-wing ideology, may one inquire why people have different skin colors in the first place?  According to Science ABC "...color is determined by a pigment called melanin, and while everyone has melanin (both fair and dark-skinned people) it comes in different forms and ratios. The two forms of melanin are called eumelanin and pheomelanin. Eumelanin comes in primarily brown and black hues, while pheomelanin appears as red and yellow hues."

...there is no such thing as 'black,' white,' 'red,' or 'yellow' in terms of skin color. There are simply mixtures of colors and variations, depending on [one's] genetic makeup.  For example, someone with very dark skin would primarily produce eumelanin, while pale-skinned Europeans might produce a majority of pheomelanin. 

But, of course, the simple facts about skin color will only escalate into a tirade from the left because white equals powerful and evil while dark-skinned individuals are virtuous.  Collins and those who espouse white privilege maintain that "the ability to accumulate wealth has long been a white privilege."  Nary a word that perhaps free enterprise is one aspect on the road to success!

If so, does that mean that blacks like Barack and Michelle Obama, Elijah Cummings, Sheila Jackson Lee, Maxine Waters, Frederika Wilson, Eleanor Holmes Norton to name only a few now have "white privilege" since their estimated net worth ranges from six to seven figures? 

As Americans of all skin color watch in dismay and horror at the intended and deliberate assault against our borders, we cannot fathom the deep hatred of the left.  White privilege accusation is but one tool in their arsenal.  George Soros and his ilk mouth compassionate words that belie their ultimate mission to demolish the humane values integral to America.

It is evident that the game plan is to milk the USA while excoriating it. Consider the Hondurans who carry their own country's flag while attacking the President of the United States.  But they have not a scintilla of shame when they accept the largess of the gringo as the welfare rolls swell.

If left-wing leaders were really concerned about Central Americans, why not send their own considerable money to (a) assist with farming techniques in Central American countries; (b) create new entrepreneurs with seed money; (c) assist the people so they can change their own corrupt governments?  It isn't as if the United States doesn't already send financial assistance to Central American countries to help combat "alarming levels of crime and violence," as well as "high levels of poverty and food insecurity and ineffective governance and corruption."

Gee, wouldn't it be novel to see the caravan march in their own countries of birth to demand positive change?

In 1961, President Kennedy worried about the incursion of communism during his inaugural address:

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge -- to convert our good words into good deeds -- in a new alliance for progress -- to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

 

How ironic that the heirs of Kennedy a.k.a. the Democratic Party now openly support aggression and subversion of these United States and seek to become the masters of a "far more iron tyranny."  Socialist Alexandrea Ocasio-Cortez, who represents everything that is wrong with American higher education, is a perfect example of the incursion of ideas alien to the Founders.

Identity politics now overshadow the truth about communism.  Racial politics suppress factual information about immigration procedures that were regularly instituted to help both the prospective immigrant and the citizens of this country.  In fact, "[t]he first major piece of 'modern' immigration legislation was the 1882 Immigration Act, which compelled new arrivals to pay a $.50 tax and denied entry to 'convicts, lunatics, idiots and persons likely to become public charges.'” Moreover,  "immigrants saved money for years just to be able to afford the boat ticket. Depending on the time of the year and the country of departure, the steerage class tickets could range from U.S. $12 to $60 per person (approximately $200 to $1,000 present value). After acquiring the tickets, the families went through a medical and legal screening before boarding the ship."

Thus, the immigrants were checked for "conditions such as asthma, physical disability, and mental retardation by signs such as shortness of breath, limping, and excessive gazing respectively." Furthermore,  "...the doctors continued their medical examination checking for signs of communicable diseases. Those suspected of having a mental disease were taken for further evaluation. The psychologists used puzzle and mimicry tests since the tests neither had to be explained through an interpreter nor require the immigrants to read or write." 

Moreover, "[t]he immigration officers asked the immigrants the same questions that they were asked upon departure. The initial responses were recorded on the ship’s manifest, and the officers would use this to verify the immigrants’ responses. Immigrants were asked up to 29 questions including how much money they had on them, if they were polygamists, and if they had a job already lined up. If they passed this aspect of the screening, they were free to go. The entire process would take between three to five hours per immigrant."

It is not compassionate to fall for leftist scams as they utter pious-sounding words.  As Sarah Hoyt has pointed out, "we must ignore soften-headed liberals atwitter with the plight of 'refugees.'" Furthermore, as churches are so often behind these misguided efforts to help illegals, we should "ignore even softer headed bishops, who think 'Latin America' means an increase of their parishioners." In fact, "[w]e must turn away this cold and calculated attempt at invasion so that the Statue of Liberty can continue holding her torch beside the golden gate, and so that people in the future who want to be Americans and work at upholding our unique beliefs, will have a place to go."

Eileen can be reached at middlemarch18@gmail.com