A Nation of Immigrants, Settlers, and Fallacies

I'm tired of hearing this line from pro-illegal immigration folks, including President Bush: "America is a nation of immigrants." America is not a nation of immigrants -- it is a nation of settlers.

Is there a difference?

Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington thinks so:
"Settlers and immigrants differ fundamentally. Settlers leave an existing society, usually in a group, in order to create a new community. ... Immigrants, in contrast, do not create a new society. They move from one society to a different society. ... [Settlers] came in order to create societies that embodied and would reinforce the culture and values they brought with them from their origin country. Immigrants came later because they wanted to become part of the society the settlers had created. ... Before immigrants could come to America, settlers had to found America" (Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004; p. 39-40).

In our situation, illegal immigrants are leaving their poor, corrupt governments in order to participate in a society and government not established by Spanish & Portuguese Catholics, but by British Protestants. The former created the unenviable countries to our south, from Mexico to Chile. The latter created the United States, arguably the world's envy for 150 years now. Huntington writes, "Would America be the America it is today if in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries it had been settled not by British Protestants but by French, Spanish, or Portuguese Catholics? The answer is no. It would not be America; it would be Quebec, Mexico, or Brazil" (p. 59).

I don't know what the numbers are, but I highly doubt that U.S. citizens are emigrating in droves to South American countries. To be sure, though, citizens from countries to our south are coming to the U.S. by the millions. They are coming to a country they had no part in creating. They are immigrants, coming to a country founded by settlers.

So do your part: stop the uneducated babel. America is not a nation of immigrants -- it is a nation of settlers.

John Edwards, Poverty, and 55,000 Small Frosties

I found something interesting in the San Francisco Chronicle...

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards recently charged a speaking fee of $55,000 to speak at UC-Davis about "Poverty, The Great Moral Issue Facing America." That's right, $55,000...to speak about poverty.

Need I say any more?

Soccer Owners, Corruption, and the Russian Oligarchy

Anyone heard of Roman Abramovich?

He's the Russian super-multi billionaire who owns the Chelsea Football Club of England's Premier League. (That's soccer, people.) How did he get so rich? Broadcast.com? No, that was Mark Cuban. Oil and gas exploration? No, that was Jerry Jones.

No, Roman Abramovich got his money through the creation of the Russian oligarchy in the devious loans-for-shares program. He and several others bought oil-rich government land for pennies on the dollar with loans backed by state-controlled banks. He then turned and sold the land back to the government for what it was really worth, making a multi-billion dollar profit.

Apparently, the Premier League has no problem letting this guy buy one of their teams (and a top one at that). So root on, you Chelsea fans. You have a great owner.

Hate Crime, Channon Christian, and Christopher Newsom

I emailed this story to some of you. For those who haven't heard of this, brace yourselves: it's quite shocking. (Read about it here.)

So you probably never heard of this story. Wonder why? Well, it wasn't because the great civil rights defenders Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were raising a ruckus to make this case known. Oh no. These two were up in arms about Don Imus calling some young ladies "nappy-headed hoes," a comment that actually hurt no one. But two white people get raped, tortured, murdered, and mutilated by five black people and these two shysters disappear. Civil rights? Not for Channon and Christopher.

Because there was no public outcry, it seems that "hate crime" charges will not be filed in this case.

"Hate crime" itself is a dangerous concept. Why? Because it is quite speculative. Case one: a black man murders a white man. Case two: a black man murders a white man. What makes one a hate crime and the other a love crime? Exactly -- you laugh because it's ridiculous. The reason you commit a crime is because you don't love. So then, by definition, isn't every crime a hate crime? I understand the intent of the "hate crime" laws -- to protect the minority and persecuted in society, and to prevent retaliation. But when the "hate crime" label fails to be applied evenly across the board -- as in the case of Channon and Christopher -- then we ought to question either 1) the nature of "hate crime" itself, or 2) how we determine "hate crime." I hope that neither is ever determined by the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world.

Blog Numero Uno

Enjoy that title...it'll be the last time I use Spanish in my blog.

So after much prodding, I've decided to start a blog. While I'm not quite coffeehouse goonish to be diagnosed with what the PDR refers to as "chronic blog," I wanted to write to get my opinion out...as if my friends didn't hear enough of it already. My hope is that it will be a sounding board for the few who read it, and that it will cut down on the amount of emails I send you.

While I am in seminary, and while I am a Christian, most of my posts will have nothing to do with that directly. No "Jesus is great" here. (Although he truly is.) If you want that, how about this -- read your Bible. So I guess I’ll just write about politics and law, which I love to discuss (and which Jesus is lord over). Well, that or the cookie I had at lunch.

And so begins the journey...or some other cliché.