Posted on August 31, 2013
Amnesty
Family Values
More
Saul stories from the Left
by
Daniel Clark
Six years ago, Elvira Arellano pleaded on behalf of “comprehensive immigration reform,” in order to prevent the breakup of families like hers. She claimed that she and her American-born son Saul were separated because she had been deported for no good reason, other than that she was an illegal alien, and a perpetrator of identity fraud.
Fortunately, Arellano was not very persuasive. The pro-amnesty forces were repelled for the time being, but now they’re back, and they’ve learned a valuable lesson. The sympathetic character in this episode was not the obnoxious, unrepentant criminal, but her innocent American child. Liberals, understanding this, are now deploying the American-born children of illegal aliens to town hall meetings, where they ask conservative congressmen why their mommies and daddies have to be so cruelly taken away from them.
It’s
just as much a lie now as it was then, of course. Arellano was perfectly free to take little
Saul to live with her in Mexico, but chose to leave him behind in the States
instead. The fact that the two were
separated was entirely her own doing, not that of America’s immigration
laws. The same is true of the parents of
those children who are now being used by the illegal alien lobby.
Our first clue should have been that liberals are suddenly pretending to care about maintaining the integrity of the family unit, when ordinarily, they treat the nuclear family as if it were a sinister plot devised by theocratic conservative zealots. In fact, what liberals call “family planning” usually consists of a plan to kill the youngest member of the family. When it comes to illegal aliens, they falsely warn that children are being “torn from” their parents. In cases where this is literally being done, however, they’re all for it.
The liberals who run our public school system see it as their duty to deprogram the children of everything their parents have taught them. They promote the dissolution of the family unit as the new norm, sometimes to the point of banning any mention of Mother’s Day or Father’s Day.
Look how liberals ridiculed Dan Quayle for coining the term “family values.” He actually said the norm should be for a child to grow up with both a mother and a father, and that it’s wrong for a woman to deliberately bear a child alone and consider it to be “just another lifestyle choice.” What a square. He couldn’t have sounded any less cool if he’d said you shouldn’t take things that don’t belong to you.
People who really want to keep families intact would not
promote teen promiscuity. Nor would they
treat the true definition of marriage as a faded relic of a bygone, intolerant
era. Increasingly, liberals are even
treating gender as a matter of individual choice. If a person is, by all real-world indicators,
a man, but decides that he 
“identifies
as” a woman, the liberal view is that both society and the law should treat him
as a woman.
If Mister Rogers were alive today, and still singing that “girls grow up to be mommies, and boys grow up to be daddies,” PBS would bleep it out. Not content with bringing down the family structure, liberals are now busily hammering the rubble into dust. Not only won’t they accept the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, but they don’t even accept the definitions of “man” and “woman” anymore.
Furthermore, the people who are spreading the Saul stories are of the same mind as those who created the welfare state, which has been the main culprit in the breakdown of the family, by having government assume the role of provider and caregiver. From the left-wing statist point of view, it is irresponsible to leave mere parents in charge of deciding what to feed their children, and heretical for those same parents to presume to educate them, let alone inculcate them with their own values. Once it’s true that “it takes a village to raise a child,” the role of the parents has been made frivolous.
Yet liberals are not even trying to convince us of their newfound concern for intact families. We’re expected to just assume it, so that it may serve as the basis of their support for amnesty. We might as well just assume that they’re equally concerned about securing our borders, enforcing our already existing immigration laws, and protecting the innocence of the children they’re using in this morally indefensible campaign.
The
Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press