Oaths
Operative B writes in with some salience about the carpet in here. He also mentions some other things.
| O Dread One! This lowly minion comes before you on hands and knees (by the way, you need new carpeting in front of your throne – just a thought…) to ask whether these folks from Syria (and elsewhere), who call themselves refugees, really understand the meaning of the word. A refugee is someone who is fleeing a regime to avoid persecution. By definition, refugees are not fleeing to a new country in order to institute the same regime and to put in place the same persecution they are fleeing from. Previous refugees to this country, the majority of whom came from countries whose religions – and whose religious teachings – were generally in harmony with the Constitution and US law, did not bring with them a desire to change the US into the regime they were fleeing from. Example: how many Cuban refugees wanted to build a communist regime here in the US? Even the majority of illegal entrants from the southern border of the US have a common set of morals and values to those of most Americans. However, refugees fleeing the Middle East bring with them a different set of religious teachings, and a set of laws – Sharia – which are incompatible with the Constitution and the core basis of US law. As a proven matter of fact, Sharia violates several of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights (no, I won’t repeat those difference here), and its structure is in direct contradiction with the concepts of freedom and free choice upon which the US was built. Your Majesty, this miserable one – who is the grandchild of refugees from Eastern Europe – does not wish to close the door to legitimate refugees: those who are fleeing a regime for the freedom provided to those who live in the United States. However, we must also be sure that our “open door” immigration policy cannot be abused by those who enter this country with ulterior motives. In order to qualify as legitimate refugees, refugees from Middle East countries with Islamic-based regimes should be required to forswear any allegiance to the regime they are fleeing from as a condition of entry to this country. In case you had forgotten, the oath taken by citizens requires this exactly:
It is time that the US require a similar pre-citizenship oath for those who enter this country as refugees, with the punishment for violation of that oath being a very simple one: expulsion to the regime that the refugee came from, with nothing but the clothes on his/her back, exactly as they came here. They forfeit anything they accumulated while here, since they accumulated it under false pretenses: they never really intended to assimilate into the US and adopt its laws and precepts. Requirement of a pre-immigration oath is not cruel or unusual. Nor is it difficult to administer this oath while fingerprinting and registering the refugee upon entry to this country. On the contrary: it would be cruel and unusual for these new immigrants to force an anti-Constitutional set of laws on existing residents here in the US. It would be cruel and unusual – and unConstitutional – for the Executive Branch of the Government of the United States to permit Sharia law to replace existing law. And, aside from all of the boasting and “big talk”, this lowly one fears that the wholesale adoption or attempted adoption of Sharia law, a set of behavioral requirements that is totally foreign to American values, and forced upon The People without their consent by The Government, could be the first step toward an upheaval that could tear this country apart. |
As the Czar has opined before, the media is very much an ongoing cut-and-paste narrative of the Left.
The Left has little interest in specific definitions for any of these terms:
- Refugee
- Immigrant
- Displaced Person
- Alien
- Guest Worker
- Migrant
- Fugitive
- Illegal
To the Left, they all mean the same thing: a person from some other place. You, of course, know the definitions of these and see some significant differences between all of them, not the least of which are political, social, cultural, and legal. An employer would, for example, not necessarily see a problem with an immigrant, but would see a problem with an illegal.
The Left has long advocated the elimination of national borders and countries. Heck, John Lennon even imagined some song lyrics to that effect. No, the Czar doesn’t mean the opening of borders to make traffic flow from America to Mexico—he means the Left wants to eliminate ideas like America and Mexico.
It explains everything from NAFTA—in some ways an experimental subsystem—to the idea of Aztlan, because what the hell. And it’s true in Europe: from the idea of the Euro (which erases local currencies and the inherent advantages of free market currency exchange) to the forced relocation of Syrians to wherever they want to go. Because to a Leftist, going from Syria to Portugal is like riding light rail to the end of the line: just get off wherever you want.
The Left wants to see the world as one undifferentiated landmass, all one color on a three-color map. Of course, this is erroneous and ultimately disastrous thinking, but when you’ve been advocating the workers of the world to unite—today it’s termed multiculturalism—you tend to forget the warnings of every competent philosopher about the fallacies of moral relevance. It’s why the Left can rail on Dr. Ben Carson about his horrifying comments that Muslim presidents without ever bothering to check with a Muslim to see if Islam prohibits it. Everything and everyone, in their imagination, is just the victim of white, colonial imperialism. And indeed they are the best at white, colonial imperialistic attitudes that white, rich guys ought to help the weak little women and the teeny brownskins to morph into liberal progressive soldiers.
There are two ideas that will block your theory. First, the Left won’t agree to it simply because a pre-immigration oath makes no sense to them. Why force “people from some other place” to swear momentary allegiance to America, which is nothing more than a tired, old heteronormative oppressor? Now, if you suggested that these incoming folks swear allegiance to the Left—or at least allow them to register for the Democrats—they’d be all over that.
Second, there’s the other political side of the coin. Who is an immigrant? Who is a refugee? The former should be streamlined into the path of legal citizenship without waiting for a frustrating number of years, delays, and red tape. The latter owes no allegiance to America because—in theory—once their homelands get their crap together, the refugees are going right back home. Again, in theory.They’re like guest workers without jobs.
Ultimately, the Czar suspects you want them to promise not to blow up or kill Americans, and we get that. A properly functioning State Department could—if it weren’t so busy arguing over parental definitions—would be able to process all these incomers into their proper categories. Plan to stay until things cool down at home? Fine, we’re restricting your movements and keeping you under eye. Want to become a US citizen? It’ll take 6 months to work out who you are, where you propose to work, and how you’ll assimilate. Want to work a bit, make some cash, and go back home? Fill all this out so we collect taxes. Want to freeload for a bit, pocket some cash, and not pay taxes? No problem, just get on this bus back home.
The Czar really doesn’t have much interest in refugees, truth be told—they don’t need to come to America at all, unless they’re fleeing from Canada or Mexico. But he feels great pain for the immigrants who come here, want to be Americans, want to work hard, pay taxes, and play by the rules—and who get bumped repeatedly to the back of the line because our liberal State Department is jerking them around to prohibit them from becoming voting Republicans.
Apparently it’s not enough we make our elected leaders swear an oath of allegiance. That doesn’t seem to be working, either.
Божію Поспѣшествующею Милостію Мы, Дима Грозный Императоръ и Самодержецъ Всероссiйскiй, цѣсарь Московскiй. The Czar was born in the steppes of Russia in 1267, and was cheated out of total control of all Russia upon the death of Boris Mikhailovich, who replaced Alexander Yaroslav Nevsky in 1263. However, in 1283, our Czar was passed over due to a clerical error and the rule of all Russia went to his second cousin Daniil (Даниил Александрович), whom Czar still resents. As a half-hearted apology, the Czar was awarded control over Muscovy, inconveniently located 5,000 miles away just outside Chicago. He now spends his time seething about this and writing about other stuff that bothers him.