There’s a reason the federal government is dragging its feet on illegal immigration. It’s a wildly expensive and complicated problem with the potential to erupt in a race war.
So said the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Monica Yant Kinney in her column yesterday.
One of the things that always makes me sit up and take notice is when I see people on right and the left agreeing on something. In this case, it’s agreement on the possibility of a domestic war over immigration. People on the right don’t tend to use the term “race war” so much as “civil war.” (Tacitus looked at this issue in April, but most conservatives are quite uncomfortable with it.)
I don’t think the terminology is important so much as the idea that any such war might take place.
I’m generally pro-war where it comes to national defense, but where it comes to civil war, I am so vehemently against the idea that I’d do almost anything to stop it. Terrible harm came from the last Civil War. I disagree with people who say it was “worth it,” as I think it stands as a warning. A second American Civil War is almost too awful to contemplate. That’s why I’ve devoted so much time to opposing that thing we call a “Culture War” because the rhetoric gets so heated that it often strikes me as a sort of “cold” Civil War. (In 2003, cultural conservative Dennis Prager opined that the Culture War was already a de facto “Second Civil War” — and he wasn’t even considering immigration.)
I don’t care what anyone thinks about immigration; it does not justify another American Civil War. (Or “race war” which is pretty much the same thing.)
Fortunately, right now it’s still a war of rhetoric and hyperbole.
An unwinnable war of words.
(And fortunately, as long as people are talking, there’s the unintended consequence of mutual appeasement.)
Comments
5 responses to “On this “war,” I remain anti-war”
Since you admit there’s the possibility of conflict, how do you propose reducing the possibility? Are you basically proposing capitulation, and allowing Mexico to continue to send us people? Or, are you proposing reducing the possibility by reducing illegal immigration?
What to do about the border? Personally, I’d close it and build a fence, as I’ve said before, but that’s not my point here.
I can’t think of anything worse than a Civil War. I’d move to abroad before I would fight my fellow Americans.
Not if my fellow Americans needed to be fought.
However, I don’t see it coming to that simply because it would require that entire state governments and municipalities, their associated National Guard units, police, etc… revolt against the Federal government, and enough of them do it together at the same time that it could be called a different nation.
I don’t see that happening anytime soon, (like within the lifetime of anybody reading this).
I can’t see a ‘Lebanon’ style civil war occurring either because of the basic fact that the US is a benign police state.
And before anybody gets all huffy about that, just sit and think: How many levels of policing can you think of? There’s the city police, the transit police, the housing police, the university police, the county sheriff, the state police–and that’s just at the local and state level. Then there are Federal police, the FBI, the DEA, the BATF and, I’ll bet other alphabet agency policing forces, plus park rangers and others I haven’t thought of.
All of the above are more or less competent, and more or less honest, especially when compared to a very large part of the rest of the planet.
All of that, plus one side in this ‘culture war’ isn’t armed with real weapons. This is, actually one of the ironic consequences of ending the draft. It pretty much means that anti-establishment/leftist/whatever types that don’t join the military will never actually get any sort of training with weapons.
Terrorist acts, perhaps. Insurrection? Ha. Your basic middle-class leftard is never going to actually pick up the gun.
It would be a very short war. They don’t have guns.
I think that might depend on who they are. What if they garner enough votes to take over the government? What if they then decide that the Second Amendment only allows the government to have guns?