Competing demands for loyalty

My pal Joe Whitchurch asked me what Presidential candidate I prefer. I like Duncan Hunter, because he seems genuinely LOYAL to America, not to his own privileges. His loyalty shows in his dedication to securing our borders.

Too few people these days, when immigration is discussed, even take account of the importance of loyalty in the whole issue. Illegal Mexican immigrants usually display admirable fidelity and care toward their own families--but choose not to believe that they owe any loyalty to the nation at whose trough they want to feed.

In 1982, I became a sponsor for a Laotian refugee family, the Lotakhoons; they came legally, and were willing to abide by America's laws. In 1986, in Navy basic training, I had a Filipino friend who was trying to earn U.S. citizenship for his family through military service; sadly, he died of a heart attack. That was a loss to America, for my friend Jesus Paredes was a man who could harmonize the demands for loyalty made by family and country. In 2002, I gave some assistance to a Kenyan woman named Gillian; she wanted to be a loyal U.S. citizen. Right now, a Chinese acquaintance of mine called Jian-Ming is waiting forlornly to be granted U.S. residence; he is willing to be loyal to America, but swarms of illegals who despise U.S. law are being given preference over him. EVERY ONE of the people I have referenced in this paragraph was NON-WHITE; so, somebody please explain to me why my sympathy for their hopes makes me a white supremacist.

Elected officials of both parties are guilty of preferring illegals who would betray the safety of America for their own advantage, over legal immigrants who offer loyalty to America. In many cases, I believe that these officials are motivated by still another loyalty: they are devoted to the delusional ideal of a "global village," which requires the erasing of national independence. This is definitely a case where bigger is not better.