Seeking clarity on issues surrounding illegal immigration

The simple definition of “xenophobia” is “a fear of aliens.” Progressives often use “xenophobe” as a slander to intimidate Americans who understand that border control and rational immigration policies are essential elements of national sovereignty, security and economic health.

But, since turnabout is fair play, let’s examine xenophobia’s antonym, “oikophobia.” “Oikophobia” means “a fear of the familiar,” or, in British philosopher Roger Scruton’s political/cultural definition, oikophobia is “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with ‘them’ against ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably ‘ours.’”

Oikophobia consumes many left-leaning Americans, sometimes overtly, other times implicitly.

Oikophobes commonly dismiss long-established American cultural norms and shower contempt on normal Americans who actively oppose, merely disagree with or are unlikely to vote for progressives: e.g., “bitter clingers to guns and religion,” or “basket of deplorables.”

At other times, liberals contradictorily claim to “protect” world cultures from “appropriation” — the adoption of other cultures’ appealing food, fashion, customs or music — which actual “xenophobes” would never consider.

Generally, though, along with “racist” and “fascist,” gratuitous accusations of xenophobia, are just lazy, argument-free, often embarrassed left-wing substitutes for intellectual, cultural and/or political gravity.

In the case of open borders and amnesty for illegals, the slander is political. The left wishes to admit and legalize millions of immigration lawbreakers who, they believe, will support Democrats. In this case, “xenophobe!” means “Shut up! Let ’em vote!”

There are many reasons, legal and illegal, to emigrate to a new country. Americans do it, too.

We’re told that illegals in America simply want citizenship, to work and earn a living.

Those are natural instincts, perhaps, but they’re often untrue. After America offered amnesty, “a path to citizenship,” during the Reagan years, most illegals didn’t seek citizenship. They wanted the benefits associated with citizenship without the responsibilities. In the end, most only came to work and make money.

American citizenship isn’t really about working, or even about escaping lousy conditions elsewhere. Citizenship is about what America offers.

In America, citizenship is about the rights of a free, selfgoverning people in a nation where laws matter – or should. Breaking American laws to come or stay here violates a foundation of American government and the American spirit.

It makes little sense to give illegals something few really want, when we cannot give them what they genuinely need: stability, freedom, equally-administered rule of law and less-corrupt governments back home.

America shouldn’t award another amnesty, but, if one is even considered, it must be limited to legal residency, with citizenship awarded, non-automatically, case-by-case, from the back of the legal queue.

Or, perhaps, Democrats might trade a border wall for what they say they want — citizenship for illegal aliens — but former-illegals wouldn’t receive public benefits, couldn’t vote for nine years following the next presidential election, and then only if they speak standard English and pay taxes.

Only oikophobes would resist assimilation, and only powerhungry progressives would refuse a reasonable voting compromise to “legalize” immigration lawbreakers.