Democrat, can we simply stick to the facts and numbers and keep 'Orange Man Bad' out of it?
Only 12% of ILLEGALS are Caucasian. The 'worst of the worst' are Black and Brown. You call CBP and I.C.E. Nazis and Fascist. 30% of I.C.E. and 50% of CBP is Latino. Has anyone ever met a Latino Nazi? Have you read of any in a book?
Oh, Castro was close to a Nazi. He wS Communist. Look here, they all HATE WHERE YOU LIVE, AMERICA. If you are Black or Brown YOU LIVE HERE TOO!!!
Facts Over Slogans: A Conservative Case for Reasoned Debate on Immigration
The recent social media post cuts through the fog of modern political discourse with a series of pointed, data-driven questions. It challenges the pervasive, emotionally charged narrative surrounding immigration enforcement with stark demographics and a plea to move beyond juvenile epithets like "Orange Man Bad." From a conservative perspective, this post is not merely a retort; it is a manifesto for a return to factual debate, a rejection of racialized smears, and a passionate affirmation of American civic identity over tribal grievance.
At its core, the conservative philosophy values order, sovereignty, and the rule of law. Immigration policy is not, and cannot be, an exception to these principles. The post begins by invoking facts and numbers specifically, the demographic breakdown of those entering the country illegally. While the precise percentage can be debated, the underlying point is crucial: the debate over illegal immigration is fundamentally about the act of breaking the law, not the race of the individuals committing the act. To conflate the two is the very definition of prejudice. Conservatives argue that a nation without enforced borders is not a nation at all; it is a geographic idea. Enforcing immigration law is therefore a neutral, necessary function of any sovereign state, from Japan to Norway to the United States. To attach racial animus to this function is to intentionally poison the well of discourse and avoid a substantive discussion on quotas, assimilation, labor markets, and national security.
This leads directly to the post’s powerful challenge regarding the composition of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The claim that 30% of ICE and 50% of CBP personnel are Latino is a devastating rebuttal to the casual, inflammatory labels of "Nazi" and "Fascist" hurled at these agents by some on the left. This is not a trivial point. It strikes at the heart of the progressive tactic of demonizing opponents through historical atrocities to shut down debate. The question, "Has anyone ever met a Latino Nazi?" is rhetorical brilliance. It exposes the absurdity and intellectual bankruptcy of the analogy. These are not jackbooted ideologues; they are public servants a vast number of them drawn from the very communities they are falsely accused of targeting doing a difficult, dangerous job mandated by Congress. To slander them is to disrespect the rule of law they are sworn to uphold and to insult the countless Hispanic Americans who see in border security not oppression, but the protection of their communities, their jobs, and the integrity of the immigration system through which many of their own families entered legally.
The post’s reference to Castro is equally significant. It correctly distinguishes between the communist tyranny of Cuba and the Nazi fascism of Germany, while noting the authoritarian similarities. This distinction is often lost in a political culture that uses "fascist" as a catch-all insult for anyone to the right of center. Conservatism insists on precision in language and a sober understanding of history. Lazily equating ICE agents who operate under layers of legal oversight and judicial review with the genocidal apparatus of the Third Reich is not just offensive; it is a form of historical illiteracy that cheapens the memory of actual victims of totalitarianism.
But the most profound element of the post is its closing argument: "LOOK HERE, THEY ALL HATE WHERE YOU LIVE, AMERICA. If you are Black or Brown YOU LIVE HERE TOO!!!" This is a full-throated, patriotic appeal to a unifying American identity. It is a fundamentally conservative idea. It rejects the left's hierarchy of racial grievance, which often casts America as an irredeemably oppressive project. Instead, it affirms that America is a place a nation of laws, ideals, and shared destiny that belongs equally to all its citizens, regardless of ethnicity. The "they" in this sentence are those who violate its borders and show contempt for its laws, not people of a particular color. The post reminds Black and Brown Americans that their stake in a secure, prosperous, and lawful America is identical to that of any other citizen. It is a call to view citizenship not as a demographic category in a competition for victim status, but as a shared commitment to a common home.
This is the conservative antidote to the poison of identity politics: E Pluribus Unum Out of Many, One. The progressive model seeks to divide the populace into oppressor and oppressed groups, fostering resentment and a sense of alienation from national institutions. The conservative model, as echoed in this post, seeks to unite citizens around shared love of country, respect for its laws, and the understanding that a nation’s first duty is to its own people, of every race and creed.
The plea to "stick to the facts and numbers" is therefore a plea for maturity and national self-preservation. Emotion-driven policies from catch-and-release to sanctuary city non-cooperation have directly contributed to the current crisis: overwhelmed border facilities, tragic deaths in the desert, strain on public services, and depressed wages for low-income workers. Facts show that uncontrolled immigration disproportionately harms the most vulnerable American citizens, including legal immigrants and working-class minorities. A conservative approach demands we discuss these outcomes soberly: how many, from where, with what skills, and through what legal process?
The post’s blunt style may be dismissed by some as crude, but its substance is a clarion call for a return to foundational principles. It demands that we debate immigration through the lenses of sovereignty, law, economic impact, and national cohesion—not through the distorting prisms of racism, historical slander, and childish political taunts. It affirms that those who enforce the law are not villains, and that those who cherish America, regardless of their complexion, have a common interest in its security and integrity. In an era of shouting, this post asks for reasoning. In an era of division, it offers a unifying vision of patriotic citizenship. That is not just a conservative argument; it is an urgently American one.
#Race #Democrats #Movement #ILLEGALS