A conservative take on traditional rights
Melanie Wilcox (Counterpoint, Dec. 28) takes Charles Davenport to task on the Fourteenth Amendment, but she seems to have missed the point. Granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants provides yet another incentive for foreigners to enter our country illegally. If citizenship only entailed rights, this might not be such a serious problem.
However, what American liberals call "rights" usually include the socialist "right" for some individuals to seize the worldly possessions of other individuals (entitlements, welfare, etc.). So much for the right to property, I guess. Add it to the list of traditional rights — including the right to keep and bear arms — that Wilcox and other liberals aren't really concerned about protecting.
As for the insinuation that American conservatives, such as Davenport and myself, categorically oppose change and diversity, she could not be more mistaken. Progress always involves change, but change is not always progress. Increased diversity, like any change, is only progress if the benefits outweigh costs. Why do liberals refuse to acknowledge the existence, or even the possibility, of these costs?
Conservatism is apparently necessary to remind people of such inconveniences. There is still no such thing as a free lunch.
Jack Bladel
Greensboro
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Thank you for your astute observations, Mr.Bladel. I note with interest that the usual gang that would generally disagree with the points you make have chosen not to comment. There is a reason for that.
Posted on January 4, 2006 7:38 AM