Authored by Thaddeus McCotter via American Greatness,
Strolling through a major American urban metropolis, I noticed that the tightly packed homes and squat tri-level apartments and condos had tiny, browning “natural gardens” pocked with the usual virtue-signaling lawn signs setting forth their progressive secular creed’s commandments: “kindness always,” “hate has no home here,” etc.
Yet amidst this self-proclaimed bastion of love and tolerance, I quickly spied an ostensibly contradictory placard in many residential windows and, in fact, on the bumpers of many cars, both rust buckets and some upscale, socially responsible electric ones. Indeed, this sentiment was so prevalent that the host of a YouTube video touring the city’s neighborhoods casually expressed it as an aside and apologized for not stating it in a prior video.
What was this urgent statement needing to be publicly proclaimed to one and all by any and all means fair and foul?
It was “F— ICE.”
Being literal, initially the prospect left me cold.
Then I wondered if the sign maker had misspelled “DEI.”
However, upon reflection, I realized that ICE was the acronym for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Despite the other lawn signs professing kindness, I immediately understood the f— in question was not to be construed as an act of love. Further, the people sticking these placards in their windows and onto their bumpers are clearly not an “ally” of ICE.
“F— ICE” did not have the ring of “Aux Armes!” or “¡No pasarán!” or even “земля мира и хлеб!” In fairness, though, I did notice the “F— ICE” sign. But I also would have noticed a dead skunk glued to a window or squished on a bumper.
In a sign of the times, once more, public profanity was conflated with sincerity and earnestness—and, of course, “hipness” and “edginess”; and, once again, the consequences of such selfish public virtue-signaling were ignored, if they were ever contemplated at all.
Did such virtue-signaling regressives understand their vehement, vulgar opposition could help foster dangerous and deadly attacks upon ICE agents whose only “crime” was enforcing the duly enacted laws of the United States? Or that it could help foment equally dangerous and deadly confrontations between ICE agents, illegal immigrants, and bystanders who deliberately interfere with agents in the course of their duties?
Did they understand that by abetting open borders they helped diminish and demean the hard work and sacrifices made by legal immigrants to the country? Or that in aiding illegal immigration (and usually opposing assimilation) they harm legal immigrants by diminishing their public safety, lowering wages and job opportunities, and straining the social safety net resources available to those who need them?
Perhaps they were unaware Zeale reported that, in the aftermath of violence regarding the enforcement of American immigration laws, two Catholic bishops did, in fact, grapple with the issue and concluded:
Acts that diminish or disregard the dignity of any person or group of people should never be normalized in our society,” Bishop Daniel Garcia and Bishop Brendan Cahill wrote in a July 20 pastoral reflection published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). “The dehumanization of immigrants, regardless of their legal status, is one such example of this; the vilification of law enforcement officers is yet another.
As the reporter, Elizabeth Ervin, makes clear, the two bishops are certainly not ICE apologists. Acknowledging their “pastoral concerns are distinct from what the civil law itself may permit,” the pair of clerics expressed their opposition to racial profiling and called for reforming immigration enforcement to ensure “accountability, transparency, and justice.”
Nonetheless, the bishops’ support for migrants regardless of their status and for reforming immigration enforcement did not lead them to demonize ICE agents. On the contrary: “We continue to affirm the legitimate role of civil authorities to implement the law in a humane manner and with respect for fundamental human rights, including the rights to life and due process. The power of the state must always be exercised within the limits of the moral law.”
Whatever one’s view of immigration and border security, only the worst among us can fail to recognize the above is an example of “civility.” And engaging in civil discourse with those who disagree with you is a far more conducive way to achieve change and consensus than spouting profanity in public to preen for your allies and alienate everyone else.
As the bishops remind us, “We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric, racial prejudice, and violence and for a renewed commitment to recognizing the inherent dignity of every person as a child of God.”
Sure, that might not fit on a windowsill or below a trunk, but that is no matter. Such truth is meant to be etched in the heart.