What Do Amnesty Advocates Have Against Africans?

By Ronald W. Mortensen on October 26, 2009

I'm writing this in West Africa where I have spent eleven of the last fourteen months working with compassionate, dedicated, and brave people on humanitarian programs designed to save lives and alleviate human suffering.

During the past five years, I have traveled to the Eastern Congo where the deaths of millions of people have gone largely unnoticed by the rest of the world, been to Darfur, responded to famines in Ethiopia, helped end a measles epidemic in Burkina Faso, and been deployed to Guinea Bissau in response to a cholera epidemic. I am currently focused on helping people affected by flooding and extremely high rates of child malnutrition.

Thus, when I hear the advocates for illegal aliens talk about the about the hardships faced by illegal immigrants who come largely from countries that are far better off than those in West Africa, I have to wonder what their true motives are.

I wonder why supporters of illegal aliens show virtually no concern for the hundreds of millions of Africans who live in countries with exceptionally high child mortality rates and the lowest overall life expectancies in the world.

For example, why is there so much focus on the plight of citizens of Mexico who have a life expectancy of 76 years, as opposed to the citizens of Liberia who have a life expectancy of 42 years? And why do we only hear about the problems of Latino children when the child mortality rate, education levels, and overall health of African children are many times worse?

Why don't liberals demand diversity and affirmative action in illegal immigration rather than supporting a system where well over 75% of all illegal aliens are from a single ethic group (Hispanic) and where 61% of illegal aliens come from just one country (Mexico)?

Why don't compassionate conservatives call for a path to citizenship for Africans from the 17 countries where per capita income is less than three dollars per day, rather than favoring illegal aliens from Mexico which has an annual per capita income of $14,200.

Why do America's religious leaders support legalization of people who have violated United States immigration laws and who routinely commit multiple, job-related felonies that cause serious harm to millions of American men, women, and children rather than advocating for a path to citizenship for highly vulnerable Africans who are playing by the rules?

Why do La Raza, LULAC, and other Latino groups support comprehensive immigration reform that so clearly discriminates in favor of citizens from Mexico at the expense of much more desperate people from Africa and even from Latin America?

Why do women's organizations support the legalization of millions of illegal aliens from a relatively small number of Western hemisphere nations rather than providing a path to citizenship for girls and women throughout Africa who are the victims of systematic rape and who have some of the highest HIV/AIDS rates in the world?

Is it because Africans are not part of the right ethnic group or race?

Is it because people from Africa don't look like the people in the most rapidly expanding minority group in the United States?

Is it because La Raza and LULAC see illegal immigration as a means of increasing their power and influence?

Is it because Africa nations don't aggressively support illegal immigration in the same way that Mexico does? Is it because mainstream religious organizations, including the Catholic Church and the National Association of Evangelicals, believe that illegal aliens from Latin American will more readily join with them than will people from Africa?

Or is it simply because the advocates for illegal aliens are racists who discriminate against the majority of the world's people?

I'm sure the proponents of illegal aliens will take offense at these questions, but put yourself in the place of millions of hard-working Africans who would be more than willing to the "jobs Americans won't do." What would you think?