Indigenous Xicano”s “The Law is the Law” is a generally moderate and well-written post that is worth thoughtful consideration.
He writes “The law is the law. So let us treat everyone the same. Show empathy for first-time offenders. Offer an avenue of forgiveness as we do to those who break the law and never get in trouble again. Allow good hard working people a chance to pay a price for their crime of illegal entry...”
Unfortunately he glibly dismisses phrases like, “… ‘the law is the law’ and, ‘no nation can exist without laws’ by declaring them to be meaningless in any intelligent conversation. Without those introductory remarks his post would have been more effective. His cavalier dismissal of such important concepts lost some potential readers immediately.
He goes on to explain the first “meaningless” phrase by giving its real meaning as
“…it is against the law to enter, reside, and work in the U.S.” if you have not followed the proper procedures and obtained the proper documents." There is nothing meaningless about that. He adds that the law requires that "...workers who are here illegally should be deported." Again there is nothing meaningless about that aspect of the law if one believes in national sovereignty and secure borders.
Xicano agrees that “…no nation can exist without laws”, the very foundation of civilized society. But his argument breaks down when he then suggests that this does not include any laws with which he disagrees or which in his personal judgment are not working. He does not indicate who appointed him as the final arbiter of which laws are not working and which are simply not being enforced by the current Administration for political reasons.
Xicano does admit that some laws are needed and good, for example, those that proscribe murder as a solution to societal problems. However, he doesn’t address the fact that those laws do not prevent murder and many go unsolved and unpunished. Yet, he uses that very argument against immigration laws. The only difference is the immigration laws have rarely been properly and vigorously enforced. When they were, the result was astonishingly effective. If it was easy to impeach Administration officials for their failures in that regard, the problem would be quickly solved and the argument against those laws would fall on deaf ears.
We can concede that no laws are perfect in their conception and execution. However, we cannot agree that the “…presence and functionality of illegal immigration suggest that the current laws do not work.” While they are far from adequate for the 21st century, no judgment can be made about their effectiveness because they have not been continuously and vigorously enforced in a consistent way that would enable such an assessment. Xicano seems to suggest that if laws are not working because of their imperfections or a lack of enforcement, we should simply sweep the problem under the carpet by changing the law to absolve those who have violated the law. Such an approach would truly undermine the rule of law and encourage people to follow only those laws that serve their purposes and that are consistent with their risk tolerance.
Citing the Michael Vick example of forgiveness and another chance, Xicano tries to convince us that we should extend the same opportunity to non-citizens. He fails to mention that Michael Vick did a significant amount of prison time and that he can no longer even own a dog. First time immigration offenders are usually given a second chance. They generally can self-deport without any other consequences unless they have committed a felony in which case they may have to serve time like Michael Vick did before they are free to return to their homelands. In other words, we do allow good hard-working people a chance to pay for their crime of illegal entry by correcting their previous transgressions and returning to their homelands until they can return legally. Self-deportation is a huge loophole in the law because those who self-deport can and do return without being considered felons subject to mandatory removal.
4 comments:
I am sure that you tried to post these remarks in Dee's blog but she refused to post them. Anything that doesn't support her agenda is not posted or she posts them and then goes on the personal attack without allowing you a rebuttal. What a coward she is.
Yes, the mission statementof Dee's blog suggests that she invites other opinions but in fact it doesn't and any comments submitted with which she disagrees are simply not allowed. This is typical liberalism that is in favor of free speech unless it opposes the liberal view or advances a different point of view. Dee has stopped any pretense of allowing my comments in her blog. She has used various tactics in the past such as postponing allowing the comment until it is no longer current and appears on a page that is no longer display on top. And she has repeatedly refused to print links to my blogs where a more complete discussion of the issues are posted. She doesn't want any comments that put her blog and her personally in the disloyal category.
I wondered why I haven't seen any comments of yours in Dee's blog lately. I should have known that eventually you would be the last anti to be allowed to post in there. Even when she does post your remarks she just insults you anyway. What a piece of work she is!
Yeah, nothing steers Dee away from her ethnocentric, racist agenda even if it means lying, exaggerating and insulting to make it look like she is that "gentle as a lamb grandmother" that she claims she is. I have often wondered how her family deals with her unless she has them all brainwashed.
You are correct. Her mission blog statement is a joke. Even when an anti is civil in their posts she claims they are not and then goes on her own uncivil rampage (flashbacks of MATT.org). She is one mentally disturbed individual. She has no conscience nor no soul.
Post a Comment