If you watch any television special on illegal immigration, you will hear this: These people are hard working, as nice as any of the rest of us, and just want a better life for themselves and their families. They are taking on jobs no-one else wants to do. They are underprivileged, and deserve a chance in a culture that provides opportunity. Leave aside, for the moment, the dissonance of watching people who come to the US in order to make a better life waving Mexican flags and being determined to remain in the culture that doesn’t provide the opportunity they so desperately want. Assume the narrative the media paints is correct; these people aren’t a problem.
The alternative narrative is that these people have “historical grievances,” that we haven’t yet addressed.
…the consul quickly cited Mexico’s historical affinity with, and indeed (emotional, linguistic, legal?) claims upon, the southwestern United States. Presto —here arose the unspoken assumption of the advocates of open borders (or at least of those who feel that illegal aliens should be exempt from federal immigration statutes): historical grievances have made enforcement of the law rather debatable… -Victor David Hanson, PJM
Because the American Southwest was “taken” from Mexico in a war, America should somehow “share it” by having an open border between Mexico and the US.
There are three courses forward for those who really want the border between the US and Mexico to be completely open.
First, they can claim they want “reasonable” immigration laws. “One time amnesty,” followed by some form of “reasonable” guest worker program. This opens the debate on what is “reasonable,” and leaves them with no excuse for not enforcing the laws once that debate has taken place.
Second, they can claim that in redress for “historical grievances,” a specific area of the United States is to be an “open zone” to Mexican immigration. If your claim is that America unjustly took some part of Mexico, then allow Mexicans to live there freely. How we get from the “unjust taking of the American Southwest” to illegal immigrants freely living in Raleigh, NC —which has never, in history, claimed to be part of Mexico— I’ll never know. But that “sanctuary cities” exist far beyond any conceived borders of “old Mexico” just goes to show this isn’t a serious point about illegal immigration, but rather just an emotional scoring point.
Third, they can claim they are working towards a “reasonable” set of laws while simply ignoring the laws —all the while having no real intent of passing any new laws to replace the ones they are ignoring.
The third is the path of the American Left at this point.
Last week, a draft memo surfaced from the Homeland Security Department suggesting ways to administratively circumvent existing law to allow several categories of illegal immigrants to avoid deportation and, indeed, for some to be granted permanent residency. Most disturbing was the stated rationale. This was being proposed “in the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” In other words, because Congress refuses to do what these bureaucrats would like to see done, they will legislate it themselves. -IBD
There is an intentional disregard of the rule of law raising the suspicion that the problem isn’t illegal immigration, but rather the rule of law. Immigration isn’t the only front in this war. There’s the ruling by the EPA that “carbon dioxide” is a substance the government agency can regulate directly to get around Congress not passing cap and trade. There’s the 20 billion settlement agreed to by BP over the oil spill, outside the court system —outside the law altogether. There’s the hi-jinks antics in passing the healthcare law (we tend to forget it was passed through procedural gimmicks, such as 2000 page amendments to a 200 page bill presented two or three hours before the final vote was to be held). There’s the takeover of GM. There’s the redirection of the TARP funds every other week. There’s the enforced takover of the entire financial industry.
Now there’s a rumor floating around that since a new stimulus won’t pass (there’s no political will), the government is thinking about simply reducing the outstanding debt of any mortgage help by Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae where the value of the house is less than the amount owed. That’s essentially a big slap in the face for those among us who didn’t buy too much house, or were cautious in our finances, or have actually paid off their house. Want to do a new stimulus, but can’t find the votes to pass it? Just push it through as a new regulation, no matter who it hurts. And this one would hurt everyone by lowering the value of those houses that aren’t underwater, and reducing the value of a contract. It could actually end up destroying the US Government’s credit rating. Those who have lived responsibly will end up paying for this with more taxes.
There are two approaches you can use to destroy the concept of law itself. The first is to claim some evil is so bad we must chase it down even at the cost of destroying the law itself. The second is to claim some good is so good we must enable it even at the cost of destroying the law itself. In both cases, you are destroying the law intentionally; you are placing human judgment of the here and now above the reasoned thinking of many people over many ages, or the entire concept of natural law.
The desire to “rise above” the law, to “be gods, deciding right and wrong,” has been one of the essential sins since the beginning. It is, really, tied into the sins of idolatry, pride, lust, and all the rest; it is bound into the rejection of God,and God’s power.
We are in revolutionary times when the law is a malleable thing, its validity predicated only on its perceived social utility at any given moment. -Victor David Hanson, PJM