Even more perversely, the amendment applies retroactively. So people who crossed illegally years ago — even those whose sentences have been suspended — would be subject to the drastic consequences of being declared “aggravated felons.” They would face mandatory detention and deportation under already negligible protections of due process.————————————————————————
What protection of “due process” would that be? They aren’t Americans! Why should they get American benefits?!
What is especially aggravating is that Jorge Bush wants amnesty for foreigners but not for Americans. If illegals get amnesty, give amnesty for all! No back taxes, parking tickets, military enlistment contracts, open the jails - if he wants amnesty, do the whole enchilada! Everyone, not just illegals - but of course that won’t happen since Americans have to pay taxes so illegals can have their freebies.
In the netherworld occupied by the editorial board of the New York Times, "Justice," "due process," and "fairness" arise not from our founding documents such as the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, nor do they come from the hoary body of common law which was antecedent to these documents and subsequently expiated them, nor does it come from legislation made pursuant to our Constitution and our God-given legacy of the common law, but rather such "rights" emanate because we are-or, God help us, are not-members of an anointed group.
Are you brown? Better yet, are you black? Are you female? Better yet, are you a brown or black female? Are you homosexual? Better yet, are you a black, brown, female homosexual? are you poor? Are you illiterate, uneducated, infected with AIDS? Even if you are not a black or brown homosexual female, the New York Times editorial board will accord you certain rights if you can qualify as one of these subgroups.
Are you white, male, heterosexual, law-abiding, employed, taxpaying, patriotic American? Then, Regrettably but unavoidably, you are a member of a group which has few and limited rights because your group, by definition, oppresses those in the previously described groups. In the New York Times board room, rights are not established by law, or even by deed, but by group identity.
So, what does it matter if a bill would grant amnesty to millions of felons in a single stroke? To The New York Times editorial board it matters not at all because crimes are not defined in the statute books. In the netherworld of the New York Times editorial board room, this bill does not give amnesty to felons who committed past crimes, but rectifies an ongoing crime committed against an oppressed class.
