Immigration can't be reduced to 'rule of law' (Barf Alert!)

Sidney Herald ^ | July 4, 2007 | Mary Sanchez

[2ndDivisionVet]

In the war of words the immigration reform debate has degenerated into lately, a few terms have taken on lightning-bolt authority - a kind of "we know which side you are on" usage.

Do you say "illegal alien" or "undocumented worker?" Path to earned "citizenship" or "amnesty?" A favorite phrase, increasingly heard in dialogues both heated and mild, is "rule of law." Now, this principle has an important place historically in legal and political theory, but you wouldn't know it listening to the patriots fulminating against illegal immigrants. To them, "rule of law" is a way simply to call out anyone who sees shades of gray in the immigration issue. Those who invoke the term are beholden to a hard and fast view that one group is entirely good - legal immigrants - and another is entirely bad - illegal immigrants.

The phrase is a sort of finger wagging at anyone who would dare find any favor with those who reside and work in the U.S. without a valid visa. Immigrants whose paperwork is out of order - a misdemeanor, in many cases - are to be demonized because, they threaten "the rule of law," or so goes the thinking.

Some, like Rep. Roy Blunt, the House Republican whip, greeted the Senate's failure to advance an immigration reform package as a victory for "those of us in Congress fighting to reestablish the rule of law." Actually, what we are getting is a return to the status quo.

Problem is, our immigration quandary does not yield to black-and-white explanations. After all, some of these workers are actually needed. And, as a country, we are partly at fault because until recently we have given a wink and nod to companies and individuals who hire them. There is little room for those sorts of quibbles when seeing things through the absolutist mentality of "the rule of law."

This is not to argue that we do not need to uphold our laws. Rather, sometimes it is equally important to acknowledge that the old laws have led us astray, and clinging to them more firmly is folly.

One of the best examples of a contorted "rule of law" argument was supplied by Iowa Rep. Steve King. In an essay he proposed a vision of the United States as "an enormous clipper ship" filled with all the nation's inhabitants. Some passengers are retirees who have had their turn at the oars, others are the unemployed who want to row, children who will get their turn - and, yes, the "stowaways," the illegal immigrants, many of whom he alleges are not hard at work as "crew." He says, "Only seven of 12 are swabbing the deck or trimming the sails of 'America.' "

What would happen to his outlook on immigrants and the "rule of law" if Congress managed to rewrite immigration law? Many of those who are now in the "illegal" category would make it to the "legal" lineup? What would King say then? Would he find another tortured analogy to refute the people's change of status? Or would he stand for the new "rule of law?"

Saner members of Congress, too, face a dilemma. Even though they have freely admitted that our immigration laws are broken, they will nonetheless be forced to back them now that Congress has failed to act. They will be bound - by rule of law - to uphold the very laws they have declared so deplorable.

We're in bit of a no-man's-land here.

[dennisw]

Typical nitwit reasoning from this Sanchez. For her and other Hispanic mouth pieces being an illegal alien is simply a matter of you not having “papers” or having “papers” that need to be adjusted. It has nothing to do with unwanted 3rd world masses crashing our borders. It has nothing to do with the white Mexican elites (as white as Ms Sanchez) offloading their unwanted brown people into the United States of America

[Lobbyist]

Sanchez is a former Kansas City Star minorities reporter. Today, she is a columnist for the K.C. Star.

[dennisw]

How do these very white Hispanics get jobs as minority reporters? She’s whiter than most Italians

[Kimberly GG]

“Problem is, our immigration quandary does not yield to black-and-white explanations.”

Sure it does. Either you came here LEGALLY or you came here ILLEGALLY. Period.

[Kimberly GG]

“Many of those who are now in the “illegal” category would make it to the “legal” lineup?”

Absolutely not. Compromising on amnesty is NOT an option. Deciding who is here and then offering them “aspirations of citizenship” is UNACCEPTABLE.

[LegendHasIt]

"Immigration can't be reduced to 'rule of law"

Well, if that is true Senorita Maria, then, neither can robbery, murder, rape, assault, fraud or any other codified situation.

[singfreedom]

I had to really look to determine where this “paper” was located. Its Sydney, Montana-—wherever that is! I have, regretably, been forced to check the name of the person writing pieces of this nature. They have, predictably, usually ended in ‘ez.

[RoseyT]

Here’s the story on the Kansas City Star site.
http://www.kansascity.com/602/story/174193.html

[cdcdawg]

“To them, “rule of law” is a way simply to call out anyone who sees shades of gray in the immigration issue. Those who invoke the term are beholden to a hard and fast view that one group is entirely good - legal immigrants - and another is entirely bad - illegal immigrants.”

The straw-man. A classic logical fallacy. The left is stupid. There is no other way to say it. Stupid. There could (theoretically) be good arguments to be made on their behalf, but they are too stupid to make them. By “stupid” I mean lacking intelligence. They do not seem to possess even rudimentary reasoning skills, which doesn’t really seem to matter because they lack even the most basic information and knowledge about a given subject. The writer of the column is stupid. If somebody can find a nicer way of saying it, I am all ears.

[dennisw]

She’s a KC Star writter

[wtc911]

How do these very white Hispanics get jobs as minority reporters? She’s whiter than most Italians

_____________________________________________________

Italians are white?

[2ndDivisionVet]

Demand a border fence! Build it NOW!! Beef up the border patrol and close our borders!

U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121

U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121

White House comments: (202) 456-1111

Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep

Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Toll free to the US Senate:

1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)

Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!

Republican National Committee
310 First Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
phone: 202.863.8500 | fax: 202.863.8820 | e-mail: info@gop.com

Take a look at their hidden agenda: http://www.mexica-movement.org

[Earthdweller]

"Immigrants whose paperwork is out of order - a misdemeanor, in many cases - are to be demonized because, they threaten "the rule of law," or so goes the thinking. "

The numbers are too large for a misdemeanor for all of them...it's a soft invasion. Build the fence.

[twonie]

Sanchez? Chavez? Gonzalez? Read no further after encountering these names as authors or cited as authorities.

[Dick Bachert]

"Sanchez?"

Guess it takes a hispanic to be really objective on THIS topic.

[Ragnar54]

Being opposed to the Mexican invasion does not mean holding "a hard and fast view that one group is entirely good - legal immigrants - and another is entirely bad - illegal immigrants. "

My view is that at least half of all recent immigrants should not be here. As Coulter pointed out recently, it used to be the case that half of all immigrants gave up and went back to the old country because they could not hack it. Now we give welfare treats of various sorts (free medical care, free education, free food, welfare payments,untaxed cash wages, etc.) to legal and illegal immigrants. The Mexican immigrants end up with so much disposable income that they can send billions back to Mexico, where it is collected by those who control the Mexican economy (e.g., Carlos Slim). The Mexican billionaires are like ticks with sombreros, feasting on the blood of US taxpayers.

Sanchez does make a point, if not the one she intended. There is a danger in focusing too much on the "illegal" aspect of the invasion: If we sent all illegal immigrants home and replaced them with legal immigrants, most of the bloodsucking would continue. The main difference between legals and illegals is that the latter group is a more likely supply of criminals and terrorists. The Somalian colonies in Maine and Minnesota (established by the Clintonistas) and the UK "doctors" prove that not all legal immigrants are desirable. We should at least demand that all immigrants stand on their own (without taxpayer subsidy) until such time as they become citizens. Requiring that all immigrants be self-sufficient (including learning English, educating their own children, paying for their own medical care, etc.) would reduce the flood to a manageable trickle and we at least would not be paying for our own undoing.

We also need to shift the focus of the debate away from the "poor, poor, pitiful immigrant" to the ticks with sombreros. Why can't Congress pass legislation targeting businesses owned by the ticks? A special excise tax on the American operations of Mexican businesses (to pay for the costs of illegal immigration) seems reasonable (e.g., American Movil has 8 million subscribers in the US). The money collected could be distributed to local law enforcement agencies based on how many illegals they round up; the number rounded up could be used to readjust the estimated cost and therefore the tax. If we tax the ticks enough, the Mexican government will build the fence.

[dennisw]

Our immigration is rarely skills based. Via family reunification AKA chain migration, we are getting hundreds of thousands of uneducated, non-English speaking immigrants. Their claim to fame is they have a relative here to sponsor them.

MEXICO SENDS US THE MOST LEGAL IMMIGRANTS!!! I’d love to see what skills they bring to America.

[dennisw]

"Sanchez?"

Guess it takes a hispanic to be really objective on THIS topic.

It's the Hispanic ego trip where they are fresh off the banana boat, they just here and they see fit to lecture an Anglo oriented nation.

Hispanic irredentism

[Travis McGee]

The rule of law is what separates America from the banana republics to our south.