Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Aug 27, 2015 in Immigration | 24 comments

Immigration Questions That Democrats Should Answer

US border notice

Republicans are being grilled about immigration. Democrats need to be grilled as well.

If Americans are going to have a debate about immigration, then Democrats need to contribute by answering a few questions. Here they are.

1) Do you always support the rule of law?

2) If your answer to Question #1 is No, then what standard do you use to determine whether or not you will support the rule of law?

3) Do you support the rule of law in regards to the USA’s immigration laws?

4) Regarding adult immigrants who are in the USA illegally, do you want them to get away with violating the USA’s immigration laws?

5) Do you support the US government giving some kind of punishment to adult immigrants who are violating the USA’s immigration laws?

6) If a wall all along the northern side of the US-Mexican border were to be effective in preventing people from entering the USA illegally, then would you be in support of such a wall existing?

7) If you had friends and/or relatives living in a nation other than the USA, and if they wanted to enter the USA legally but were prevented from doing so, then would you approve of them entering the USA illegally?

8) If you currently have friends and/or relatives who are in the USA illegally, then do you condone their being in the USA illegally?

9) Do you believe that the USA’s current immigration laws are unfair?

10) It is right for one to ignore laws that one believes are unfair?

Adult immigrants who are in the USA illegally could not remain in the USA illegally if they did not have enablers who reside in the USA legally. The above-state questions are written so as to find out which Americans are enablers and which aren’t.

It should be noted that not all such enablers are Democrats.

——————————————————————————————————————-

This post sponsored by . . .

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The Moderate Voice
  • archangel

    1. I’d start, instead, with who gave those from Britain and Spain the right to take over a land they had no legal right to? {not to mention incursions by France, etc.]

    2. I’d start instead, with who took the indecent actions over and over and over for millenia to have indigenous people sign papers they could not read?

    3. I’d start with where were the so called ‘founding fathers’ immigration papers granted only by the native tribes, that gave them the right to squat and steal and murder in order to take land and resources from those already here?

    4. I’d start with who had papers from Mexico that agreed that USA could rapaciously steal ? of a soverign nation of Mexico and make it the US because ‘they’ said so?

    5. I’d start with what ‘papers’ from the African tribal people of at least 12 nations, did the vicious Dutch traders, soulless English traders, and other bankrupt human slavers of the most indecent kind, have to give them permission to land in the harbors of West Coast Africa, and literally kidnap, bludgeon, murder, starve, RAPE, and sell human beings across the islands and the continental masses of North, Central and South American?

    6. WHO the h were THEIR so-called “enablers”?
    Start there.

    7. No progress will ever be made until one starts with the fact that those screeching about ‘papers’ now, are often the descendants of many who came without papers of agreement of any kind from those Native peoples already here. Trace back to the 1600 in the now USA? Trace back to the early 1500s in Mexico. Those who invaded, occupied, stole, “colonized” had papers from the Native Americans here? Really?

    8. Who slaughtered those Native people who would not surrender?

    9. Who rounded up those Native people who would not surrender? Put them in concentration camps. Stole everything from them. Everything.

    10. What are their names, those so-called ‘enablers’ of murder, fraud, larceny, theft, rape, assault and battery?

    Start the h there.

    • DdW

      Thank you for coming to my rescue, Dr. E.

      I had to restrain myself from commenting on this insolent, gotcha farce masquerading as an “equal opportunity” (Republicans are being grilled, so Democrats need to be quizzed, too) survey, loaded with questions a KKK lawyer would love to pose.

      And then the gall to conclude with the words:

      The above-state questions are written so as to find out which Americans are enablers and which aren’t.

      All I can say politely is WOW!!

      Added: Tidbits, you are a lawyer, please help the author understand “the rule of law.”

    • Rcoutme

      The answer, whether or not we like it, to your counter questions is: rule of the gun. In the end, most governmental policies are predicated on rule of force. That has been the state of human affairs for all of history.

    • KP

      I have read over and over, for good reason. I wish I could memorize it.

      It makes me think you might be the inspiration behind Midnight Oil’s “THE DEAD HEART”, recorded in 1986 in Australia, with Peter Garrett on vocals (now a leader in politics down under).

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSybR_k_Ouo

  • tidbits

    To answer your questions:

    1. Do you always support the rule of law?

    Answer: No. I did not support Jim Crow segregation; did not support DOMA and do not support Citizens United for example, but recognize all as being or once having been the law of the land. And, I would actively defy some…as I did with Jim Crow.

    2. If your answer to Question #1 is No, then what standard do you use to determine whether or not you will support the rule of law?

    Answer: Whether a law a) flies in the face of what I would consider a moral imperative or b) whether I believed it was not in the best interest of the country.

    3. Do you support the rule of law in regards to the USA’s immigration laws?

    Answer: Yes, with some caveats, but I doubt that you and I would agree on what the rule of law on immigration laws actually is. The caveats include the physical practical and financial inability to find and deport 11 million plus people…nor would I want to if I could. And, Obama is right. It is permissible from an administrative perspective to prioritize which persons to detain and deport. I also would not break up families or penalize dreamers to enforce some technical point in the law.

    Other comments will follow as I continue this exercise.

    • DdW

      Thank you, Tidbits, for being more polite, patient, constructive and knowledgeable (about these matters) than I could ever be — and I mean that sincerely.

      Look forward to the rest of your answers to this “quiz.”

    • Rcoutme

      How about making the entering part illegal (somewhat similar to speeding), but the remaining part just being a consequence (similar to arriving two minutes earlier)? Then we could set a statute of limitations and stop pretending that these people are continuously breaking the law. We give more leniency to smugglers and tax cheats than we do to people who cross the border (or remain) illegally.

  • tidbits

    Continuing with your questions:

    4. Regarding adult immigrants who are in the USA illegally, do you want them to get away with violating the USA’s immigration laws?

    Answer: I regard that as an impertinent question, but will answer anyway. The answer is “it depends”. If someone was brought into the country as a child, say 3 year old, and knows no other country, speaks English (and Spanish), was educated here and has no roots elsewhere…and is now an adult…there is a technical “violating [of] the USA’s immigration laws.” Under those circumstances I think I would want them to “get away with it,” though I wouldn’t use that phrase. As to others, I might be more inclined to a fine, as opposed to imprisonment or deportation if the person were otherwise law abiding, employed and contributing to society.

    5. Do you support the US government giving some kind of punishment to adult immigrants who are violating the USA’s immigration laws?

    Answer: See answer to number 4 above.

    6. If a wall all along the northern side of the US-Mexican border were to be effective in preventing people from entering the USA illegally, then would you be in support of such a wall existing?

    Answer: Two answers. 1) The question is not consistent with reality. A wall would not be effective in stopping people from entering the USA without proper paperwork; 2) The last wall that I recall that was designed to keep people in and out of different jurisdictions was the Berlin Wall. I’m not sure I want my tax dollars, or the moral credibility of my nation, on the line to build walls of inclusivity and exclusivity.

    More in my next comment.

    • Rcoutme

      In addition, many of the people who are here w/o permission came through the ports! They are not crossing the desert, they are crossing the seas!

    • Sal Monela

      Excellent rebuttal. Regarding your illustration for number 4 concerning small children, the law does not permit prosecution of a 3 or 5 year old child for committing a crime. So how could the government win a deportation case of such and individual 15 or 20 years down the road?
      As another aside, if six months ago you asked me what the ten biggest problems facing the US were, illegal immigration would not even make the list. Compared with climate change, campaign finance, economic stagnation of the poor and middle class, global terrorism, instability in the middle east, economic inequity, taxation, government overreach in the regulatory environment, Wall Street, energy policy, and education, immigration is just a tiny blip on my radar screen. So how did it become the #1 campaign issue?

  • tidbits

    Finishing with your questions:

    7. If you had friends and/or relatives living in a nation other than the USA, and if they wanted to enter the USA legally but were prevented from doing so, then would you approve of them entering the USA illegally?

    Answer: Yes. Depending on the circumstances, I might even assist them.

    8. If you currently have friends and/or relatives who are in the USA illegally, then do you condone their being in the USA illegally?

    Answer: Does not apply to my current situation, but see my answer to 7 above.

    9. Do you believe that the USA’s current immigration laws are unfair?

    Answer: Yes. This is complicated, but keeping it short, I believe the current laws were designed to provide cheap labor for influential elements of the US economy, with the subsequent ability to then dispose of [deport] workers once their usefulness had been exploited. This system has since backfired with many, having been enticed across the border for economic exploitation, remaining…contrary to the original design. The immigration laws, IMO, are inherently unfair, and were specifically designed to be so.

    10. It is [Is it] right for one to ignore laws that one believes are unfair?

    Answer: The morally correct approach is not to ignore such laws but to actively oppose them, even to the point of advocating their violation. Just as abolitionists set up the Underground Railway to secrete slaves from the South, I could see providing active sanctuary particularly for Dreamers, as I described that group in my answer to number 4.

  • tidbits

    Sorry about dominating the comment thread, but I must respond to a couple of other offensive assertions/assumptions.

    First:

    Adult immigrants who are in the USA illegally could not remain in the USA illegally if they did not have enablers who reside in the USA legally. The above-state (sic) questions are written so as to find out which Americans are enablers and which aren’t.

    Morally, the only thing I’m enabling (from my perspective) is tolerance and social justice. If there are those who wish to condemn me in pejorative terms like enabler, feel free. I stand in the proud company of Lincoln, MLK and Gandhi.

    Second:

    do you want them to get away with violating the … laws

    This is a matter of perspective. Seen from one view (getting away with something) assumes a viewpoint that is judgmental and punitive in nature. I prefer a perspective that is understanding and forgiving. Just an observation.

    Finally:

    The author, I believe, does not understand the law about which he writes. Entering the United States without papers is a misdemeanor, not a capital crime or even a felony. This then goes to punishment, and what is or is not appropriate. Misdemeanors in general are punishable by no more than 1 year in jail and a fine of not more than $5000 (more or less depending on jurisdiction). Most misdemeanors are addressed with no jail time, a period of probation and a small fine (under $500). If one were to treat improper border crossing in the same manner as other misdemeanors, and do so as a part of comprehensive immigration reform, our differences might narrow (though I would still oppose sanctions on Dreamers). Unfortunately, I suspect that the author’s idea of appropriate punishment is far more punitive than what passes for standard misdemeanor treatment.

    Enough venting. I’ll stop now.

    • DdW

      You have not been dominating the comment thread at all, Tidbits.

      That is what it takes to properly answer ten varieties of the “When did you stop beating your wife” question, and you did it well.

      Kudos.

    • Brownies girl

      Bravo m’dear — you did so well! Beautifully done! You get a standing ovation from me!

  • JSpencer

    I’m grateful to the people here who put this quasi flow chart into proper perspective. I would only add this: The symbolism of a “wall” is antithetical to everything the USA stands for and as such symbolizes only a failure of the American Dream. A special thanks to Dr. E. and Elijah.

    • Slamfu

      I dunno JSpencer, it worked so well for the East Germans.

  • DdW

    Just wondering why the title was changed from “Questions That Hispanic Americans Should Answer (But Probably Won’t)” to ” “Immigration Questions that Democrats Should Answer.”

    Probably will never know.

    • archangel

      when did THAT happen? The piece should have the same title it began as… Let me know.

      • DdW

        You’ll have to ask the author, Dr. E.

        No big deal. Just curious.

  • adelinesdad

    I’m not a Democrat. In fact I lean conservative on most issues. However, my objection to argument implied by the questions is this: It is unjust to enforce a law retroactively. If it were possible to retroactively identify everyone who has ever broken the speed limit for the past 20 years, and issue them citations for each instance of speeding, would that be just? We believe in the rule of law, don’t we? So no complaining allowed.

    If we write a law and then allow it to be broken, or perhaps write a law that is unenforceable, that’s on us as much as the lawbreakers. People have made decisions, sometimes in very difficult circumstances, based on what they perceived the law, and the enforcement of law, to be. Now good people are here, have built lives, livelihoods, and families. I say we let them stay and give legal status to those who meet certain requirements. I would say that they shouldn’t get citizenship unless they go through the same process as legal immigrants (I’m undecided on whether they should have to leave to do so). I don’t think most illegal immigrants deserve punishment (beyond maybe a fine of some sort to gain legal status), but neither do I think they deserve a reward denied to those who didn’t break the law, and one I doubt they were even seeking when they came. Legal status is fair and compassionate. The push for citizenship I think is politically motivated.

    That, and we need to reform immigration law to create a policy that is enforceable, fair, and economically-beneficial going forward.

    • DdW

      Adelinesdad,

      Being a Democrat, I don’t always agree with you on many issues.

      But on this one I think we have found some common ground — as I wish it would more often be the case in our political processes.

      The only area I disagree somewhat is on the issue of citizenship and whether “they” (entire families) should leave the country to do so.

      I believe that those who have been living and working in the U.S. for several years; have established residence, families and relationships; have pursued education and achieved careers; have not broken any laws, etc. should get an expedited path to citizenship without the financial and emotional burden of having to start all over again.

      But then again, that’s what makes me a Democrat 🙂

      • adelinesdad

        I’m glad when we can agree on something, but the disagreements keep things interesting. I just don’t see how anything more than minimal legal status is necessary to make things whole, and anything more would be unfair to others in the process legally.

        • DdW

          Expedited legal status would be fine — for starters.

    • I say we let them stay and give legal status to those who meet certain requirements.

      After all, we invited them. We put a well-publicized sign right next to our main gate:

      Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
      The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
      Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
      I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

      I’m not aware of any movement to take that sign down.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com