Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
I flinch when people urge that we condition law enforcement on “humanity” rather than “legality.” Who decides which law is inhumane and need not be obeyed? Taken to its logical extreme, that argument produces anarchy.
For example, Paul Mirengoff writing at Powerline about Trump’s immigration stance says: “First, walk away from mass deportation once and for all. Deporting 11 million people, if it could be done, would be inhumane.”
Inhumane? That’s a powerful condemnation, a word we’d use to describe slavery or torture. Is it justified in this context?
A person who sneaks across the border into this country, claims asylum as a refugee but loses the case in immigration court, is ordered “removed” which is the politically-correct word for “deported.” That’s the law. The fact there are many such people, does not change the law.
Is it inhumane to enforce existing law? Why? Because immigrants would be sent out of the land of Milk and Honey back to poverty and misery? If that’s the case, isn’t it equally inhumane to leave people rotting in misery and poverty in their own countries because of an arbitrary border line? Shouldn’t we share our riches with everyone? Shouldn’t we eliminate the border on basic humanitarian grounds and let everybody in? Are borders themselves, inhumane?
If it’s “inhumane” to enforce the border, then we shouldn’t criticize Trump: we should criticize Congress and the President for maintaining the inhumane laws that presently exist. We should insist Congress repeal all immigration laws, fling the borders wide open and let everybody in. Doing any less would be “inhumane.”
Unless . . . unless that’s not what Liberals really want. Unless they simply want to beat on Trump and any stick will do. If that’s the case, then arguing for open borders gives millions false hope of amnesty, a unicorn dream in this political climate. And that would be truly inhumane.
Joe Doakes
When they start applying this to logic and intelligence, then it’ll get serious.
When they start applying this to logic and intelligence, then it’ll get serious.
Will never happen because political class and most libturds are neither logical nor intelligent.
Distilled version of this post: Are we a nation of laws or of men? If it is the latter, I’m arming up.
I’m sorry, but we need to learn from history– recent history. A couple of states passed laws requiring e-Verify as a condition of employment, and whole apartment buildings went vacant, school classes were decimated, and jobs went begging (briefly). The illegal immigrants, absent the incentive of a good job (by their definition), simply left town and self-deported. I had previously thought it “inhumane” to send those folks back to starvation and misery where they came from, but obviously it isn’t that bad “back home.” Trump is right– universal e-Verify, and the only way you get legal status is to “touchback” at home and come back through the front door (with a temporarily increased cap?) It’s what I call “wink-wink” amnesty and I’m OK with it. You show up at our door, know where there is a job waiting and a vacant apartment, and you speak passable English, come on in. That guy that used to work here with your same name committed lots of crimes–illegally crossed the border, committed Social Security fraud and document fraud, stole government services (educating the kids, or welfare), was driving without a license, etc., etc. “You,” Mr. new “guest worker,” did not. Welcome.
If we want to argue inhumanity, we need to consider the inhumanity of large scale deportations vs. the inhumanity of huge costs on the rest of us to pay for illegal immigration. You cannot get away from some degree of cruelty to someone, you might as well consider that when you pass–and enforce–the laws.
If you think the law is inhumane, get it repealed. All it (should) take is that the majority of your representatives agree that it’s inhumane. Certainly that’s a minimal standard, isn’t it?