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.
When they start applying this to logic and intelligence, then it’ll get serious.