The Current immigration debate has Americans has us pitting against one another. The fears that our country will be overrun by illegal immigrants and
that our society will unravel has many people concerned. The current administration has taken a hard stance on illegal immigrants. They have chosen stricter enforcement and to treat each instance as an attack on our freedoms. I, respectfully, disagree
with their stance. I understand that there are laws in place and that those laws are meant for the better welfare of our country and that no one, no matter who you are, is above the law. The question I have is, if those laws are meant to justify our societies actions then why are they not being followed as it was designed to do. Illegal immigration, or entering the country without permission is not a felony. In other words, the crime they have committed under 8 USC 1325 is less than driving under the influence. Most cases are handled administratively, unless you committed another crime that is more serious, and hardly any see, well… used to see, the inside of a jail. These people are still citizens, albeit illegal, while they are inside our borders. According to the Supreme Court, our nations highest court, illegal citizens have the same right to due process as anyone here legally. Would you separate a family who committed a misdemeanor and traumatize children for a crime that doesn’t rate more than 6 months in jail? The most likely scenario would be to keep the mother with the children, incarcerate the father, if necessary and have them appear in court or immediate departure for the whole family. In other words, the Justice Department can reason that safety for the children is more important than incarceration for a misdemeanor. Can’t they?
I get taking a hard stance when a caravan of people come to your border and defy your warnings but how harsh does your stance have to be? Of course, this is just my opinion, but I feel that you can house the mothers with the children and separate the dads, if a separation needs to be done. If you look at it, what you did is incarcerate everyone separately, for a crime as dumb as and equal to driving without a license. That is an extreme and hard line to take. Extreme, most fitting this scenario. Maybe we should explore the reason why people immigrate in the first place and why we were tolerant of those that did.
Illegal immigration is usually a financial crime in disguise. People come here to make money and send it home to their families so they can survive. Some people say that we shouldn’t be burdened with their countries inability to provide for their citizens but the truth is that we already have decided to help those countries. We send money to third world countries all the time to try and help. We send resources and we try and stave off dictatorships and promote democracy. That’s what America does. To say that we shouldn’t and that we should let those country’s democracy fail is a big mistake because eventually dictatorships will erode our country. America and and other democracies are aware of what happens when dictatorships, i.e. Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and some other countries, take hold. It leads to crazy rulers deciding that they want a little more and start invading other countries, i.e. Iraq/Kuwait. Their thirst for power is never quenched and they will always pose a threat. So, illegal immigration from democracies, while not want we want, helps us in that battle, at least little. We can’t provide enough money to other countries to become like us, we can provide a little help, and if illegal immigrants sometimes make it across the border and work in jobs that Americans will not then where is the actual harm in that misdemeanor. I’m not saying to let them in, I’m saying that we should focus on the carp’s or criminal alien requiring prison, or aliens that have violent felonies and are returning or have returned into our country not people that have never done anything and because of someone’s biased views decided to call ICE and have them deported.
This doesn’t mean that we should let them run wild through our borders but that if they do slip through, then let them deliver the pizza, let them serve you your food and drinks, let them help you build your home, let them care for your children, let them make a living to help us help them (because in this country those are unfortunately the only jobs they would be able to pursue with proper paperwork) like we already do and if they screw up, they already know, paycheck is gone, money that you were sending home is gone, and your gone. This is the win win scenario, at least to me. The bible says help thy neighbor and you will be rewarded in heaven, or something like that. I’ve learned the hard way that the Justice Department can choose which case to prosecute and which cases they can choose to defer for later review, I think that choosing to turn the other cheek in matters where it doesn’t harm us is alright, maybe even better than alright, humane. But if we do choose to do that, then we must treat them like we treat each other. We can’t become savages and make demands that are unreasonable, that’s why I don’t believe in sanctuary cities or 100% enforcement of some laws. I believe in a moderation. Those two scenarios don’t quite fit the bill. As an Airman in the Air Force, while working as a Security Police officer, I have given another airman a ride home when he was borderline on the Field Sobriety Test. I knew that they wouldn’t be able to reenlist and that maybe they were drunk but decided that because that being a few hundred yards from home, just the warning would be enough. I would just drive them there and then give them their keys. We’re not robots you know, we can empathize.
While I don’t like extremism of any kind, I believe that sanctuary cities are an extreme reaction to an extreme action. We have to be careful and should start a dialog before extreme becomes the norm, like school shootings. Another thing is, have any of the advocates for immigration tried to consult with AG concerning the separation of families and if they have, did they ask nicely. The AG is not breaking the law, he’s doing it by the book so taking a hard opposite stance is not going to work. You have to ask if he is amnenable to letting the mother’s stay with the children. Since his actions are not wrong you have to present your counterpoint in a way that makes sense and you have to be respectful. In the end, it’s his decision.