A couple of years ago, Juanita’s father died in Mexico (her parents had divorced and her father moved back to Mexico years ago) and she wanted to go to the funeral. The dilemma is that she was brought to the United States without proper documentation and, as such, is an “illegal alien.” With that in mind, she risked a great deal to go to Mexico to attend her father’s funeral. Her children (who are citizens of the United States based on the fact that they were born here) stayed in Texas so you can imagine her motivation to get back to the United States following the funeral. She got turned back on her first attempt to illegally cross into Texas but on her second attempt to come back in, she packed her clothes in a plastic bag to keep them dry and swam in her underwear across the Rio Grande successfully in order to return to her family and the only life she had known since she was in elementary school.
Reactions range from empathy to outrage and may go as far as to take exception with the citizenship of Juanita’s children (which is mandated by the Constitution of the United States). There may be an immediate attempt to theoretically calculate what Juanita’s family and those like hers cost “us” in health care benefits and other financial considerations. There are some that take exception with the fact that her husband is “taking” jobs that would be higher paying to citizens of the United States. Some won’t like the fact that they can own property.

This is a tough issue, we can all agree. The borders need to be secure if for no other reason, for the sake of security given the world climate especially evident since 09/11. We need to be a country of laws which are respected and enforced, no doubt about it. Economics matter and there needs to be equity and justice in services provided.

We also need to be a nation of decency and common sense. Juanita, by reason of her age, did nothing wrong in being raised in Texas; it wasn’t her choice but that of her parents. Legally, she can’t be guilty of a crime which she lacked the mental state or “mens rea” to commit. By reason of her humanity, it would be difficult to condemn her for either going to her father’s funeral or crossing the river illegally to return to her family. Before we judge too harshly, it is reasonable to consider, “what would I do?”

Recently, there was proposed legislation called the “Dream Act” in front of Congress that failed to get passed which would have addressed the problem by providing avenues for legal status to undocumented residents who were brought to this country as minors. Was that decision by our policy makers an accurate reflection on our nation’s attitude towards people like Juanita and, if so, are we really as decent as we claim?

Why import more poverty except to erase the middle class and bring on crime the likes of which we have never seen before. Not all of us are in safe secure neigborhoods such as yours.

I’m conservative and hate “free trade” Isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place. What happened with NAFTA and how many other countries hate us because of our business or corporate leaders. And what has been the answer, to send our jobs overseas too? Or invite their brightest to come over here and take jobs from us with HB1-visas. Or insist we have nursing shortage so you can import nurses instead of training Americans?
Does it even matter to those running coorporations that they are taking jobs from Amercians..Oh yeah..”free trade.”

Catholics?? Hey, we aren’t all Catholics and maybe we don’t want this to be a nation under the Pope and his perverted priests. I guess that would suit him fine as it would give him money for those pedophile lawsuits.

First, you are correct that there are many laws that should be struck from the books. That being the case, we need to remove them or pass legislation that supersedes them.

Don’t be lazy. Fix the laws. You are correct in stating that immigration law is but one set of laws among many, and that all law should be enforced or done away with. ALL of them. There’s plenty of reason why the people don’t trust the government. The arbitrary enforcement of law is high on that list!

Am I dumb because I made the “Rule of law” arguement? Certainly not, just more ad hominen on your part. If you would like for me to agree that Ronald Reagan was wrong in granting amnesty, consider that done! (Reagan is my favorite modern day president, btw) He had reason to hope that the issue would be taken care of if amnesty was granted, however, OBVIOUSLY THAT IS NOT THE CASE!!! We still have the problem and THAT is cold hard evidence to avoid another round of amnesty!

Btw, I personally really don’t have an objection to the culture thing, but I say we let in more Guatemalans and fewer Mexicans. You know, the ones Mexico won’t allow into Mexico because they don’t believe in a free southern border either. Yet, they (Mexican govt.) are “outraged” at the US for suggesting restrictions and suggesting that such massive tides of illegal immigrants might cause problems for the economy. Such hypocrisey! Go figure.

Please, somebody call the Mexicans xenophobic. I bet if we try hard enough, we can call the government of Mexico racists. Perhaps there are too many Native Americans crossing their southern border? Maybe the Mexican government doesn’t care about the poor at all and all their allegations of US cold heartedness is just more hypocritical posturing.

What is really wrong is the businesses and political groups that benefit from illegal immigrants. Much of the problem would disapear if we made legal immigration easier after securing the borders. What we need is fewer illegal immigrants and more legal ones. We will probably need to consider finding ways for those already residing in the US to apply for temporary stays leading to permanent residence or transition to “guest workers”, but none of that will mean any more than what Reagan did if we don’t secure our borders and enforce immigration law.

Guess what James? We have a large population of Filipinos in Virginia Beach. If I have to see “press 3 for Tagalog” on the ATMs there, I’m very ok with that. In fact, I want to see that! I’m not afraid of “culture”. You ok with that?

The way I see it, there are 2 types of laws: God’s laws and man’s laws. God’s laws are sacred and should never be broken, obviously. Man’s laws are provisional and are meant for practical reasons, and should be discarded for practical reasons. A lot of laws passed in the 1600s wouldn’t apply today because technology has made them obsolte. Immigration laws are man’s laws; they weren’t created because it is inherently immoral for a person in Mexico to work in the United States; but for practical reasons (stress on our economy, etc…) Since these laws have a practical purpose, they should be treated practically; and it is practically right to let these people stay.

Anybody who is making the argument that the “rule of law” will break down in America is just being dumb. Did the “rule of law” break down when Reagan gave 3 million illegals amnesty in the 80′s? Do you think people will start murdering and raping because the government gave illegals amnesty?

Just from personal observation on this blog, arguements making use of the word “draconian” tend to be flawed.

Once again, somebody needs to be called out for race baiting. This time it is the article’s author, Shaun Kenney.

Taken from wikipedia(emphasis mine):

“Race baiting can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists.

Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.” – wikipedia

Race baiting can be a double edged sword Shaun. Why the favoritism towards Mexicans Shaun? Don’t you also object then to limits placed on those from Hati? The Philipines? Canada? Germany? Croatia? China? Russia? South Africa? India? Iran? Yemen? Saudi Arabia?

Since you are pointing to moral authority, at what point do we stop accepting new people? Is there a point? How do we handle the welfare issues? National Security?

The Rule of Law is needed. We truly get into trouble when law can just be arbitrarily enforced or ignored. This is not to say that a truly immoral law that violates natural rights such as allowing the persecution of Jews in Hitler’s Germany should have been followed. Clearly that kind of law violates the Natural Rights of those human beings that happen to be Jewish. There is no such comparable issue going on here, and thus your arguement to ignore immigration laws and give specific preference to Mexicans, for what ever your reason is, is just wrong.

How you can try to claim that trying to maintain your wealth and way of life as being immoral is perplexing. Your tax dollars and your job first, ok?

Also note, that we Americans are supposed to be secure in our rights to property, a natural right. Money is property and an arguement can be made that until taxation or redistribution of wealth to illegal immigrants is changed, we are being deprived the fruits of our labor. At what point do we stop giving to others and actually support our own families? You can’t save everyone despite wanting to.

Idealistically, a free and open border would be ideal, but only if we don’t have a welfare state, visitors cross legally, people immigrate legally from ALL countries, preferences not made for certain races, and all abide by rules set up for legal employment by “guest workers”. Also needed is enforcement of law in regard to businesses that take unfair advantage of the “illegal status”. The “Free Market” DOES NOT mean we condone a system that artificially takes advantage of desperate people willing to accept inadequate wages or dangerous working conditions. The ignoring of the rule of law has in fact established a lesser class of people to be preyed upon by predatory industry with interests vested in corruption and classism. The standard practice of ignoring the law and the employment of illegal aliens is in fact immoral!

We need to secure our border, streamline LEGAL immigration and give more incentive to do it legally than illegally. We need a better system of allowing foreigners to legally work in the US. We need the enforcement of law and respect for the Rule of Law and for natural rights. And yes, that INCLUDES natural rights of those already American citizens.

You and those Berrigan Brothers — Free Market Conservatives all!

illegal is a crime:

Yes, indeed, ‘Far Out’! But ‘with God, all things are possible’! If it serves His will, He will make it happen — perhaps a comforting idea to those of us to whom it appears that most of the world is dancing with the Devil. (Actually, I occasionally catch myself tapping my foot.)

http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap7.pdf

Before its too late. Beware of the RINOs.

The moral question – which is distinct from the legal issue of defending borders and legislating rules for citizenship – is when did you feed the hungry? When did you give the thirsty something to drink? When did you invite the stranger in to your home? When did you give the stranger clothes? When did you visit the sick or prisoners?

Whatever you did – not government – for just one of the least of these persons matters.

So, there are 5 billion out of 6 billion people who would like to live in the U.S. Trying to make it a moral argument to give special privileges to the millions who successfully broke our laws so far is unfair to the other 5 billion or so.

The moral argument about illegal aliens isn’t about government merely enforcing the laws – the laws on immigration aren’t immoral.

The moral argument about illegal aliens is what you, as an individual do, for the stranger in the land.

Finally, there is no moral argument that those Americans who follow the law and want the laws enforced are racists.

Personal responsibility? When drinking heavily is the sport of the day? Guess that’s OK if it’s the Irish…