What part of “illegal” did she not understand?
By Shaun Kenney | Wednesday, December 1st, 2010 | Politics55 years ago today…
…Rosa Parks refused to obey the Rule of Law, and sat in the front of the bus.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
27 Responses to "What part of “illegal” did she not understand?"
Please tell me I reading this wrong and that you are not actually trying to say that Rosa Parks should have gotten up and moved because it was illegal at the time….
Local, you’ve missed the entire conversation between Shaun and others regarding illegal immigrants. Read the other threads about illegals to get the context of why Shaun is saying what he’s saying.
Shaun, you are jumping the shark here trying to compare Rosa Parks’ fight against an unjust law to people who broke the law to enter our country.
“States have the right to regulate migration flows and to defend their own frontiers, always guaranteeing the respect due to the dignity of each and every human person. Immigrants, moreover, have the duty to integrate into the host Country, respecting its laws and its national identity.” — Pope Benedict XVI on Oct. 26, 2010
LOVE it! I love to discuss John Locke, and what he reminds us, is that laws are man made.
There has been an ebb and flow to immigration from the very beginning of this country. Ben Frankin was worried about those “german quakers” if memory serves me correctly.
Who can forget “no Irish need apply”. If our immigration laws reflected our labor needs, we would be having a much different discussion. We will always have people here who are out of status, my ancestors were some of those people, hiding their entry into Ellis Island. I strongly urge people to question their own ancestry. They may be surprised to learn they have some “illegals” in their own family history
sadly many before Rosa Parks did the same thing but didn’t get the credit she did. civil disobedience is a powerful tool if you have powerful friends. glad she did it.
When can I come over? Oh… never mind. I’ll just come over when I damn well please. Don’t worry about opening the door, I’ll just help myself in through whatever window is available… or the back door… Ah, don’t worry… I’ll figure it out.
Once in, I plan on eating so have some good food, maybe take a nap in your bed. I may leave a dime. Maybe you can give me a ride home afterwards. That’s the best you can do because I have a right to what you have. I deserve it. Hell, your great grandmother could’ve been Hispanic, black or Chinese and hell at some point they had to be an immigrants, most likely illegal.
As for illegal immigration. There’s a front door use it… if you get your ass kicked out, don’t expect anything less.
This discussion equivocating Rosa Park’s stand
to remedy a US citizen’s inalienable rights wrongfully squashed in cavalier criminal conceit “under the color of of the laws authority [while contrary to higher law]”
as being like the illegal invasion of our country, state, local community, homes and economy
is far beneath the customary standards of BearingDrift.com’s usual offerings. This article is a toxic disservice the like of which I have never seen here. What is going wrong here?
Well isn’t that ironic?
Also, John Jackson, wouldn’t they stop climbing in our windows if we stopped hiring them to come in and flush our toilets while we’re at work?
@The Question,
It would help more if the politicians would do their jobs and close the borders. Then we can move the discussion forward. Quite blaming businesses for a Federal Government responsibility.
Businesses have been demonized enough, they need to worry about creating jobs and not do the Federal Governments jobs. They made that clear with Arizona. We don’t need to blame businesses while its the Federal Governments responsibility. If our economy was booming, are we to blame the American citizen?
Unions are the job killers and use illegals as bartering chips, just ask Meg Whitman. While our unemployment rate is at 10%, these politicians are paying people to stay home. I believe the Democrats will be using Unemployment Insurance as a bartering chip in raising our taxes.
@Shaun – I believe I’m taking this in context?
@Riley –
Again — everyone agrees that we should enforce the borders. The disagreement is what to do with the 8-20 million people already here.
Here is a transcript from an interview with Pope Benedict XVI that is much more nuanced.
That — I believe — is a much more comprehensive response, and it is certainly far, far different than the approach taken in the “Rule of Law” response to those already here illegally.
@John Jackson –
Totally agree with you to enforce the borders. In fact, had we done so (or locked our windows), the problems analogized above would never have occured.
Nevertheless, that we do have 8-20 million people here, we need a solution that speaks to the best of American nature, rather than to our nativist compulsions.
I will make this clear: I do not view the critique of “nativist” to be a slur of any sort. To the contrary, it is a long-standing sentiment that has existed in America well before the founding. That having been said, it is certainly a position that can be criticized. I’d expand much further, but that would be another post (and probably not best for the comments section).
@Russell –
There’s a definitive line between argumentation and violating the “no asshole” rule. Let’s leave it there. OTOH, I wholeheartedly agree (and perhaps now, you understand) that a law that contravenes the natural law — God’s law, morality, common sense, etc. — is no law at all. In fact, such laws are to be resisted.
At least now we can put to bed the “what don’t people understand about ‘illegal’ — it’s against the law!” as a valid argument.
@Red Nova –
Hopefully you’ve gotten the background and see what I was trying to accomplish. If not, see my response above.
@Elena —
Agree entirely! Nativist sentiment isn’t an old ghost, that’s for sure.
“An unjust law is no law at all.”
Rosa Parks “crime” was to disobey an unjust law.
She was also very willing to suffer the consequences of her disobedience in order to change the law – which was her real goal.
That’s a major difference from what you might be implying about the “rule of law” debate of our day.
Many seem to want the law merely ignored, not changed. Businesses who skirt the law and hire illegal workers are not seeking justice in general, but marginally hire profits than their competitors.
When people raise the “what don’t you understand about ‘illegal’ ” phrase, there is usually an underlying assumption that the law in question is at least morally permissible (does not contravene natural law). One is free to disagree with that assumption, of course.
Is it your position, Shaun, that border laws are immoral?
Not at all. In fact, virtually everyone who has commented on this issue wants the borders enforced.
But again — border enforcement is not the issue. The issue is what to do with the 8-20 million people already here.
That’s the second part that most would like to gloss over, but unfortunately will not go away. And there are no easy answers…
Russell asks “what is going wrong here?”
The answer is simple: nothing at all. Shaun is providing his perspective on this issue, one that is enlightened by his faith and his understanding of philosophy. He is entitled to that opinion and hopefully he opened a few eyes with the argument.
Not everyone will agree, but that’s not the point of reading sites like this and engaging in debate. I don’t argue with people because I want to win arguments (that’s why I went to law school). I argue with people because that’s how I learn – challenging others arguments and having my arguments challenged. It takes a wise man to understand how little he knows and to seek out knowledge for knowledge’s sake – and that’s what readers of Bearing Drift do everytime they read the blog.
Shaun deserves credit for his stand, and if you disagree with him, argue your side. But don’t think the fact that each of us has our own opinions means something is going wrong. That means things are going right.
I hope people here understand that not everyone in this country without proper documentation crossed the border to get here!
No, I agree with Russell. Something is wrong. This analogy should be beneath you. It cheapens what Rosa Parks and others did. Hmmmm…..remember that article on using the “unconstitutional” card?
The vast majority of people opposing illegal immigration are not racists. They just disagree with you. That doesn’t stop you from race baiting like the worst politically correct Lefty. Just like that total ass running against McWaters calling Kirwin an anti-semite. Good luck trying to claim credibility next time you try to call out the Left on their use of the “race card”.
I kinda see a difference between people coming here voluntarily for opportunity facing discrimination and people descended from captured slaves that can’t go home……because they don’t have one……. since America abducted their ancestors.
I agree with you on securing borders and I even agree that trying to deport several million is a bit unrealistic. In your other thread I gave you a suggestion for a path to permanent residence and possible citizenship, but that was the 3 card monte you were talking about? At least I came up with something. I guess I am just a racist because I don’t offer total amnesty upfront to every person illegally here without condition.
I know you could care less, but in my opinion this type of article lowers the standard at Bearing Drift and I am profundly disappointed.
Well, I didn’t think this was possible, but it’s happened:
There’s a blogger in Virginia who has managed to make Lowell Feld look sane and measured by comparison.
The next time one of you clowns makes an argument about how we need to have more civility in our discussions, I’m going to remind you of this thread.
It’s astonishing to see how far Bearing Drift has fallen. I used to respect this blog.
Lurker/NoVa Volunteer/Britt/el al.
Just remember fellas, there’s no place like 127.0.0.1.
What is that a reference to Shaun? Is that an allegation that those 3 posts come from the same source. I am not sure what an ip address looks like.
No person has blogged other than myself from this cell phone. I only post under my own name. I have enough conviction in my beliefs not to need a pseudonym.
If you are saying otherwise, I am prepared to publicly call you a liar.
My apologies if I misunderstood you point of 127.0.0.1
Shaun – I actually agree with you on this one.
Here’s my attempt at a reasonable and workable solution; folks can have fun ripping it apart. If readers don’t like it, how bout offering up alternative solutions?
Strengthen laws and penalties for law-breakers:
-Pass mandatory E-Verify legislation and implement.
-Increase fines and penalties for law-breaking employers that hire the undocumented (because they come cheap and can’t complain about indecent working conditions.) Penalties should mirror federal trafficking penalties (prison and asset seizure) and apply to corporate and individual lawbreakers.
-Set up a national tip line for reporting abuse. (If my competitor outbids me because he breaks the law, think I might have an incentive to report?)
- Current penalty range for transporting undocumented workers is (I believe) fines and/or maximum 5 – 15 years in prison. If we’re serious about stopping illegal transport of humans, we need to toughen the law. The 3-strikes drug law would be a good model to start with.
State aid:
- Give border states funds necessary to build fence. Funds distributed on a $ per mile basis. Acceptance of funds includes contract to build according to minimum spec (or better), during the timeline required; any left-over funds are kept by state. Any over-runs are paid for by state.
-Deploy more National Guard units to border to assist boarder patrol.
Registration/Documentation:
-With E-Verify ready to go, begin application process for guest worker status and pathway to legal citizenship.
-If you step forward during this brief amnesty period, your application receives consideration.
-Federal and State fees and fines imposed, but no criminal charges or instant deportation prior to background check.
-Government hires temporary workers (e.g. Census workers) to register applicants. Or here’s a novel idea: if you already receive Fed/State unemployment check (and are physically able to work), you give the government your time (while unemployed) in whatever areas you’re needed – including immigrant registration duty. (Never happen but had to include it!)
-Preference is given to families that are employed and in good standing within their community.
-You bolt before the process is complete, you get kicked out (when found) and loose future opportunity to apply.
-Have a criminal record? You’re out.
-Qualified, English speaking guest workers admitted to the National Guard and/or Armed services step to the front of the line.
Jay D,
One final proposal may complete your entire solution and that would be… Send out notices throughout the entire United States that there are “low paying construction jobs on the border”, hire only illegals to do the work of building the fence. Once they are done, hand them their check and send them over the fence. Now you have given them a job, money and a free trip home. You have also satisfied the “What is it about illegal?” crowd.
Jay D., my proposal on the other thread was probably less strict in some areas, but I could get behind your ideas. I made no issue of th military and that was a mistake. I would differ with you on that to a degree. I wouldn’t require English profieciency , but only that they take classes. Their job would probably be limited to where language support was available. That in itself would be incentive to learn English. Personally, any immigrant not considered a security threat that is willing to serve in that capacity should be considered “move to the front.” In fact not just permanent residence, as was a step before citizenship in my offered solution, but citizenship. That level of service deserves extra consideration.
Good suggestion, Jay.
I wonder, do any of these proposals take into affect the huge amount of MECHA/La Raza/Atzlan influences in the illegal immigrant community as well as in children of immigrants and young hispanics w/green cards. Do you guys not understand that there is a HUGE anti-American, anti-white sentiment that these people are being force fed by these groups? Not to mention the Cartel influence…
Don’t get me wrong, it is a laudible goal to try to work out some way that those that desire to BE American can achieve that dream, but at the same time, you are treading on very dangerous ground throwing out blanket amnesty to people who have ZERO allegiance to this country. A simple way of explaining it is this, if you allow enough Mexicans to come here without having them assimilate, you end up with another Mexico. Do we REALLY need another Mexico?
Good question MNRNM. I don’t believe anyone suggests blanket amnesty, but rather a pathway to citizenship for those that pay fees & fines, pass background checks, and don’t have criminal records. We agree- the ‘pathway’ should not be automatic & immediate legality, but rather a process that includes maintaining steady employment, English language and civics class, lawful behavior, etc.
To apply for citizenship through naturalization (current law), one must have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years and meet all other eligibility requirements (less time for other circumstances). I believe it’s more than reasonable to offer illegal-status applicants the elongated 5 year plan, which begins the day of step-up (not date of entry). Current law favors behavior that demonstrates good citizenship and punishes crimes of ‘moral turpitude’. In short, the standard naturalization process is a vetting process – not perfect, but it does offer time and opportunity to weed out and deport criminals and those who seek to harm. If only we could apply the same standards to the born-heres!
Is this post a joke? WTF!?!?!
Leave your response