They want a mass amnesty, followed by a reduction in legal immigration, and of course there is the paucity of immigration enforcement provisions.  This is of course the exact opposite of what it should be, with no amnesty, an easing of the bureaucratic hell of our legal immigration systems, and strict enforcement of immigration law. 

Chad and I obviously have differing opinions on the illegal immigration problem, but I thought I'd take the time to offer why it is I'm so virulently opposed to any sort of amnesty, because I think it ties into the argument between Goldstein and Patterico are having over intentionalism and language. 

I fully believe that to reward illegals with citizenship is completely counter to the founding principles of our nation, the idea that all men are created equal under the law.  We fought one horrible bloody war to make that happen, and countless skirmishes, both in the courtrooms, in elections, and in some cases in the streets to try and make that happen.  We're not perfect, and we never will be, but overall we've done pretty damn good. 

Offering up any sort of mass amnesty is rewarding illegal behavior, the government loses its ability to say that all are equal under the law under its rule, which will critically undermine the ability of the government to administer the law.  After all, why shouldn't you get a pass for violating the law, the government not only refused to punish lawbreakers, they rewarded them for their lawbreaking!  And maybe some other schmuck on trial when you're up for jury duty.  Every trial could become a trial against the government and justice system.  If this were to happen, odds are the government would try and remove the public from the administration of justice, just to try and restore order.  Not a good thing. 

Then you have the resentment that comes with it, the fact that illegals will be despised because they received special favors from the government.  This will inevitably lead to social tensions and severe division within the nation.  Beyond that you have the logical disconnect of having tens of millions of people who are escaping nations that are criminally corrupt and don't administer the law fairly or equally, by demanding that a nation that isn't (on the whole) corrupt and does administer the law fairly and equally.  You can't, and Americans won't pretend you can like the government demands they do. 

The problem for Amnesty proponents is that to go forward with an Amnesty is that doing so is directly counter to the principles laid out in the Constitution.  The Constitution isn't a set of rights that the government doles out or administers, it is an acknowledgment of the rights of the American people.  When the government deviates from the Constitution, it does so only so far as the American public will allow it to.  If the government moves to create an amnesty, at some point, the American public may well choose to slap the government back into compliance with the contract it signed.

Posted by: doubleplusundead at 11:56 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 3 kb.