Illegal Still Means Breaking the Law
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
December 10, 2014
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here we go again, regarding
this most divisive issue of illegal immigration. What part of illegal do people
not understand?
Within a three day span, from December 7-9, one column
and several letters to the editor of such myopic shortsightedness appeared in The Indianapolis Star it has become
painfully obvious people do not understand the concept of the rule of law.
One does not need a law degree to understand that when a
person who is not legally entitled to take up residency in the United States of
America crosses the border without permission, that person has committed a
crime – period. Whether such people are called illegal immigrants, undocumented
aliens, illegal aliens, what they cannot be called is American.
It is completely disingenuous to read Matthew Tully’s
December 7 column “Immigration has made Indy a more vibrant city,” for the
reader could assume the text will be about those upstanding folks who legally
became residents and citizens of Indianapolis. But we all know what happens when
one assumes.
Legal immigration, yes; illegal immigration, no way Jose.
Why are lawbreakers rewarded, when those still standing in line to do the right
thing are falling farther and farther behind?
Tully quoted Terri Morris Downs, head of the nonprofit
Immigrant Welcome Center, as saying, “Let’s pretend there’s an imaginary line…
Would you as a parent be willing to cross that line to make sure your kids were
being fed and that your family was being cared for? Would you break that law
and cross that line, that imaginary line, to make sure your kids would be safe
and have a chance at a decent life? I think most people would.”
While Downs naturally is tugging at the heartstrings to
make her point, she forgets that borders are not imaginary lines. Granted they
are lines that may not be terribly visible, but geo-political lines are
legitimately organized. Then, she admits the crossing of that line is an
illegal act – “would you break that law…”
Tully then correctly observes that the “current
immigration system is a politically charged mess…,” but fails to note this is
because of the unwillingness to differentiate between legal and illegal, as
well as both major political parties using this broken system to its own
advantage. Liberals and Democrats
support amnesty and a path to citizenship in an effort to induce support of
Hispanic voters, yet not realizing that Hispanics are not a monolithic community.
Republicans and conservatives turn a blind eye to this crisis because they seek
support of businesses who hire illegals for cheap labor.
As for amnesty itself, one Indy Star letter writer, Robert W. Hammerle of Indianapolis, opined
that “illegal immigrants deserve amnesty.” No, they don’t – they have broken
the law. Not only do they not deserve amnesty, they do not deserve any of the
trappings that come with actual citizenship or even legal residency. Hammerle
went so far as to compare today’s illegals with the “Southern rebels and their
leaders like Gen. Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet [who] were given amnesty
by the U.S. government. Even though they tried to destroy the U.S. Constitution
while killing hundreds of thousands of fellow American citizens, they were
forgiven and allowed to move on with their lives.”
Not so fast, Mr. Hammerle. Certain amnesties were offered
but with stipulations attached, and those amnesties were presented in stages.
“The
Confiscation Act of 1862 authorized the president of the United States to
pardon anyone involved in the rebellion. The Amnesty Proclamation of December
8, 1863, offered pardons to those who had not held a Confederate civil office,
had not mistreated Union prisoners, and would sign an oath of allegiance.
On
May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson provided for amnesty and the return of
property to those who would take an oath of allegiance. However, former
Confederate government officials, officers with the rank of colonel and above
from the Confederate army or lieutenant and above from the Confederate navy,
and people owning more than $20,000 worth of property had to apply for
individual pardons.
On
Christmas Day 1868, Johnson granted an unconditional pardon to all Civil War
participants except high-ranking military and civil officials.”
Finally,
“in May 1872 the Congressional Amnesty Act gave the right to hold office again
to almost all Southern leaders who had been excluded from public office by the
14th Amendment.” (http://www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/amnesty.html)
But
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment did take seriously the acts
committed by the rebel confederates. “No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold
any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as a
executive or judicial office of any State, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or give aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote
of two-thirds of each House remove such disability.”
Clearly
the behavior of the southerners was looked upon with a dim view by the federal
government of the Union and amnesty was not awarded lightly or with a cavalier
attitude – requiring an oath of allegiance – something not expected of the
illegal aliens in the US today. In fact illegals in this country are not
legally required to learn or speak English, let alone take any kind of oath of
allegiance. And quite frankly, Mr. Hammerle, two wrongs do not a right make.
It
is this paucity of expectations that remands this issue back to Tully’s column
where he suggests bringing the illegals out of the shadows will move them to
become “more civically engaged.” Being civically engaged starts with being
law-abiding, something that has eluded the illegals from their first step on to
American soil. Tully also recommends treating illegals not “as unwanted
outsiders,” but with compassion. That begs the question: Would a rational
person have compassion for someone breaking into their home? Should that
miscreant be given food stamps, medical attention, public schooling for the
children, and in-state tuition rates at the local state school at the cost to
the homeowner? No, because breaking the law is still breaking the law.
Even
Barack Obama should understand the above concept, yet he announced an executive
order to protect nearly five million illegal aliens from potential
deportation. As a result of that misguided and illegal decision, 14 states,
including Indiana have enjoined in a lawsuit against the federal government
fighting the Obama edict.
Geoffrey
Heeren, the director of the Immigration Clinic with Valparaiso University Law
School checked in on December 9 with his Indy
Star letter noting the state of Indiana was wrong to participate in this
lawsuit. Heeren said the suit was “misguided” to suggest Obama “usurped
Congress’ power to write immigration law.” That is exactly what Obama did and
it is wrong, as writing legislation is in fact the job of the Congress, as per
the US Constitution.
Heeren
suggested that Obama has not violated his constitutional duty as chief
executive to enforce the laws pertaining to immigration simply because the
amount of money provided by Congress has been exhausted. Obama has a
responsibility to enforce the laws passed by Congress and enacted by the
president. If the there is a dearth of funding, he must prioritize, which
Heeren claims Obama is doing by not deporting certain illegals, yet he is still
complicit in violating the law by allowing for an extension of their illegal
acts simply by allowing them to remain in the United States.
Such
funding priorities must commence at the borders – both southern and northern –
stop people from crossing into the United States illegally before they become a
fiscal and legal problem. This should be a nondiscriminatory policy instead of
the one unofficially adopted by so-called lawmakers and Obama to allow for
“more sympathetic” groups – families, people who heretofore have committed no
crimes until invading the United States, and those seeking honest work instead
of the thugs, drug dealers, killers, rapists, and other miscreants whose
presence in this country would have a deleterious effect on society. The easy
answer is, to use a Western-themed movie concept, to “head them off at the
pass.”
But
Heeren also seems to miss the point when he supports Obama’s executive order
calling the beneficiaries “law-abiding,” when the first act they committed in
this country was to break the law simply by crossing the border.
And
it would seem to run contrary to the United States Constitution for Obama to
make law and to attempt to supersede the 10th Amendment. “The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Nowhere
does it say such rights can be obfuscated and absconded with by Obama or any
other occupant of the White House.
Those
who are in the United States illegally are still breaking the law and they
continue to have an adverse effect on the economy, as well as on the potential
prosperity in their own lives living under the radar or in the shadows. The
United States is a proud nation of immigrants – legal immigrants. It is important
to discern legal from illegal, act in a less emotional tenor, and save this
nation from itself before there is no nation left to save.
Sanford D. Horn is a writer and
educator living in Westfield, IN.
