The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's editorial, "The message is inclusion," does exactly what thousands and thousands of protesters did throughout the country yesterday. They ignored an inconvenient reality that is fundamental to the immigration debate -- U.S. law.
(Excerpts)
Thousands marched Monday in Milwaukee for comprehensive immigration reform to a locale - Veterans Park - more appropriate for the occasion than observers might have imagined.
Their message - this march, no less than those here and elsewhere two months ago - has largely been that of inclusion and the marchers' desire for it in the face of onerous federal legislation that would make undocumented immigrants felons for being here and having the temerity to contribute to the economy at the same time.
How lame!
The aim of the so-called "onerous federal legislation" is to get serious about securing our borders, a good idea given the fact that we at war. It also aims to alleviate the burden on law-abiding taxpayers to provide social services for people in the country illegally.
So why was Veterans Park the perfect locale? A pamphlet by the Immigration Policy Center, citing Defense Department figures, tells the story. The foreign-born make up about 60,000 of those on active military duty. Nearly 5% of all enlisted personnel are immigrants. Factor in military personnel who are children of immigrants, and these numbers likely swell.
There is a difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants.
Get it?
The editorial glosses over the Defense Department's figures. What percent of enlisted personnel are illegal immigrants? The editorial doesn't address that, once again making no distinction between legal and illegal.
Yes, these marches are largely about illegal immigration. But the marches are occurring against a backdrop of fears that allowing 11 million illegal immigrants to remain here somehow threatens the fabric of this nation.
...Women with strollers. Men with their children riding on their shoulders. Older people. Young people carrying posters of the Virgin Mary. Many were likely illegal immigrants, but all were marching with the message that those who work here for dollars doing work others won't and making our economy stronger are due a modicum of respect. Labeling them felons and building fences at the border, as Sensenbrenner's bill would do, careens in the opposite direction.
It is not America, the marchers were saying. We agree.
Finally, the board admits that the demonstrations are about illegal immigration, but they quickly dismiss the legal status of the people in question as an irrelevant factor. In other words, it was an insignificant admission.
They talk about the "backdrop of fears" related to granting the millions of illegals amnesty. The board seems to be plugging into the racial component, which is an unfair accusation.
Would "allowing 11 million illegal immigrants to remain here somehow [threaten] the fabric of this nation"?
Of course. I think abandoning the law most definitely threatens the fabric of the nation.
That results in anarchy.
In effect, the JS editorial board argues that law-breakers should be given a free pass because they push strollers and carry children or posters of the Virgin Mary. In other words, they are good people and should be welcomed into the country.
I'm sure many are good, hard-working people looking for opportunity in the U.S. However, they chose to disregard the law and entered the country illegally. That fact cannot just be dismissed as irrelevant.
We have a process to become a citizen of the United States. Eleven million people decided they were above that law.
The JS editorial board enjoys whining about the Bush Administration supposedly trashing civil rights. They complain that the President acts as if he's above the law.
So, why are they condoning the behavior of illegal immigrants? Why should they be considered above the law? No one should be. Of course, the board's stance is inconsistent, yet totally predictable.
Another troubling aspect of the editorial is its echoing of that shameful pro-illegal immigrant talking point, that they "work here for dollars doing work others won't" and therefore deserve respect.
I don't think that it's very respectful to say that our country should be grateful that we have this pool of lowly people willing to do our dirty work. Is it right to say we want illegal immigrants here so we don't have to do menial labor?
I find the snobbery of the board to be truly offensive.
As far as the board's objections to Sensenbrenner's fence goes, Hillary Clinton is for it.
Clinton told the New York Daily News, "A physical structure is obviously important. A wall in certain areas would be appropriate."
The editorial demonizes Sensenbrenner for backing the construction of a fence, yet Hillary is on the record as agreeing with the idea. Are they willing to depict Hillary as "careening in the opposite direction" and failing to respect Mexicans?
The bottom line:
America is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. We can and must respect both.
The Journal Sentinel editorial board prefers to minimize the importance of the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment