Editorial on Immigration, Round 2. Readers can interpolate the substance of the reply Im replying to by the tone and a few quotes below: To the Editor: Fellow Immigrants! as Franklin Roosevelt once addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR.) Im compelled to respond to Judith N. Selichs attempted rebuttal of my Viewpoint essay (8/1...) She is partly correct in pointing out that Statutes regulating and defining immigration into the U.S. have existed since 1798. That would be the infamous Alien and Sedition Laws, rightly condemned at the time as an assault on the letter and spirit of the still-new Constitution and Bill of Rights, and largely responsible for incumbent John Adams defeat by Thomas Jefferson in 1800, who promptly repealed it. There were no subsequent anti-immigrant laws passed and enforced until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1881. So the implication of an uninterrupted tradition of exclusion based on national origin, religion, ethnicity, or political ideology is misleading. Selich does have a valid point in saying that there are laws in place now governing immigration. But a cursory overview comparing the laws that were in place when my ancestors, and those of most people who are so alarmed about the current influx of aspiring new Americans, would find a much more restrictive legal environment in place now. Would my own Scottish, French, and Anglo-Irish ancestors have made it through a complex, contradictory, and punitive gauntlet like the one in place now? I really dont know. But I wouldnt bet in their favor. Others could ask themselves the same question. It should be pointed out that the laws currently in place granting presumptive asylum to child victims of trafficking were not passed during the current administration, as so many of its opponents seem to believe. The overwhelmed and underfunded Border Patrol agents and the humanitarian agencies who are trying their best to deal with the situation are following that law, not breaking some other notion of it. The self-described Patriots waving flags and spiteful signs at these terrified refugee children are the ones who would be breaking the law, themselves, if they succeeded. If Selich and others want to treat these refugee children like the burglars she equates them to, they should pass laws to do just that, and stand beside them at election time. John Boehners adamant refusal to allow a House vote on the Senate-passed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act does nothing to help the situation--which appears to be their point. Boehner and his cohorts in Washington who take their stand against these new and future Americans might want to consider the fate of the American (Know-Nothing) Party, and the Whigs they took down with them. As Anatole France put it, The Law, in its magnificent equanimity, prohibits the rich and poor alike from sleeping under bridges. In other words, the Law is what we make it. It is not some perfected body of ultimate truth. It reflects our biases and prejudices, as well as our occasional progress in overcoming them. We must abide by the law, and work to change those aspects we disagree with. But we should not hide behind our partial perceptions of the law, or an unjustified sense of superior status it might seem to afford to some of us, as an excuse to deny the due process and equal protection of the Law that is guaranteed to all by our Constitution. Steve Myers South Beach word count 541
Posted on: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 18:44:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015