Immigration law is perhaps the best example of actions taken in bad faith by majorities in both national parties over the span of nearly 60 years. Enforcement provisions for both the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 have been half-heartedly enforced by successive administrations from both parties with no significant or effective oversight from either party in successive Congresses; in particular, when each party controlled the legislative and executive branches at the same time. That makes two successive times in which promises were made in bad faith as enacted in law: Not just one Congress or administration but all of them since 1965 have, at best, selectively enforced the provisions as written. The reasons for all this bad faith in the political class are irrelevant. The only relevant fact is the bad faith itself. There is utterly no reason to believe a word from any congress-person concerning current or future immigration law until the provisions of relevant law currently on the books are enforced to the letter. The history of non-enforcement and ineffective oversight over the past 60 years is reason enough to assume that any proposed legislation if passed will be as ignored as past legislation has been ignored while consequences of the failure to enforce the law will be used in future politics as justification for yet more legislation to be passed.
I agree with most everything here, except I think the pathway for the Dreamers should be for permanent legalization, not American citizenship. The claim is that they "have known no other country," but they still came here illegally, and their youth gives them no special claim to citizenship.
I believe there is a cutoff date in the current proposal, in the sense that Dreamers don't qualify if they came after a specified date, but what argument are we to use against the young who came and continue to come after the cut-off date, a cohort that no doubt already numbers in the millions in view of the Biden border flood? They too will have known no other country, so on what moral basis can we exclude them from what we give now? It's a moral claim that, as the lawyers say, has no limiting principle. If we give the Dreamers permanent status rather than citizenship, we're making a prudential decision used to admit many adults, not one based on a moral claim that the young are entitled to automatic citizenship, so there is a limiting principle. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for your comment, Jim. I agree that permanent legalization is a better idea than a path to citizenship. However, I would accept path to citizenship in exchange for a secure border in a hypothetical (and it surely would be hypothetical) deal.
And how exactly would that exchange be guaranteed…hypothetically? Presumably, exisiting law guarantees a secure border…if enforced. It would be very strange, I think, if existing law did not provide tools to secure all borders. What is lacking in exisiting law to secure all borders other than the will to enforce those provisions by the executive and the necessary congressional oversight to ensure that the executive does its constitutional duty?
Good commentary. It seems to me that if a nation’s youth are indoctrinated over the course of a generation to believe it has little or no redeeming quality, that nation’s course is setup for easy rule by despots that usually will raid the treasury and oppress the citizens. If you believe liberty is fragile, you protect it. If you take it for granted, or don’t believe you have it at all, you don’t protect it.
Immigration law is perhaps the best example of actions taken in bad faith by majorities in both national parties over the span of nearly 60 years. Enforcement provisions for both the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 have been half-heartedly enforced by successive administrations from both parties with no significant or effective oversight from either party in successive Congresses; in particular, when each party controlled the legislative and executive branches at the same time. That makes two successive times in which promises were made in bad faith as enacted in law: Not just one Congress or administration but all of them since 1965 have, at best, selectively enforced the provisions as written. The reasons for all this bad faith in the political class are irrelevant. The only relevant fact is the bad faith itself. There is utterly no reason to believe a word from any congress-person concerning current or future immigration law until the provisions of relevant law currently on the books are enforced to the letter. The history of non-enforcement and ineffective oversight over the past 60 years is reason enough to assume that any proposed legislation if passed will be as ignored as past legislation has been ignored while consequences of the failure to enforce the law will be used in future politics as justification for yet more legislation to be passed.
I agree with most everything here, except I think the pathway for the Dreamers should be for permanent legalization, not American citizenship. The claim is that they "have known no other country," but they still came here illegally, and their youth gives them no special claim to citizenship.
I believe there is a cutoff date in the current proposal, in the sense that Dreamers don't qualify if they came after a specified date, but what argument are we to use against the young who came and continue to come after the cut-off date, a cohort that no doubt already numbers in the millions in view of the Biden border flood? They too will have known no other country, so on what moral basis can we exclude them from what we give now? It's a moral claim that, as the lawyers say, has no limiting principle. If we give the Dreamers permanent status rather than citizenship, we're making a prudential decision used to admit many adults, not one based on a moral claim that the young are entitled to automatic citizenship, so there is a limiting principle. Jim Dueholm
Thanks for your comment, Jim. I agree that permanent legalization is a better idea than a path to citizenship. However, I would accept path to citizenship in exchange for a secure border in a hypothetical (and it surely would be hypothetical) deal.
And how exactly would that exchange be guaranteed…hypothetically? Presumably, exisiting law guarantees a secure border…if enforced. It would be very strange, I think, if existing law did not provide tools to secure all borders. What is lacking in exisiting law to secure all borders other than the will to enforce those provisions by the executive and the necessary congressional oversight to ensure that the executive does its constitutional duty?
Current asylum laws are being exploited by the progressive left and non profits who profit from them.
Immediate reform is needed now.
In relation to US history, all students have and will continue to learn about slavery.
But white students don't need to be berated or led to believe that slavery is an American invention.
Good commentary. It seems to me that if a nation’s youth are indoctrinated over the course of a generation to believe it has little or no redeeming quality, that nation’s course is setup for easy rule by despots that usually will raid the treasury and oppress the citizens. If you believe liberty is fragile, you protect it. If you take it for granted, or don’t believe you have it at all, you don’t protect it.