ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

移民日报

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Copyright
© 1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Immigration and Individual Rights

  1. #1
    In light of the immoral and illegitimate law they "broke"¯ by moving to (or remaining in) America"”and in light of the suffering they have endured by being labeled "illegal"¯ (e.g., having to live in the shadows, not being able to market their goods or services openly, not being able to use banks or credit cards, etc.)"”the solution to the problem of so-called "illegals"¯ is to grant them unconditional amnesty and a presidential apology. Just as the principle of individual rights mandates open immigration, so too it mandates amnesty for those whose moral actions were made "criminal"¯ by immoral laws. ("Amnesty"¯ is really the wrong word, as one logically should not have to be "pardoned"¯ for having acted morally, but there is no accurate word for what has been necessitated by our irrational immigration policy.)

    Some argue that granting amnesty to "illegal"¯ immigrants would make a mockery of the rule of law and that "illegals"¯ broke our laws and should be held accountable for having done so. On the contrary, what mocks the rule of law is the existence and attempted enforcement of anti-immigration laws.

    Upholding the rule of law does not mean upholding whatever laws happen to be on the books. Should the citizens of Nazi Germany have turned Jews over to the Gestapo? Nazi law dictated that they must. Would the refusal to obey that law have been a mockery of the rule of law?

    read entire article

  2. #2
    In light of the immoral and illegitimate law they "broke"¯ by moving to (or remaining in) America"”and in light of the suffering they have endured by being labeled "illegal"¯ (e.g., having to live in the shadows, not being able to market their goods or services openly, not being able to use banks or credit cards, etc.)"”the solution to the problem of so-called "illegals"¯ is to grant them unconditional amnesty and a presidential apology. Just as the principle of individual rights mandates open immigration, so too it mandates amnesty for those whose moral actions were made "criminal"¯ by immoral laws. ("Amnesty"¯ is really the wrong word, as one logically should not have to be "pardoned"¯ for having acted morally, but there is no accurate word for what has been necessitated by our irrational immigration policy.)

    Some argue that granting amnesty to "illegal"¯ immigrants would make a mockery of the rule of law and that "illegals"¯ broke our laws and should be held accountable for having done so. On the contrary, what mocks the rule of law is the existence and attempted enforcement of anti-immigration laws.

    Upholding the rule of law does not mean upholding whatever laws happen to be on the books. Should the citizens of Nazi Germany have turned Jews over to the Gestapo? Nazi law dictated that they must. Would the refusal to obey that law have been a mockery of the rule of law?

    read entire article
    "Being all fashioned of the self-same dust let us be merciful as well as just"
    Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

  3. #3
    A related commentary (a beautiful one) appeared on 03/19/2008 on ILW.COM's Immigration Daily Homepage which interestingly enough didn't see print on this Discussion Board as how the Webmaster normally does.

    I'm quoting it in full:

    Is Illegal Legal

    Probably the most influential lie of the anti-immigrationists is that they believe in the rule of the law. Their opposition to legalization of the undocumented, if their war-cries are to be believed, is based on their belief that such legalization would be an insult to the principle of respect for the law. After all, if a violation of the law can be repaired, especially one of as serious a magnitude as unauthorized entry over our borders, then the law itself is not worth the paper its printed on, so their argument goes. They usually summarize their view on this with their famous sound-bite: What part of illegal don't you understand?

    We charge that this argument is a lie.

    Firstly, every legal system includes provisions for offenders to "make good" on their offense, to make themselves "whole" after having crossed the law. Fines and incarceration are usually the two ways to do this. A penalty fee for late-payers of taxes owed is an example of a make-good mechanism in the tax codes of most US states. Almost every immigration violation decried by the antis is at-most a misdemeanor (or even a lesser paperwork offense), and a 245i-type fine is, in our opinion, about the right mechanism for curing the offense. The antis would deny this basic feature of our legal system - by their standards the tax amnesties offered by practically every state would be a declaration of failure in the rule of the law. Carrying the antis argument to its logical conclusion, a native-born jay-walker should have the word "criminal" tattoed on the forehead forever as punishment. The position taken by the antis on the rule of the law, and the consequences for breaking it, is out of all proportion to the offense. The antis' argument about the "rule of the law" has no legal merit (in that it ignores proportionality which is a fundamental requirement of any just legal system).

    But that is hardly the tip of the iceberg of the calumny perpetrated by the antis. Let's apply the logic of the antis argument on the sanctity of the law a little further. In Nazi Germany it was the law to turn Jews over to the Gestapo. By the anti-immigrationists' argument about respect for the rule of the law, law-abiding citizens in those circumstances should turn Jews over to be murdered. For those who think that Nazi Germany provides a bad analogy for the US immigration debate, lets move closer to home. In the pre-Civil War era, the Fugitive Slave Act demanded that Americans living in the North return runaway slaves to their owners in the South. By the anti-immigrationists' argument, violators of the Fugitive Slave Act mocked the principle of the rule of the law. The antis' argument about the "rule of the law" is immoral (in that it ignores the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum).

    If it has no legal merit, and is immoral, just what is the antis' argument on the "Rule of the Law" about? It is about race, plain and simple. Despite loud protestations to the contrary, this is the real reason that the anti-immigrationists are against immigration. As Pat Buchanan openly says of large scale immigration - the only problem he has with it is that it is not from Europe, but from south of the border. The antis would not even be whispering about the "rule of the law" if a couple of million Danish or Finns immigrated each year. And here's the clincher on this issue. In a few years, Congress will overcome the antis' hate-filled message, and will institute a legalization program. Millions of the undocumented will then move to the right side of the law. What will the antis do then? If they believe in the rule of the law they should welcome the immigrants as fellow Americans with open arms. For those who believe that's what the antis would do, the moon is made of green cheese. Really."


    http://www.ilw.com/immigdaily/digest/2008,0319.shtm

  4. #4
    I like that argument as well. The problem I have with using the Nazi argument in both discussions is that they do not explain that in currently American Families are being ripped apart and destroyed by use of force.

    Free Association is being denied to over 7 million American mixed status families and the resulting "cost" to those families and taxpayers in general for this devestation is off the chart.
    "Being all fashioned of the self-same dust let us be merciful as well as just"
    Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

  5. #5
    Someone12
    Guest
    while we are at it, why not grant 'amnesty' to bank robbers? After all, they are victims of those pesky laws regarding 'unauthorized withdrawals"...or rapists or murderers,,,,rewarding illegal alien douchebags with a green card, with legal status, makes a complete mockery of our laws...only morons and immigration attorneys want illegals legalized....what part of 'illegal' don't you understand? Illegal aliens can't point to Nazi Germany as a rationalization to reward these douchebag cleaners.....illegals began their breathing US air by promptly violating one or more of our laws.....so ship their sorry butts out of here...and for those of you too stupid to understand our laws, why not join those departing illegals and take up residence in some country where the rule of law is a slogan?

  6. #6
    What a very silly analogy! If all of the 12-20M undocumented aliens are to be categorized as hardened criminals as those that you have cited, hehe! America has the biggest, biggest number on record of outlaws on the loose on planet earth!

    Rule of law? It seems to me to be so, so unruly. Why? Simple. The law miserably fails to rule. Look around you. Immigration lawlessness goes on and on unabated on every side - every minute, every hour, every day! Rule of law? gimme a break!

    > Real ID? almost all states are opting out!
    > Border Fence? a 17th century solution to a 21st century problem!
    > State laws? longterm risks far outweigh potential benefits!
    > No-match, E-verify, worksite crackdown? anathema to capitalism and free enterprise!
    > Do nothing? that's what you like!

    This is what I like. You should too. Not to reward the illegals, but to address, solve, or deal with the problem that affects, burdens, even threatens America for America's overall good!

    Repeat after me: Com-pre-hen-sive I-mmig-ra-tion Re-form!!!

  7. #7
    Comparing the holocaust to our immigration policy demonstrates the desperate attempt on your part to rationalize an illogical argument. The law to turn jews into the nands of Nazis does not negate all other laws created by society. As someone else pointed out, you can not apply the misuse of laws by another country at another time in another area that has nothing to do with the laws in question to make any kind of moral assessment. The US Govenment immigration policy is not tearing apart any famlies. People who chose to come here illegally and to have families often do so with the intent to establish residency as way around the law. Such people can not - should not - be allowed to "use" their family as a shield against the law. Since you like analogy so much let us say this. In order to evade arrest, Hitler shields himself with an innocent child so he won't be shot. Does Hitler deserve MORE compassion for using an innocent person or less? Families have the option of staying reunited in the US althoough one remains in illegal status and rarely is such a person dragged out of their home. Or they can move to the illegals home country or to any third country that will take them. Again to use the phrase "tearing" families apart is a desperate and failed argument because it's assumption that they are being torn apart at all is false.
    These people stop at Nothing !

    Death to IMBRA AND VAWA !

    God Bless America and no one else !!!

  8. #8
    The only law that addresses and prohibits free association is the interantional marriage brokers regulation act (imbra). This law prohibits Americans from freely communicating with foreign women.
    These people stop at Nothing !

    Death to IMBRA AND VAWA !

    God Bless America and no one else !!!

  9. #9
    Someone12
    Guest
    all those idiots calling for 'reform' really mean 'reward'..because anything less than deporation is a reward...some paltry $2000 fine is meaningless, and some equally inane "touchback" program is futile....just ship them out or make them go themselves (by ratcheting up the penalty for failure to comply to a level that even the most irresponsible douchbag illegal can grasp)...look up the word 'reward' and 'reform'...they are not the same, but illegal alien supporters, because of their sub-par IQs, haven't figured this out yet.

  10. #10
    But the question is how??? The SAVE bill, an election year wedge-issue legislation that's near to that, is languishing in Congress to take off the ground for the pathetic lack of needed supporters. Hmm, please, your idea of another mystical avenue to make what you want happen, that may be tucked away in the deep recesses of you idiotic brain, is cordially requested for you to bring out to grace this discussion.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-14-2011, 12:54 AM
  2. master v. merit/individual?
    By floyd in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 08:04 PM
  3. Rights group sues immigration agency
    By Webmaster@ILW.COM in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-01-2006, 12:23 PM
  4. Can an individual on B1/B2 appear for job interview?
    By Leheretique in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 09-26-2006, 12:07 PM
  5. Rights Advocates See Tough, Long Fight Over Immigration
    By ImmortalE in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-24-2005, 05:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: