"Democrats, don't count on us again if we can't count on you now."
From Nezua, 3/21/10, Washington, D.C. Read his recap of the march last Sunday, he says what I would like to say but didn't know how.
Just how does refusing to vote Democratic help documented immigrants? It hurts Democrats but does nothing for the undocumented's cause. There's a 90 percent chance that there will be successful CIR legislation if Democrats stay in power and a near zero chance if Republicans come to power. The rational would vote Democratic and have patience until the time is right. This is like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.
If the Democrats are so eager to support immigrants, why haven't they introduced a CIR bill? Why aren't they preparing to run on immigration in their fall elections this year? If there is a 90% chance CIR will come through with Democrats in power, how come nothing has happened in the last 3 1/2 years since they have been in power?
There's only so long Dems can continue to blame the GOP for their own lack of courage and principle. MLK heard similar counsel during his lifetime, and this was his response:
For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."
Dave, please explain to me in detail how the plight of undocumented immigrants is equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement. Black folk were demanding equality under existing law. Undocumented immigrants are demanding that immigration laws be changed to accommodate them. As far as I can tell, none of our immigration laws violated international law, so that would mean that citizens still have a legitimate right to maintain the status quo.
I know of no country in the world which would recognize undocumented immigrants as aggrieved parties entitled to the right to immigrate without permission from the petition able citizens of the affected nation. Your arguments are obviously be a challenge to a nation's right to national sovereignty and right to control entry. If so, what is the legal basis for your argument?
Black folk were demanding equality under existing law.
No they weren't, that was the whole point. Educate yourself about Jim Crow laws. There was even some overlap between anti-immigrant laws and Jim Crow: "crimes involving moral turpitude" were historically a catch-all way to target blacks when other laws wouldn't do the trick. Today "CIMTs" are an established part of immigration law, just as vague and problematic as ever, used every day by the Obama administration to deport immigrants of color.
As far as I can tell, none of our immigration laws violated international law,
You've already given us doubts about your factual allegations, so "as far as you can tell" doesn't get us very far. I believe the U.S. is violating its treaty obligations under the ICCPR: Articles 17 and 23 (right to family life); Articles 12, 13, 16, 24, and 25 (citizenship/democracy for Dream-eligible kids who have spent their whole lives here but have no ability to participate in the democratic system); Articles 2, 9, 14, 15, 26, and 27 (discrimination/equal treatment under the law for immigrants ostensibly in a civil system but who are treated under the law like criminals).
But don't let me stop those who want to stake out their support on the wrong side of this ongoing civil rights battle--you can be the Strom Thurmond or George Wallace of your generation.
"I believe the U.S. is violating its treaty obligations under the ICCPR: Articles 17 and 23 (right to family life); Articles 12, 13, 16, 24, and 25 (citizenship/democracy for Dream-eligible kids who have spent their whole lives here but have no ability to participate in the democratic system); Articles 2, 9, 14, 15, 26, and 27 (discrimination/equal treatment under the law for immigrants ostensibly in a civil system but who are treated under the law like criminals)."
The problem with your citations are that they pertain to people who are legitimate immigrants, immigrants as defined by our Code of Federal Regulations. In order for your claims to be valid, they would have had to file for legal immigration status under the terms of the American people prior to entry, and have been granted legal status. else anyone could just cross our border without permission. Are you saying that we, the people, should have no right to sovereign governance over our borders?
Do you have any precedences within the international community in which international law has been used to give legitimacy to people such as our undocumented immigrants? Without that you're just blowing smoke up our butts.
I find your specious allusion to the Civil Rights movement humorous. Which civil right in our Bill or Rights is being violated? The answer is, none. If what you say is correct then undocumented immigrants would have taken their case to the Supreme Court long ago. Judging by the lack of support from the general public in the marches, one could easily come the conclusion that the American people cannot make a nexus between the plight of the undocumented and the Civil Rights movement. Undocumented immigrants are largely left hanging in the wind without support from anyone but their ethnic group and left wing organizations. You're just being creatively overwrought, and juvenile in your thinking. You're tactics of demonizing are a typical tactic of the extreme left, and only work with people who are ignorant of the history of the Civil Rights movement.
Good luck in convincing the American people that we should have free immigration between Mexico and the U.S.
This page contains a single entry by David Bennion published on March 23, 2010 10:27 PM.
Dreamers March in D.C. for Immigration Reform was the previous entry in this blog.
The Week in Fail is the next entry in this blog.
Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.