Three women are currently on a hunger strike in Raleigh, North Carolina. Theirs is an attempt to gain support for a U.S. Senate bill designed to ease the path toward gaining legal residence. The interesting thing about these women is that they are in this country illegally: Illegal immigrants on hunger strike.
How is it that these women are not arrested for their immigration status? Well, unless the federal government arrests them, their freedom is guaranteed, at least until they break some other law. For those who wonder why Arizona passed a law allowing law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of individuals stopped for other violations, your explanation can be found in this story. These are three women who openly flaunt their immigration status yet have no fear of incarceration because the federal government, tasked with protecting our borders from unlawful incursion, has opted to ignore its responsibility.
Some will argue that these women in particular, brought here as children by parents who remained past expiration of their legal status, should be granted special consideration for their circumstances. To this I would ask: where does special consideration end? Should we next consider excusing illegal parents of children who are born here and, therefore, are citizens themselves? After all, wouldn't these poor children be better served having their parents around to raise them? After that, should we give special consideration to those who, having remained illegally for some time, now find themselves indigent due to poor health? We certainly wouldn't feel good about returning them home in poor health.
We have laws for a reason. If we find the laws to be unjust, then we should change the laws. However, we should not excuse those who violate the laws simply because we can justify their actions in some loosely moral way. In the case of immigration, our efforts should involve building a fence with wide gates to deter illegal passage while accommodating those who wish to come, and stay, legally.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't think this issue is as B&W as you have presented. Years ago, a case of a hot tempered southern girl gained media attention when she was put on the path of deportation. IIRC, she came across her boyfriend cheating in a parked car, dragged him out, and gave him a bit of a beating. She was adopted as a baby by her military service parents, and they unwisely decided to let her choose citizenship in adulthood. Her deportation proceeding was triggered by her misdemeanor conviction, and her case was championed by a politician to reverse the process. I remember the incident because of her charming drawl, and her explanation of why she could not live with those Germans. I believe that these cases do need to be evaluated individually. Undoubtedly, there will be many in which the illegal would be socially and culturally unable to adapt, or successfully repatriate to their birth country.
I try not to see things in black and white, since they rarely are. However, I don't believe we should dismiss illegal activity just because such dismissal serves to achieve either a moral or political goal. I agree that cases should be addressed individually, at least in assessment, but this is an example of complete avoidance of responsibility by the federal government. These people felt no fear of reprisal because they recognize the government's lack of follow through. While they might indeed be candidates for a more reasoned assessment of their status, the question will never be asked by those who should be doing the asking.
Post a Comment