Sanctuary cities and “Dreamers” do not have superior moral standing

⇒ Santuary cities not at all

⇒ “Dreamers” have conflicting and presumptuous claims,

⇒ Sympathy not a substitute for rigorous analysis of implications

Gary Bauer at Campaign for Working Families commented yesterday:

Speaking Of Sanctuary Cities. . .

Here’s an example of just how insane the left has become.

On December 2, 2015, Pedro Figueroa-Zarceno went to a San Francisco police station to recover his stolen car. Authorities quickly discovered that Figueroa-Zarceno was an illegal immigrant with a deportation order from 2005. They called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and he was detained.

Keep in mind, friends, that Kate Steinle was killed in San Francisco by an illegal immigrant just a few months before. Undoubtedly, the police officers were more concerned with public safety, which is their job, than political correctness.

Figueroa-Zarceno sued, claiming that the officers who called ICE violated his “rights” under San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy. San Francisco’s left-wing politicians agreed. And now taxpayers are going to pay the illegal immigrant (who should have been deported 12 years ago) $190,000.

By the way, according to press reports, Figueroa-Zarceno requires an interpreter. He’s been in the country at least 12 years and still does not speak English? As it turns out, that’s not unusual.

Meanwhile, the city of San Francisco has refused to pay Kate Steinle’s family a dime.

So let’s recap. Because of San Francisco’s left-wing policies, an illegal immigrant who gets detained hits the jackpot, while the family of an American citizen who was murdered by an illegal immigrant gets nothing.

This cultural disconnect, more than anything else, is what cost Hillary Clinton the election.

The matter reminds us of the campaign promises by Trump — about not just shutting down  sanctuary cities but also as regards the so called dreamers and Obama’s executive actions regarding DACA (both referenced and explained in the links provided) . In short “dreamers” are those younger illegal immigrants who were brought into the country illegally by their parents as children and have lived here much or most of their lives.  The sympathy argument goes on to the effect . . .   how dare anyone consider doing anything other than to give them citizenship. Even legal resident status and permanent amnesty is considered punitive or discriminatory.

National Review offers a commentary regarding Dreamers and Trump’s promises  and policy

A Fair and Legal Replacement for DACA 

President Trump’s sudden lack of interest in rolling back this gross executive overreach undoubtedly has to do with the prospect of political backlash over a very sympathetic segment of the illegal population. But there is no reason why these so-called DREAMers can’t be accommodated in a process that respects our system of government. . . . .

 . . .

The Senate is currently considering a measure, sponsored by Republicans Tom Cotton and David Perdue, to restrict the family-based migration system that has contributed mightily to the U.S.’s oversupply of low-skilled immigrants. Their bill, the RAISE Act, would do much to reorient the country’s immigration system to benefit American workers first. Immigration hawks in Congress also have long wanted a bill to mandate nationwide use of E-Verify, which would discourage employers from exploiting illegal labor. Republicans should offer legislation granting legal permanent residency to DACA-eligible aliens in exchange for congressional approval of the RAISE Act and nationwide E-Verify.

That may be something akin to what the policy temporarily ends up being.  We say temporarily as the ink won’t be dry on such an amnesty policy before agitation commences to give the Dreamers full citizenship.

The left always likes to wrap themselves in the false cloak of moral righteousness.

Why conservatives back away from the righteousness of their own policy recommendations is beyond me. The reluctance cedes ground and serves to allow the left the undeserved upper hand.

One argument advanced by the left when it comes to Dreamers is that it is wrong to punish the child for the crime of the father.  We accept that and only wish the left respected it as regards abortion and the issue of rape.  In that case they are foursquare in line for justifying killing the child for the crime of the father, or as to abortion in general, even the whim of the mother.  In the case of abortion the child inutero is an innocent human being under exigent risk, subject to the death penalty just for existing in utero.  Conservatives would be happy to see the child placed for adoption if that is what the mother wants, but are against killing the child.  For liberals in the case of abortion the current residency of the child eliminates any moral status. When it comes to immigration, for liberals, residence gives moral status.  Further, dependency in the case of abortion makes the child expendable, in the case of immigration, dreamer’s dependency is sanctified for political reasons.  Go figure. Here we are only arguing the left’s obtuseness and inconsistency. Conservatives believe everyone has a right to life and a duty to understand and respect the law when moral agency pertains.

And the other side of the coin as regards Dreamers and crimes of the parent (of course liberals don’t even admit that illegal immigration even violates law) is that you don’t reward the adult child for the crime of the parent either. The law does not ordinarily allow the children to continue to benefit from a parent’s fraudulent activity when they are of an age of maturity.

Other moral counterarguments pertain as regards so-called Dreamers.  Why is there no acknowledgment of our practical immigration limitations and the implications of the  parents’ fraudulent activities elbowing out other desperate law-abiding people who follow the rules and honor limitations?  The presumption that they have the high moral ground is not reflective of fair treatment of all desiring to enter this country.  The fraudulent and their beneficiaries are allowed to prosper, other desperate people go wanting.

Often the more desperate parents and children without the logistical advantage of land conveyance available are not only practically prevented illegal entry, but as a result of quotas, legal entry is adversely impacted by the abundance of illegals which includes “dreamers.” The ability to be more generous with legal immigration from afar is thwarted by illegals because of practical limitations as to what our country can integrate. Illegals, “dreamers”or not, elbow out others by disregarding laws set up to accommodate people in an orderly fashion from around the world — “denying diversity”.

It is also all-so- selective how the left maintains “family reunification” is a reason to open borders for relatives to come in but when a parent is deported reunifying the “child” to those same relatives is dismissed as irrelevant. Another one-way street moral argument for the left.

All we are saying to “dreamers” is get off your high horse, we have laws and limitations. Your parents put you in the situation and as adults you have a responsibility to fairness as well.

Related reading:

Conservative U.S. Hispanics Aim to Stop Amnesty and Big Government

Why More Immigration Is Bad for America

5 Reasons Why DACA is Horrible for You, Trumpers

Trump Allows Dreamers to Stay. Why?
The president shrinks again from deporting Dreamers.

Why Trump must end DACA

Immigration groups: Trump’s silence on DACA means it’s here to stay

Trump should fulfill his commitment to end Obama’s DACA amnesty

R Mall

This entry was posted in UNCATEGORIZED. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Sanctuary cities and “Dreamers” do not have superior moral standing

  1. Eugene Mattecheck Jr says:

    I’ve never believed the “no habla” story. The translator is the gatekeeper to the legal aid system. Claim to speak no English, a translator is summoned. They will contact family and the legal (illegal) aid system already in place. No one lives in a foreign land for 12 years and speaks none of the native tongue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *