By Sam Frescoe
http://samfrescoeproject.blogspot.com/
#SamFrescoe #Dreamers #DACA
Have you ever felt slighted by circumstance? Of course, we
all have at some point. In fact, there are only three groups of people in this
world: those that have not been slighted; those who have been slighted; and
those who will be slighted again. The feeling is as old as mankind itself.
The framework is as follows: “You” and “Not-You” want a
privilege; the same privilege; a prized privilege. “You” and “Not-You” agree
that both are deserving of the privilege. However, due to a circumstance beyond
their control, “Not-You” received the privilege and “You” was denied. – It’s
the classic contest between the “Haves” and the “Have Nots” that ends with a demand
for the restoration of fairness.
The Current Contest – “You” and
“Not-You” are residing in the United States. “You” and “Not-You” want the same
prize; it’s called the Not-Having-To-Fear-Deportation privilege. Both “You” and
“Not-You” agree both parties should receive the Not-Having-To-Fear-Deportation
privilege. Unfortunately, due to a circumstance controlled by the government,
“Not-You” is entitled to the prize and “You” are denied.
The Current Demand – “You” feels
slighted. “Not-You” feels elated. “You” demands fairness. “Not-You” shrugs.
“You” takes offense. “Not-You” shrugs again. “You” feels resentment towards
“Not-You.” “Not-You” feels guilty and shrinks further “You.” Meanwhile, while “You”
and “Not-You” are at each other, the government is coming to collect their
rightfully owned Not-Having-To-Fear-Deportation privilege.
This time, the Contest/Demand show is being played out under
the headlines of news media outlets, local and nation-wide.
Backdrop
On 18 Feb 2018, the San Diego Union Tribune published a chronicle
of the Dreamer/DACA dilemma faced by illegal immigrants residing in the United
States.[1] Based
on the content of the article, it appears that the piece was intended to
showcase the dilemma through a feelings lens and from multiple perspectives; to
put a human face on the dilemma. Assuming my deduction is correct, I view the
piece to be well written.
The leading claim is that the focus
on Dreamers has caused tension between those in the community who can qualify
for DACA and those who cannot. Supports include a sense of entitlement
exhibited by “DACA kids,” factions among affected persons, and disapproval of
changes between campaign promises and current offerings. Warrants include
sentiments of betrayal, desperate hoping, and fears of being left-out of the
solution. The views expressed are emotive and described as bitter, freaking
out, and guilt ridden. The authors made strong use of direct quotes and
testimony.
However, there is a greater depth exists within the dilemma
that was not addressed by the design of this piece.
Getting Started
While the article did present opinions and feelings
concerning the dilemma, it also presented a set of facts. Assuming the article
is good, true, and accurate, those opinions, feelings, and facts can serve a
deeper analysis of the dilemma by bring forth multiple cases for consideration.
– Simply stated, I do not understand how to have a feelings-based discussion of
the dilemma without also acknowledging the corresponding facts-based discussion.
Bias Acknowledgement – I am
horizontally opposed to benefiting illegal aliens located within the United
States. Those that ignore, condone, excuse, deny, or encourage their unlawful
behavior are equally unacceptable. Let the natural consequence of their choices
deter the future misconduct of others.
The article claims that Sam Paredes (age 39) is an illegal
immigrant currently residing in New York. While he describes his feelings on
the dilemma as bitter; he also offers enough detail to build the following
allegations.
#1 – During the 1988 period,
Paredes illegally entered the United States in violation of 8 USC 1325. He was
nine years of age.
#2 – During the 1987-today period,
Paredes illegally failed to depart the United States in violation of 8 USC 1325
because he was hoping for an immigration reform that included a pathway to
citizenship.
#3 – During an unknown period,
Paredes was illegally employed within the United States in violation of 8 USC
1253 because he was following “a simple philosophy of keeping his head down and
trying to stay out of trouble.”
#4 – During an unknown period, an
employer was illegally employing Paredes as an office manager for a clothing
retailer.
The article claims that Alessandro Negrete (age 35) is an
illegal immigrant currently residing in Los Angeles, CA. While he describes his
feelings on the dilemma as resentful; he also offers enough detail to build the
following.
#1 – During the 1982 period,
Negrete illegally entered the United States from Mexico in violation of 8 USC
1325 as a victim of human trafficking.
#2 – During the 1982 period, human
smugglers illegally imported Negrete to the United States in violation of 8 USC
1328 under a human trafficking arrangement.
#3 – During the 2000-today period,
Nagrete failed to depart the United States in violation of 8 USC 1325 because
he was hoping for an immigration reform that included a pathway to citizenship
as Negrete is “too old to apply to become a Dreamer.”
#4 – During an unknown period of
time, Negrete was illegally employed within the United States in violation of 8
USC 1253 because he was attempting to avoid being served an order or removal.
#5 – During an unknown period of
time, an employer was illegally employing Negrete as a public relations worker.
#6 – During an unknown period of
time, the mother of Negrete illegally entered the United States in violation of
8 USC 1325.
#7 – During an unknown period of
time, Nagrete knew of multiple persons illegally residing within the United
States and failed to report that wrongdoing to authorities. – “You think you
have it hard?” Negrete angrily said to his friends. “You at least have legal
status. For some people like me, my mom and some of my neighbors, we don’t have
[that].”
While I agree that living in fear is stressful, anxious, and
undesirable; I also agree that Paredes and Negrete chose to set and accept the
conditions necessary to cause that stress, anxiety, and adversity. Each of them
made their own bed. It’s time to make them lie in it.
An Opposing View
The prevailing opposition to my view is that Dreamers are
mischaracterized.[2]
During the 2010-2012 period, the vocabulary describing Dreamers transitioned
from “illegal” to “unlawfully present” to “undocumented.” They support this
view in a number of ways.
First, their analysis shows “undocumented” is more accurate
than “illegal.” Their reasoning is that the “undocumented” umbrella covers all
those who are unlawfully present in the United States and who have no lawful
status. “Undocumented” is a far more accurate and inclusive term than “unlawfully
present” or “illegal.”
Nonsense! This is an excuse made
actionable when state and local authorities refused to support enforcement of
federal immigration law and/or enforcement agencies.
Second, the use of “illegal immigrant” by journalists
demonstrates that journalists nationwide refuse to conduct due diligence when
using the term illegal immigrant. Therefore, journalists that the use “illegal”
are woefully inaccurate in describing unlawfully present immigrants in the
United States.
Nonsense! This is a straw man. The
argument is about illegal aliens, not calling out journalists for being
unethical.
Third, Deferred Action recipients will get an employment
authorization document which in turn enables them to obtain a social security
number and, in most states, a driver’s license; therefore, they are no longer “undocumented”
or “illegal.”
Nonsense! Simply stated, they
neglect to state the obvious: 1) an alien must be illegal before benefiting
from Deferred Action; otherwise, there would be no action that could be
deferred; 2) if DACA did not exist, then Deferred Action would not exist.
Bottom Line: This is an ends justifies the means argument; another straw man.
Fourth, minors brought to the United States do not make an
affirmative entrance. Built within a criminal statute such as entry without
inspection, there is a mens rea requirement. Minors do not have the requisite
intentional mens rea to violate 8 USC 1325. – NOTE: “mens rea” means the
intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as
opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.
Legit! This is an excellent point.
Given the cases above, it seems reasonable that Paredes and Negrete, at the
moment of their illegal entry, had no idea their actions were illegal. Therefore,
there was no mens rea at that point in time. – HOWEVER, their testimonies
clearly demonstrate mens rea was satisfied between then and now for all
allegations thereafter.
So What? – What are we being asked to accept?
Simply stated, sympathetic actors are seeking approval to
subsidize the social, cultural, and legal standing of a specific, relatively
small, people-group from “illegal,” to “legal,” and then to “American citizen”
regardless of their prior behaviors because it feels good.
Fallacy-1: The Problem is Small & Will Remain Small
When the government subsidizes the solution to a problem,
then more of that problem will develop.
then more of that problem will develop.
There is a glaring assumption within the currently proposed
solutions: the population of illegal immigrants is small and will remain small.
Unfortunately, because the nature of any government is to secure and expand its
power, the assumption does not hold true to fact. Therefore, the underlying
assumption is a fallacy. Thus, the proposed solution is actually a mechanism
for the expansion of political power.
Fact: The fallacy is already demonstrating itself.
- - 12 Jan 2018 – Sen. Durbin (D-Ill) claims 700,000 “Dreamers” reside in the US
- - 18 Jan 2018 – News media reports 3.6M “Dreamers” are in the United States
- - 22 Jan 2018 – Sen. Durbin (D-Ill) is paraphrased, “…the concern over whether to legalize millions of illegal immigrants amounted to a “civil rights” issue.”
- - 14 Feb 2018 – Sen. Sanders (I-CT) stated a desire to legalize 11M unauthorized workers already in the US and provide them a pathway to citizenship.
Fallacy-2: Oppressing Lawbreakers is Immoral
Ask yourself: Why do our politicians continue to advocate
that Americans should adapt our laws to meet the needs, wants, and desires of
illegal actors; versus advocating that those illegal actors should adapt to
meet the needs, wants, and desires of American laws? – How is Part-1 more
acceptable than Part-2?
Ask yourself: Why do our politicians appeal to American
goodwill in order to stop oppressing illegal families; versus appealing to
illegal families in order to stop oppressing American goodwill? – How is Part-1
more acceptable than Part-2?
Fact: Behavior rewarded becomes behavior repeated. – Rewarding
bad behavior incentivizes the continuance of that bad behavior. For this
dilemma, there are two sets of bad behaviors: 1) the illegal behavior of aliens;
2) the ignoring, condoning, excusing, denying, or encouraging of illegal
behavior by politicians and other actors.
For illegal immigrants, their bad behavior is rewarded with
recognition, standing, and rights to power.
Think about it! – Is American
justice better protected through legitimizing wrongdoing or by deterring
potential wrongdoers?
For politicians, their bad behavior is rewarded with the
creation of a concentrated and sympathetic voting bloc. For other actors, they
benefit from the creation of a precedent that can be used to adapt the problem
and create new clients.
Think about it! – How does
empowering a voting bloc, or establishing a protected class, filled with people
that already demonstrated contempt for American law, benefit the American way
of life?
Going Forward – A Solution
In my view, it’s time to protect the rule of law, demonstrate
that no one is above the law, and demand our politicians account for their
perversions. – It’s time to turn the table and press to them the questions that
need answers.
- - Do illegal immigrants demonstrate criminal behavior?
- - Are children of illegal immigrants born in the US already citizens under the 14th Amendment?
- - Are the children of illegal immigrants emancipated? If yes, then they are adults; why should their illegal kin be allowed to stay? If no, then why should minor children be used as the basis for condoning further illegal conduct?
- - Why should Americans accept the perversion of two good things, naturalization and civil rights, in favor of rewarding illegal behavior with citizenship, standing under the law, voting, property rights, and other common protections?
- - Why should Americans accept that illegal aliens are not, in fact, law breakers?
- Why
should Americans accept that illegal aliens are good people for America?
- - Why is it reasonable for Americans at large…to consent to another progressive solution…designed to fix a progressive problem…that was created to satisfy progressive ideology…that was continuously supported by progressive advocates…and is now being presented as the progressive “issue of our time”?
- - Why should Americans believe or agree that a progressive solution is superior to enforcement of current law?
- - Why should we accept that being against illegal behavior is racism in practice?
- - If the lawful behavior of abiding citizens is not subsidized, then why should the unlawful behavior of illegal aliens be subsidized?
- - Why does the desire of the Government to legalize and forgive illegal behavior supersede the legal demand that everyone else is to be law-abiding, regardless?
Your View
Your thoughts and perspectives are important. I invite you to
tell me what you believe with the comment section.
© 2018 – SamFrescoeProject.Blogspot.com
– All Rights Reserved
Related Posts
[1] Cindy
Carcamo, Brittny Mejia. “Focus on Dreamers breeds resentment from other
immigrants here illegally”. San Diego Union Tribune. 18 Feb 2018. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/california/la-me-left-out-of-daca-2018021...
(accessed 180219)
[2] Bryan
Johnson. “‘Illegal’ is a woefully inaccurate word to describe the millions of
unlawfully present immigrants in the United States.” 27 Sep 2012. https://amjolaw.com/2012/09/27/illegal-is-a-woefully-inaccurate-word-to-describe-the-millions-of-unlawfully-present-immigrants-in-the-united-states/
(accessed 180219) // Amoachi & Johnson, Attorneys at Law,
PLLC focuses on U.S. Immigration Law; and is located on Long Island, New York.
https://amjolaw.com/ (accessed 180219) NOTE: By design, A&J benefits from the
existence of illegal aliens located on/near Long Island, NY. Therefore, they
actively advocate in favor of illegal aliens.
No comments:
Post a Comment