You know what I call those folks crossing the border? Americans. They’re more American than I am, and they’re sure as heck more American than @The_Other_Waldo_Pepper .
See, America is an unusual sort of nation, in history. Historically, most nations have been defined by ethnicity, by heredity, by ancestry. But that’s not America. My ancestors were many different ethnicities: German, Irish, and Italian. And they all had brothers and sisters and cousins who stayed in Germany, Ireland, and Italy, and none of those brothers and sisters and cousins are American, despite having the same ancestry as my American ancestors.
So what made those ancestors of mine American? A philosophy, a mindset, a dream. They were willing to risk everything to come to a new place where they didn’t fit in, to work hard, to ensure that their descendants would have a better life than them. That dream was what made them American, and it’s the same dream shared by the folks who come across our border to flee oppression, and to work our farms. And so, those folks today are Americans, just as my ancestors were.
From my point of view, it doesn’t materially change his position. Here’s the conversation with clarifying context added and highlighted (and quote attributions removed),
[…] Denying legal asylum and setting up death traps in the river has nothing to do with law and >>order, and everything to do with sadistic cruelty.
And giving aid and comfort to [suspected] illegal aliens by the million is, of course, more reprehensible still.
More reprehensible than injuring and killing refugees??
Ushering [suspected] lawbreakers in by the million? Uh, yeah.
Are they all just “[suspected] illegal aliens” to you?
Are who all [suspected] illegal aliens? The [suspected] illegal aliens are; those who aren’t [suspected of being illegal aliens], aren’t.
If you turn them all (the aliens) away, violently and/or otherwise, how do you tell the difference [between suspected illegal aliens and aliens who should be allowed in]?
I don’t wish to turn them all away. What a strange question.
All apologies; I’ve been at work all day, and, man, is there a lot of stuff to address here now. But I’ll do my best to address everything in here, though it looks like it’ll sure take a while…
So why, in your mind, are these human beings not worthy of such concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”, but rather categorized as criminals without due process (or any process at all, for the most part)?
But the way it works is, your side and my side vote — either directly, or for elected representatives, and thus and such — and the ensuing result that gets written into law is meant to reflect said votes being taken. Sure, when it’s one guy deciding whether to grant permission, it’s just him; but when it’s a matter for the country to weigh in on, we scale the whole thing up.
First off, someone pointed out upthread that they’re not criminals just because they’re lawbreakers. Second, though, the whole question strikes me as kind of wacky: of course someone actually *did or didn’t commit an illegal act regardless of whether they get proven guilty in court — and, per that bit from CNN, the whole point is that they’re already declared to be “undocumented” or “unauthorized”. They actually are that; per the cite, millions of them are that.
I wouldn’t consider it just and good for the country, and I would consider that a stupid technicality. But I’d consider it the law, is the thing: what’s legal isn’t always what’s good or just, and sometimes a stupid technicality is involved. But I answer accordingly if the question is: what’s the law?
There’s no such crime “being considered an undocumented immigrant”. What crime are these supposed millions guilty of, and how do you know with any certainty for each of these millions? And since the vast majority haven’t been tried our otherwise processed, why are they not entitled to the presumption of innocence?
Then why are you categorizing them as “illegal”? What illegality, specifically, are you assigning to these millions, the vast majority of which have not been tried and had a chance to defend themselves?
What’s the relevance? That Reagan did X doesn’t mean he made the right call; maybe he made the wrong call. Him being a Republican doesn’t mean it was the right call. Him getting called “Saint” Reagan doesn’t settle the issue either. He dealt with the issue one way instead of another; so what?
Being undocumented immigrants. Which, to the best of my knowledge, is illegal. I posted that bit from CNN in response to your question, which stated that “The Pew Research Center’s latest estimates indicate about 10.5 million undocumented immigrants live in the United States.” As far as I can tell, that cite is “assigning” that illegality to those millions.
That’s not literally true, as there are categories of visa that Mexicans etc. can qualify for. But what is true is that a Mexican national, having no particular skills but desiring to immigrate to the United States to work as a manual laborer or in the service industry, has no path to do so unless he / she / they can (perhaps) be sponsored by a relative or come over on a student visa.
In other words, there are whole categories of people whose reasons for immigration are exactly the same as my own 19th- & 20th-century immigrant ancestors, but who have no way in because the doors have closed, or become so narrow that the years of byzantine bureaucracy required mean they might as well have.
Meanwhile, the push and pull factors of international migration continue.
Telling these people “you should migrate legally!” is about the same as “you should flap your arms and fly over the border!”
The USA does not staff the border and immigration courts adequately to deal with the numbers of people wanting in. That is our issue, not the migrants’. Our laws are not a reflection of carefully thought out policy balancing the country’s resources and needs, but a haphazard patchwork of things cobbled together due to history, xenophobia, the needs of specific industries with lobbyists, and the ease of making no change vs. making any change in the contemporary USA.