Has America become a nation of "degrees" of enforcing our laws? It sure looks that way. Political elites and the wealthy are afforded impunity for their violations of law while the government and judicial system holds the average American citizen to the strictest letter of the law. When the average American citizen violates the law, it matters not the intent. Yet, intent matters when it comes to the political elite, the wealthy and favored groups. While punishment for violation of the law has degrees (murder should hold a stiffer penalty than theft), should violators of law receive impunity based on intent or if an individual is a member of a "favored" group?
With all the hullaballoo regarding a "deal" concerning DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) individuals here illegally, President Trump, members of both chambers of Congress and American citizens have to decide whether we become a nation enforcing our laws as written or whether we institute enforcing laws based on "degree." Let's look at what is being proposed for DACA illegal alien invaders. According to CNSnews.com, President Trump told CNBC's "Squawk Box" Friday morning that the DACA problem should be solved since these people are good people and should be allowed to remain in the republic.
I want to solve the DACA problem. I would consider that a great achievement to solve the DACA problem. It's been out there for a long time. These are good people. These are people who should be allowed to stay in our country. We're going to solve the DACA problem.
But we also want to solve the tremendous problem on the southern border, which is crime. We need a wall. We need the drugs to stop flowing in.
Again, while these individuals arrived as children because of their parents' violation of the law, once these "children" reached adulthood, it became their responsibility to correct their status because they knew they were not here through legal means. At that point, these individuals became violators of the law in their own right. Now, instead of working to remain in the republic through legal means, they demand the rule of law be circumvented for them. Why? Because they were brought here as children by their parents and cannot be held responsible for the action of their parents. So, their "intent" as children was not to break the law – that was the fault of their parents. However, these children, now adults, do not address their responsibility to abide by the law upon reaching adulthood.
So, if President Trump, members of both chambers of Congress and American citizens are willing to allow these individuals amnesty because "it's just a violation of immigration law," then would not President Trump, members of both chambers of Congress and American citizens need to consider amnesty for an individual who stole food to feed their starving family because the family is homeless and no one has a job? Why would not an individual trying to feed their starving family not receive amnesty for the violation of theft of food because their "intent" was survival?
Why should James Comey, Hillary Clinton, and others receive impunity for lying under oath, perjury; yet, an average citizen is held to the law concerning lying under oath – perjury? Becoming a republic based on "degree" of violating the law pushes the united States further toward the rule of men based on a whim or election year or popularity amongst voters or keeping donors for future campaigns. How does the "degree" of law violations occur and who decides who is worthy to receive a "pass" based on how severe the violation?
And, what about someone who "steals" someone else's intellectual property to provide for a family when faced with unemployment and homelessness? Does that individual get a "pass" based on "intent?" It's a slippery slope when dealing with "degrees" of violations of the law. Moreover, those who committed similar crimes to Hillary Clinton sit convicted of federal law violations while Clinton received impunity because of "lack of intent." Well, the individual who took pictures aboard a submarine had "lack of intent" but a conviction was forthcoming for that individual.
President Trump's White House has indicated it is willing to expand the number of illegal alien invaders eligible for legal status above and beyond the DACA group, to include "dreamers who did not sign up for the DACA program."
“We've been willing to expand that population,” Marc Short, President Trump’s chief congressional negotiator, told NBC's "Meet the Press" with Chuck Todd.
Trump on Friday told CNBC that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer made a mistake in shutting down government last weekend over the DACA issue.
Asked if he would "move more to the center on immigration" to avoid another government shutdown in February, Trump said:
"I don’t think the Democrats would shut it down, because you look at every poll that says Schumer made a mistake. I don't want to say Schumer got badly beaten, why should I do that, I'm negotiating -- I'm not going to say he got badly beaten -- but you look what happened, the people want security and they want DACA taken care of, but more importantly, they want security, they want the border strong... they don't want to have MS-13 coming in to our cities..."
Trump said MS13 gang member are "horrible, horrible human beings" who came to the U.S. as "horrible human beings."
"They don't shoot somebody. They cut 'em up into little pieces because it's more painful. I don't want them,” Trump said. “We are taking them out by the thousands -- by the thousands...but we're going to take care of DACA. No one wants to take care of DACA more than myself and the Republican Party."
President Trump should specify "what people" want DACA handled; especially in the way the government is going to handle these illegal alien invaders through amnesty and a pathway to citizenship. Yes, MS13 gang members are the most horrible and wretched of human beings entering our republic; they enter illegally as well-meaning amnesty could apply to these horrendous criminals. Where is the plan to tell the difference or will there be any difference made? What does "taking them out by the thousands" entail? If the administration is willing to expand the population affected on amnesty, how can it be sure it does not extend to MS13 gang members? And, once citizens, how do you "take them out by the thousands?"
MS13 gang members violate immigration law just as the illegal alien invaders under DACA; yet, the violation of immigration law is only applying to MS13 gang members because they are "horrible, horrible human beings." Who is to say that many illegal alien invaders under DACA or the "expanded population" are not violators of other laws as well?
According to CNSnews.com:
In exchange for legal status – and an eventual path to citizenship -- Trump wants $25 billion to build his wall, which he promised to do under budget: "We'll have a lot of money left over and we'll spend it on other things," he said.
He also wants an end to chain migration, where legal immigrants are then allowed to sponsor all their relatives; and he wants an end to the diversity visa lottery, replacing it with a merit-based system.
The White House announced on Thursday that it will unveil on Monday a “legislative framework” that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress can support on the issue of immigration reform.
Evidently, President Trump forgets the "Reagan Amnesty" debacle where the public was sold amnesty in exchange for a wall – that was never built – and no future amnesty to any illegal alien invaders again. So, these illegal alien invaders get a "pass" on immigration law violation, but, they are not allowed to sponsor any family members, in what is actually "chain illegal immigration," not "chain migration." Picking and choosing which laws to uphold and which to ignore is equivalent to dining at a Chinese buffet. How does this promote equality of the law?
The answer is "it doesn't." And, take it for what it is worth, the American people will face this same exact issue again in another 30 years – amnesty for childhood illegal alien invader arrivals with an expansion to additional illegal alien invader arrivals. It happened about 30 years ago without a wall though promised; it's happening today, with a promise of a wall. History is repeating itself and it will again if the federal government does not cease the application of "degree" of violations of the law. The degree of punishment to fit the crime is acceptable. It is not acceptable to apply the same mindset to violation of the law – it's either a violation or it's not; there are no degrees.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.