Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksActof 2008

[Leo Mauler]

--- On Thu, 8/14/08, Chuck <chuck at mutualaid.org> wrote:

> Leo Mauler wrote:
> 
> > Much as I salute your desire to welcome people 
> > into your neighborhood and city, illegal 
> > immigrants have violated laws through their 
> > entry into this country and are thus illegal 
> > immigrants.  As opposed to legal immigrants
> > which have entered through the legal channels 
> > of immigration.
> 
> I really don't give a damn if some laws created 
> by a government with no legitimacy

Legitimacy is defined by the willingness of the people under said government to accept its rulings.  While you have strong opinions about immigration law, unless you live outside the U.S. then by choice you accept its legitimacy.  

> criminalizes a class of people for existing in
> the wrong place.

Correction: for choosing to go to the wrong place without permission.

The U.S. didn't sprout *around* the illegal immigrants, they chose to cross a border *into* the U.S.A.

> They didn't have any say in the creation of those laws

The citizenry of a country should be allowed to create their own laws regarding occupancy in that country, and should not have to bow down to the edicts of non-citizens.

> and neither did I.

Are you a U.S. Citizen? (not intended as an insult: another KCLUG member is a native of Costa Rica and hasn't left yet)  If the answer is "yes", then you have some say in the governance of the U.S.A.

> We need to get rid of the laws relating to
> "immigration" and "citizenship." Get rid of 
> all passports, driver licenses and so on. 
> People should be treated as human beings and 
> their freedoms should be celebrated, not 
> controlled or penalized.

My freedom not to get sick when an illegal immigrant brings over a communicable disease needs to be celebrated by keeping immigration laws in place to try and prevent him from doing so.

Immigration laws protect citizens from immigrants who pose a threat to the citizens in the country, whether they are doing so intentionally (violent criminal past) or unintentionally (through communicable diseases).

> I just can't believe that we still have this
> anachronistic crap in the 21st century.  All of 
> this crap was developed in the early 20th century, 
> so it's long overdue for being abolished.

By that argument we need to abolish *safety regulations* implemented in the 20th Century.  Care for some hotdogs which are mostly rat droppings and with traces of the fingers some worker lost in the meat grinder?  How about a bottle marked "honey" which is nothing but sugar water with some orange food coloring?  These regulations prevent businesses from getting what they want, when they want it, so since thats the "logic" for abolishing immigration laws then clearly the safety regulations have to go too.

Prior to the 20th Century we didn't know much about disease either.  Those 20th Century immigration laws came about because of more knowledge, not less, and need to be kept in place precisely because they try to protect citizens of the U.S.A. from diseases in other countries which have lax laws about public health.

> > There's just no getting around the fact 
> > that until a law is repealed, the activity 
> > prohibited by that law is an illegal 
> > activity.  Trying to pretend that the law 
> > doesn't exist, prior to its repeal, just 
> > makes you look stupid, and puts you in the 
> > same category as Paris Hilton, who several 
> > months ago drove with a suspended driver's 
> > license, at 75MPH in a 30MPH zone, and in 
> > the dark with her headlights off, all at 
> > the same time.  She, too, stupidly tried 
> > to pretend that unrepealed laws did not 
> > exist.
>
> It's ridiculous to compare dangerous behavior 
> to somebody who is "violating" the law because 
> they are existing in the "wrong" place.

Current immigration laws require that incoming immigrants be healthy without any dangerous communicable diseases.  The behavior of illegal immigrants *is* dangerous behavior.

But even more important is the fact that Paris Hilton, exactly like illegal immigrants, feels that the laws shouldn't have to apply to her because they prevent her from getting what she wants, when she wants it.  Illegal immigrants are poor versions of Paris Hilton: snooty little snobs who feel that they shouldn't have to obey the law because they are poor.

> Your argument is a classic example of why the 
> debate over immigration is so stupid. People 
> who oppose "illegal immigration" say they 
> oppose it because "people are breaking the 
> laws." Yes, some of these people are idiots 
> who actually think that people should obey 
> all laws, 

People should obey all laws, or at least not act surprised when they are punished for violating those laws.  Its your attitude, that a "bad law" shouldn't apply prior to its repeal, that is idiotic.

> but much of this is a coded way to avoid the 
> racist basis for opposition to "illegal" 
> immigration.  When people complain about 
> "illegal" immigrants breaking the law, they 
> are always talking about brown-skinned people 
> from Mexico and Latin America. They aren't 
> equally focused on the millions of people 
> from elsewhere who are "illegal" in the 
> United States.

My example of someone else who, like illegal immigrants, thinks laws shouldn't prevent her from getting what she wants, was Paris Hilton, who is *white*.  Don't call me a racist.

I think immigration laws are important regardless of the color of the skin of the immigrant.  Don't try to dismiss me as a racist so you can feel justified.  I'll personally deport Canadians and Britisher pigs if they come here illegally.

> Again, how is somebody "illegal" status as 
> a citizen comparable to a celebrity endangering 
> people with aggressive driving? How many 
> bystanders have been killed by somebody's
> "illegal" status?

Saying that illegal immigrants don't harm anyone is a nice *safe* statement to make, since their illegal status means we can't tell if they are carrying any communicable diseases, or pets with communicable animal diseases.  You can sit there and insist that they're all 100% healthy, but thats just conjecture on your part.

Bird flu is just around the corner, but there are other communicable diseases right here, right now.  Immigration laws mean that the only people allowed in are those who are healthy and won't infect the rest of the population with a communicable disease.  I certainly hope that white people with communicable diseases are being barred from entry just like people with other skin colors, and I'd be very annoyed to find out that white people with communicable diseases are being allowed in despite their conditions.

> > There's an inherent inconsistency with a 
> > statement like yours which boils down to 
> > "nice people should be allowed to break 
> > laws without punishment."
> 
> People have the right to break unjust laws 

No, people have the right to accept punishment for unjust laws they *choose to break*.  Those who want to break the law and avoid the punishment aren't being "civilly disobedient", they're just being selfish.

Civil disobedience is all about gaining publicity for the movement against an unjust law through the court case brought on by the prosecution of the person who broke the law.  If you aren't willing to accept the punishment then you're no different from a criminal.

> I would go further and advocate the 
> elimination of laws and government.
> That's the anarchist argument.

True enough, though that would allow the Minutemen to "legally" (somewhat a misnomer, since there would be no laws) make use of *live ammo* in their efforts to prevent Mexicans from entering the U.S.A.

Our current system of government, the one you dislike so much for its laws, also has laws which protect illegal immigrants from violent anti-illegal-immigrant actions by its citizenry.  Get rid of that government and you get rid of those laws, not to mention the laws which ban the personal possession of automatic weapons.

The Fourteenth Amendment's provisions regarding non-Citizens:

"No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Anarchy means that one goes bye-bye, and Anarchy isn't really "lack of government", it means "governance by those who have the most guns."  Like all the rich white people vs. all the poor illegal immigrants.

"Dont it always seem to go
That you dont know what you've got
Till its gone"

-- Joni Mitchell, "Big Yellow Taxi"