Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksActof 2008

[Jeffrey Watts]

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 1:10 AM, Leo Mauler <webgiant at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Of course its a valid comparison.  Illegal immigrants don't want to have to
> obey the law like everyone else.  They want *what they want*, *when they
> want it* and don't want to have to *obey the law* like everyone else.
>
> In many ways illegal immigrants are poor versions of Paris Hilton: they're
> *snooty people* who think *the law shouldn't have to apply to them* just
> because they're *poor* and want to live somewhere else.
>

Your line of reasoning is totally absurd.  Sorry to belabor the point from
my earlier reply but if you think comparing an illegal immigrant coming to
America to get a job and support his family with Paris Hilton driving drunk
then you sir are putting too much Crazy Sauce on your hot dogs.


> Absolutely, but if you break the law before you repeal it, its stupid to
> demand that you not be punished for your actions.
>

I didn't demand anything.  I simply said that it's okay to not care if
people violate and aren't punished.  You're saying it's NOT okay, and that's
okay, you're allowed to have that opinion.  But then again, you are someone
who appears to think that the immigration debate and celebutantes have a lot
in common, so I personally won't put much value on your opinion.


> And those good people who violated those laws violated them knowing darn
> well they would be prosecuted for violating them.  In fact the entire point
> of those "civil disobedient" people was that they be prosecuted, so that the
> cases could cause the laws to be repealed through court precedent.
>

And there were lots of people who violated Jim Crow laws and weren't
punished.  There were lots of Jim Crow laws on the books in a lot of states
that were never enforced and were eventually repealed.  There are still dumb
laws like that around, rotting away in the law books in every state.

I appreciate your argument, but it's easily turned on its side.


> Then we have illegal immigrants who want to have their cake and eat it too:
> they want the laws repealed and to not be prosecuted for violating those
> laws prior to the repeal of said laws.  This isn't "civil disobedience",
> this is Paris Hilton-style snobbery.
>

"Snooty"?  "Snobbery"?  Seriously?  Please debate rationally.  I'm making an
honest, last attempt to debate with you.  If you are going to keep using
absurdities I'm going to just killfile you.


> Not so much.  "Jim Crow" laws had no basis other than the oppression of
> black people.  Same for sodomy laws oppressing homosexuals.
>

Actually, most Jim Crow laws had at their heart a misguided intent of
maintaining the peace through racial segregation.  Some were mean-spirited,
but many were not.  They simply failed in that their "separation" was always
at the expense of blacks, and never whites.  It's why "separate but equal"
was wrong and didn't work as well.


> Immigration carries very real threats with it, among them communicable
> diseases and violent criminal records.  Immigration laws require that
> incoming immigrants prove they aren't a threat to existing U.S. citizens,
> and unlike the racism about blacks and the homophobia about homosexuals, the
> threats are real and not imagined.


If immigration law were reformed and labor laws enforced, most immigration
would become legal and these scaremongering "issues" wouldn't be issues.
The reality is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't criminals
and aren't plague carriers.

So because other people break one set of laws it is O.K. for you to break
> another set of laws?  Explain to me how this is the statement of a rational
> person who believes in the rule of law.
>

I thought my argument was pretty straightforward.  I said the following
(broken down for easy reading):

UNTIL labor laws are enforced
UNTIL immigration law is reformed
UNTIL we secure the border in a meaningful way
THEN I can not condemn someone who chooses to immigrate illegally

I'm all for the rule of law when the laws are FAIR and ENFORCED.  If they
are neither, then it's hypocritical for me to expect people to be punished
for violating unfair laws.  Unlike what you've said, I'm not breaking any
laws myself.  I'm not sure where that came from.

Incidentally, here in the U.S.A. a man is breaking and entering, and
> trespassing, if he enters my home without my permission, **even if my door
> is unlocked**.  With your attitude about trespassing requiring "breaking
> into a house through a locked door", you may want to not let anyone know
> where *you* live, just in case one night you accidentally leave your door
> unlocked...
>

Again, I see your example, but it's not cogent to this argument.  Breaking
and entering into a private residence and illegally immigrating are two
different things.  Any similarity is simply superficial, both legally and
rationally.  I suggest you use a stronger simile.

Or better yet, stop trying to reduce a complex issue into catchphrases and
goofy comparisons.

Jeffrey.

P.S.  Leo, feel free to reply to the list, but I'm going to try and stay out
of further public conversation on this issue.  I've realized that I've
already worn out my welcome in this debate and I'm going to refrain from
discussing this issue any further publicly.  I encourage you to do the
same.  This thread's time has come.

-- 

"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kclug.org/pipermail/kclug/attachments/20080820/ef837f6c/attachment.htm>