Reply from Congressman Emanuel Cleaver concerning Orphan WorksActof 2008

[Bradley Hook]

On Wed, 2008-08-20 at 00:14 -0500, Jeffrey Watts wrote:
> 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.

It's not completely absurd, though it is a bit of a stretch. While his
statements are somewhat sensationalistic, they do illustrate the common
trait of feeling that a law doesn't or shouldn't apply to you.

> I didn't demand anything.  I simply said that it's okay to not care if
> people violate and aren't punished.

While it may be "okay," it certainly isn't wise, unless of course you
subscribe to the views of anarchy.

> "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.

Again, there is some rationality to his statements. He is just choosing
to use sensationalistic terminology, which detracts from the issue at
hand.

> If immigration law were reformed and labor laws enforced, most
> immigration would become legal and these scaremongering "issues"
> wouldn't be issues.

Agreed.

> The reality is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't
> criminals and aren't plague carriers. 

By definition, all *illegal* immigrants are criminals, as the act of
illegal entry into the U.S., or overstaying a VISA, is a misdemeanor
criminal offense. The very act of entering the country illegally
indicates the individual's willingness to disregard the laws of our
society. They also indicate their intent to *continue* breaking the
laws, because they know they will not be paying taxes as required by
law.

> 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

Regardless of whether our legal system is currently functioning properly
or not, this line of thinking will undermine it. There are many laws
which I do not agree with, but I still expect others to comply with them
as I do myself.

> 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.

Both terms (fair and enforced) are somewhat subjective. What you see as
fair many others wont, and what you see as being adequately enforced may
be viewed as overkill by others. You should *expect* others to be
punished even if you don't *want* them to be punished.

> 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.

To say these two examples are completely different is like saying the
math statements 2^2 and 23^45 are completely different. While they are
"different," they both implement the same concept (raising a base number
to an exponential power). Both of his examples illustrate a party
voluntarily entering a place in violation of the law governing that
place, and then intending to commit further illegal acts while in that
place.

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

Analogies are a fundamental mechanism for explanation and argumentation,
and anyone who refuses to (or is incapable of) interpreting them is also
refusing to (or incapable of) participating fully in a productive
argument. While it may be that his analogies seem far fetched to some,
this could be simply the result of an inability to interpret the
material in an objective manner; it does not reduce the validity of his
point. I do agree that he could have chosen better examples in some
cases, but this is purely opinion.

~Bradley