|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pandora

Civilization Watch


A Letter to Mitt


June 21, 2012
Dear Mitt,

We keep getting letters from you and members of your family, inviting us to eat a meal with you. I'm so sorry that we haven't yet drawn the lucky ticket. Meanwhile, though, I'd like to tell you what I would have told you at lunch, if we'd had lunch.

President Obama has, by executive order, halted the deportation of "illegal immigrants" who were brought into the United States before they turned 16, who have lived here for at least five years, who have obeyed the law and who graduated from high school or served in the US military.

He is using this to his political advantage by warning Hispanic voters that if Republicans – you – win the election, this policy will be reversed.

Mitt, there is only one smart, decent thing for you to do: Announce, right now, that if elected president, you will not rescind this executive order, and that you will immediately seek to regularize the status of all children who came to America as minors.

You know and I know that this is not just a political decision. It's a moral one, and it comes right from the core Mormon beliefs that you and I share. It's in the Second Article of Faith: We believe it's wrong to punish children for their parents' or ancestors' offenses. Period.

Young adults who did not enter this country by their own volition, who have studied hard or served our country, do not deserve to be thrown out and sent "back" to a dangerous country they may never have lived in or barely remember, where they will have few or no opportunities.

And when members of the know-nothing wing of your party whine that this "rewards illegal immigrants," your complete answer should be:

We do not punish children who have done nothing wrong. These kids deserve to have all the opportunities of American life, and shame on anyone who tries to hurt them because their parents might have broken a law. They are our children now.

The moment you issue this statement, you take away all the political advantage Obama hopes to get from his executive order.

You also show independent voters that you are not the slave of the ugly wing of the Republican Party – that you intend to be president of the whole country.

Maybe you'll lose some votes from the racists and xenophobes – maybe they'll stay home in November. But if the only way you can win is by adopting their hateful program, then you don't deserve to be president, and you know it.

It's good politics, and it's the right thing to do. When your opponent is right – and in this case he is – you need to do what Jesus said: Agree with your adversary quickly.

printPrint
emailEmail Link
CommentFeedback
shareShare
  1. print email
    Other views
    June 21, 2012 | 05:32 AM

    I have serious issues with what Obama did, both Constitutionally and as a practical matter and I don't think either should be ignored just for some temporary political benefit. BTW, Obama didn't do this by Executive Order, but it wouldn't change anything if he did. Our immigration laws are for Congress to decide. Rule by law does matter, even if we have issues with the law.

    I don't like for kids to suffer either - but allowing the president to simply overrule the law if he doesn't like things will lead to worse things.

    I suspect if we actually secured our borders (as much as is reasonably possible), that most of the people you think are racist or from the "ugly" wing of the GOP, would be quite open to this or other solutions.

    We've been through this before - so have you - under Reagan. In that case it was amnesty, but essentially a bargain to also secure the borders. The amnesty, of course, came quickly. The security? Didn't happen. And the amnesty just gave more the idea that if they can just get here, they may later get a similar deal.

    We don't want to get fooled again. That doesn't make us racist or heartless.

    Now, this makes Mitt's options far more complicated and I really don't know what the best approach should be.

    Certainly he should say that we need to follow the principles in the Constitution (Mormons are outstanding people, but our govt is not ruled by their Articles of Faith) and so he will make the matter a priority with Congress, including his view on what the decision should be. It would have to include a lot of stuff about securing the border too. That's the hard part about all this. Everyone knows you can get stuff like amnesty to happen almost immediately once passed. But even if there was agreement on securing the borders, it would take a lot of time and they have good reason not to trust any deal because of past experience.

    But then, Mitt couldn't even do anything until January so all this just gets you through the election, so the neutralization of Obama's move is still there.



    DaBigKahuna
  2. print email
    June 21, 2012 | 04:44 PM

    That must have killed you to give President Obama credit for something.

  3. print email
    June 22, 2012 | 03:54 PM

    And clearly you expected death had you extended Mr. Card that same courtesy.

  4. print email
    June 23, 2012 | 03:42 PM

    After the hatred and lies he's spewed he doesn't deserve any courtesy

  5. print email
    Articles of Faith
    June 23, 2012 | 09:29 PM

    Nice to see another cafeteria Mormon decided to change the meaning of an article of faith to match his personal politics.

    Did you forget about the article that says "We believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law?"

    How dare you call people who believe in the rule of law such things as "ugly" and "know nothing." How dare you invoke the name of Jesus to imply that He would agree with your politics.

    Shame.

    Keep Reading
  6. print email
    July 03, 2012 | 12:58 PM

    Well said. It's the right thing to do. And, I'm sorry, if anyone really thinks that the people coming to this country illegally (and risking their lives in the process) are doing it because they know they'll be absolved later is kidding themselves. A lack of consequences is not the same as motivation. Sure, it's the removal of a deterrent, but a deterrent that would only work if it outweighed the benefits of immigrating in the first place. Considering the dangers of crossing the border (death from dehydration, kidnap, rape, etc.) I don't think that a fear of being picked up and deported is really that much of a deterrent anyway.

    Besides, if we are only absolving people who came here as minors of culpability (people who didn't have a choice whether or not to come here in the first place), that doesn't change the fact that someone who came here as an adult could be deported.

Reader Feedback Submission
Use this form to submit Reader Feedback. Your submission will be reviewed by our staff before appearing on the Web site.
* required value
Your Name

Subject

Comment*

Verification*


PharmQuest
Rhino Search