Justice – noun
Let’s put aside for a minute that one of the two major political parties in this country shut down the Nation’s government in order to advocate on behalf of foreigners.
One of the first things you learn in Poli Sci 101 is that politics is the manner in which communities try to manage the distribution of resources. In furtherance of that goal, over time humanity created nation-states, defined as:
Despite the desire of so many to do away with nation-states and be “global citizens”, the organization of the world remains that of nation-states in competition with each other. The government of each of these nations is charged with providing its citizens with certain things, namely security and the opportunity to acquire the resources needed to sustain life. Some countries have been blessed to have significant resources within their boundaries; citizens in these countries have a much easier time acquiring needed resources than those in nations who must depend on trade to provide them to their citizens. Having resources, or acquiring property, of course, is essential to the ability to live independently.
For property rights to mean anything, there must be some system of justice in place to ensure that consequences are imposed on those who try to take resources from others through force, violence, coercion, etc. Unfortunately for billions of people around the world, many governments are unable to impose these systems of justice, whether through corruption, weakness or perhaps the basis of the laws being the ravings of a lunatic (looking at you, North Korea). When the government is unable to provide security, the struggle over resources among the citizens becomes fierce as the easily-tempted know the inability of the government to provide justice allows them to prey on others without consequence. One might be tempted to call such places, oh I don’t know, let’s go with “shitholes”.
In the United States, we are fortunate to live under a government that is predicated on a system of laws that we as a society have agreed to abide by. As such, we have empowered cities, states and a national government to hold us accountable when we violate a law and to administer the consequences equally – without regard to race, sex, religion, class, etc. Lady Justice wears a blindfold, after all. Needless to say, that goal has often remained elusive, as any number of reasons are used to justify differing treatment of people for similar offenses. That being said, does the fact that we often fail to meet that goal mean we stop striving to create an equal society wherein every person has the same rights but also the same responsibilities? Of course not. If a society is to progress, it must acknowledge its failings and try to correct them, not go back and impose the same mistakes on new people.
And so this past weekend we saw a small victory for justice and the rule of law when Democrats gave up the fight to grant legal protections, amnesty, whatever you want to call it, to our vaunted “Dreamers,” foreign nationals brought here illegally as children. One can be sympathetic to their plight but there is nothing that changes the fact that their parents broke the law to come here – the same law that millions of other immigrants have worked their way through successfully. For those immigrants, their ability to live here came at great expense, family separation and years waiting in line. Our immigration system has never been “broken”; just because coming here is difficult doesn’t mean laws need to be changed.
Nor is it racist to want those laws enforced. I’ve never been able to understand the argument that because a majority of people breaking the law are dark-skinned, then the law and supporters of the law are racists. The same rules apply to everyone, regardless of origin. We have no control over who decides to break the law. That the majority of immigration law-breakers are minorities is completely incidental to the law. If there is a rash of bank robberies but the robbers are of a different color, do we let them go free? Of course not.
And that is an apt analogy. Despite what illegal immigration activists say, there are real negative consequences that impact actual citizens – that impact the distribution of resources – due to the presence of illegals.
How many classes in schools were overcrowded because seats had to be given to the “Dreamers”?
How many citizens have lost out on scholarships and a spot at the university they wanted attend because an illegal took them?
How many citizens have lost out on jobs taken by “Dreamer” parents?
How many have seen their wages decrease?
How many have been victims of identity theft?
How many have been victims of violent crime, robbery, etc. by “Dreamers”?
How many “Dreamers” have received tax-payer funded benefits that they were not entitled to?
There are only so many seats at college available. Only so many scholarships available. There is not an endless supply of high-paying jobs for anyone who wants one. There is only so much tax money that can be spent.
We all know there are some great people among the “Dreamers” – and some not-so-great ones. It is an unenviable position in which they find themselves. But their anger should not be directed at the government or US citizens. Their issue is with their parents, who knowingly made the decision to break the law to come here and then stayed, hoping to remain out of sight. They took a risk – and now that risk is coming back to bite them. Is that your fault? Is it my fault? Did we force them to come here illegally? Of course not. So why is it incumbent on us to fix their problem?
Justice requires the equal treatment of people under the law. There is no justice if millions of illegals who avoided the onerous and difficult immigration process followed by millions of others, are given a free pass.
My kids, and the children of millions of other citizens and legal immigrants have dreams, too. Theirs should come first.