Immigration and "the Law"
2007-05-10 12:20PM / 標準BLOG
/ 會員可以看
So often those on the Right -- the conservatives
who oppose leniency (or what I would more appropriately call
compassion) towards "illegal" aliens -- appear to be so self-righteous
because they stand with "the Law." To them all matters seem to hinge on
the simple and clear fact that "they are here 'illegally;' they broke
the law, and that's not right."
I am not writing to support lawlessness, and of course there are reasons for having laws, and we need to abide by them.
But
there are also times when things aren't so black and white, or if we
view them in simplistic terms, the outcome can be dangerous, or
harmful. In retrospect, regretful. And always those situations are when
"the Law" is so negatively impacting a minority group, whether ethinic,
racial, or by sexual orientation.
What is "the Law?" "Shouldn't we always abide by 'the Law?'" Who came here "legally?"
- Slavery
- The Holocaust
- The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II
- Segregation
... Just a hand ful of important chapters in history we cannot forget. And times when part of the problem was that everyone 'abided.'
Is
"the Law" more important than, simply, Humanity? Is it better to be
legally right, and not consider moral issues? ... Is following "the
Law" more important than the Human suffering inflicted by going by the
book, or "the Law?"
And just a comment about being 'legal' in
this country: Invasion, conquering and committing genocide on nations
of native people -- how 'legal' was the founding of this country? I
don't think the people who were here first, felt any of that was
"legal," so who are we (most of us) to say, "my family came here
legally?"
—CT
BLOG評論