Don’t Base Law on Mind Reading
The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
“Living in the United States without legal authorization is a civil offense, handled by immigration courts that can issue deportation orders. But crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months in prison. And anyone with a removal on their record can be prosecuted for the felony of illegal reentry and imprisoned for up to two years, if they have an otherwise clean criminal record, and up to 20 for those convicted of serious crimes.
“Congress first passed those laws in 1929, at the urging of a notorious segregationist senator from South Carolina, but invoked them only sporadically until around 2005, when immigration authorities wanted to beef up penalties for jumping the border to deter migrants. Prosecutions have become an increasingly controversial part of the immigration enforcement system, and have accounted for around half of the federal criminal caseload since 2009.
“At the same time, the Biden administration now finds itself defending the law criminalizing illegal entry in federal court.
“In a landmark ruling in August, U.S. District Judge Miranda Du in Nevada found the laws criminalizing illegal entry and reentry unconstitutional, writing that they were passed with racist intent in 1929. South Carolina segregationist Coleman Blease championed the law, and eugenicists widely supported it, with one testifying to a congressional committee that ‘immigration control is the greatest instrument which the Federal Government can use in promoting race conservation of the Nation,’ Du’s order says.
“Prosecutors in the Nevada case accepted that Congress passed the 1929 version of the law with racist intent and acknowledged that it targeted Mexicans and other Hispanics. But they pointed out that the modern law comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and targets Latin Americans because of geography rather than discrimination.
“Congress, however, copied the illegal entry laws into the Immigration and Nationality Act almost word for word, during a session in which legislators repeatedly referred to migrants with the derogatory term ‘wetback,’ passing a law with that name the same year, the order notes. Du said the INA suffered from the same bias.” – The Segregationist Inspired Law That Joe Biden Just Can’t Quit, Roque Planas, Huffington Post, 10/26/21 [Link]
Fact Check of Above Quote: This article endorses the bizarre legal theory of a U.S. District Judge that laws aren’t valid if lawmakers who passed them weren’t completely pure in their motivations. This theory substitutes mind reading for objective law. It’s a prescription to turn law into subjective chaos. Not even the Biden Administration is willing to go this far.
A law should be evaluated in terms of its worth and value and not by the motives—real or alleged—of its sponsors. By increasing the penalties for illegal immigration, the 1929 law showed considerable foresight about the problem that illegal immigration would become.
Immigration advocates are on shaky ground if they want to make the purity of legislative sponsors the test for legitimacy of law. Many sordid motives lie behind the laws that enacted the massive wave of immigration we now face. Among them are the greed of cheap labor advocates, the conniving of politicians for cheap votes, the supremacism of ethnic hustlers who want more power for their respective groups, and the treason of globalists who don’t like idea of American sovereignty.
Mass immigration, however, is not bad because its supports have questionable motives. It is bad because it objectively harms the national interest of our country.