Elizabeth Warren is a top-tier candidate in the campaign for the Democrat presidential race. As such, her basic position on illegal migrants and “asylum seekers” is not appreciably different from that of any of her Democrat colleagues. Like them, she supports “decriminalization” (i.e., legalization) of the act of entering the United States without authorization.
Ms. Warren, along with lower-tier opponents Julián Castro and Cory Booker, supports the outright repeal of the statue, in effect now since 1929, which makes unauthorized entry a criminal offense, as opposed to a merely civil one. Their reason for taking that position may surprise you, if you’re still capable of being surprised by these people.
The statute under assault by Warren and the others is Section 1325 of Title 8 of the United States Code, reproduced above, which makes entering the United States without authorization a misdemeanor. There is nothing especially unique about it. Under international law, countries have the right and responsibility to their citizens to guard against unauthorized entry.
Yet Warren and her co-conspirators Castro, Booker, and others vow to repeal the statute because, 90 years ago, it was sponsored by a member of their own party, Senator Coleman Livingston Blease (D-SC), whom they now regard as an “unabashed” racist and white supremacist. Warren writes on her newly released immigration position paper: “Entering the country without authorization has always been a violation of civil immigration law, but thanks to a former segregationist Senator, it’s also a criminal violation.” (emphasis added)
(Note: Although Senator Blease, a Southerner and son of a Confederate veteran, is the figure being attacked and is widely held to having been the “author” of the legislation, according to the source of most of the information for the attacks–a book titled City of Inmates by Kelly Lytle Hernandez–the actual author was the sitting U.S. Secretary of Labor, James J. Davis, a resident of Pennsylvania and a native Welshman.)
Senator Blease served one term in the U.S. Senate (1925-1931), during which he sponsored Section 1325. He was born in 1868 and died 77 years ago.
Section 1325 makes no mention of race or ethnicity and bears no taint of racism or white supremacy. Yet Warren and the others hate it because they hate who “wrote” it. How many other laws on the federal and state books would they find equally worthy of abolition, merely because they can associate them with historical persons whom they have come to disdain?
To adopt a policy of abolishing a law ipso facto because it was written or sponsored or supported in some way by someone generations earlier whom you now regard as evil would be to open a Pandora’s box of hate, akin to today’s mad quest to tear down statues and monuments to the past. It would introduce into American legislative and judicial procedure a potentially catastrophic, nearly anarchic practice, from which we might never recover. As such, it seems an entirely appropriate Democrat campaign plank for 2020.
For more, see Accuracy in Media.