DACA: Why You’ll Agree Trump Did the Right Thing
President Trump did the right thing. I think you’ll agree.
If you currently have the position that DACA should be in place and that President Trump did the wrong thing then you should certainly hear me out. This is especially true for people of faith as they are frequently torn between various ideological or theological commitments and have a hard time seeing the forest for the trees.
On September 5 2017, Attorney General Jeff sessions made the announcement that President Trump had made the decision to end DACA: the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” Executive Order issued by former President Barack Obama.
I should probably say that even though I agree with the decision made on DACA, it is not without an awareness that many people’s lives could be radically affected by this decision.
Time will tell exactly what effect it has because Congress now has the opportunity to have a grown-up discussion about what the nature of immigration policy “should be.” That is its right and responsibility, and if it can agree and create a bill establishing a new standard and get that bill signed by the President, then it can become the new law of the land. Until then, there already exists immigration laws in this country– previously established by Congress and those will simply go back into effect like they were prior to the issuance of DACA and the sister-executive order known as DAPA (more on that later).
As for those who could be affected by the rescinding of DACA, there are people that I know who come from countries where many people benefit from DACA, and many of these are people I love deeply. Even so, the question here is bigger than individual stories of relationships. The bigger issue at hand with the DACA discussion is “who has authority to make laws– the Congress or the (former) President?” The discussion currently is about what is legal and what course of action should be taken with regard to the executive action that is being rescinded in this announcement. For this reason it is important to separate the necessity and importance of this decision made by the government from even the heartfelt and loving relationships that exist between us as people. Compassion, as important as it is should not lead to lawlessness. So with the understanding that I have personal relationships with people who are profoundly affected by DACA, these words are not made flippantly.
Stating the Obvious
It may be important here to state the obvious. Rejecting the legitimacy of a 5 year old (5 years in our 240 year history as a nation) executive order would affect people, but it should not have been issued in the first place. Had it not been issued, people now feeling threatened by it being rescinded would not be in turmoil, nor would our nation. Another obvious statement that should be made is that if someone gets deported as a result that does not mean the person is without a country or given a death sentence. It simply means that person(s) goes back to the country of their birth– where they are actually citizens with all the rights of citizenship. In other words, deportation is simply the denial of residency in a foreign country and being sent back to the land of one’s birth. The current debate over deportation seems to make it tantamount to being sent to a firing squad or being executed. Deportation, as hard as that might be, is the result of being in a nation unlawfully and uninvited, after a period of time (months, years, even decades) at the good pleasure of a nation whose laws were broken and whose citizens were violated. Those citizens were violated because people rejected their laws and entered the nation under false pretenses without the true desire to assimilate. [One might argue that illegal immigrants “want” to assimilation– but the first act of assimilating would be to seek to enter the nation “legally” which is an act showing that a person wants to honor and uphold the laws and moral fabric of the society they are entering.]
By entering illegally in the first place, those responsible for bringing them broke the law and deportation is a possible outcome for breaking that sacrosanct law. It’s not a small matter.
That is why it is important to establish the facts surrounding DACA because so much heated rhetoric and a lack of facts has confused the discussion. As result, even reasonable people who worked to be informed are sometimes uncertain about what exactly all of this means.
An Aside for People Who “Don’t Want to Be Bothered by the Facts”
This is probably the place to make an aside. An “ aside” is when you pause a discussion to clarify points that should be understood before you continue.
As I begin discussing the issue of DACA, it is important to say that if a person is not interested in facts, not able to be swayed by logic, has no respect for the rule of law or the US Constitution, then this information will not matter. This content will only affect the thinking a people who are logical, rational, and truly want to live in a democracy. If you are a person who does not want to be bothered by the facts and are not open minded, then you may as well stop reading here.
The History of DACA
Let’s begin by stating what apparently isn’t a fact about which everyone is aware. It is important to understand that DACA is not a policy that existed since the beginning of our nation or for even the last fifty to sixty years. It is only a few years old. In addition, it is not a law and never was a law issued by the lawmakers of our fifty United States. It was merely an executive order issued–and only in June 2012, which was after the first four years of Barack Obama’s presidential tenure– which is to say that it wasn’t even in place during half of the Obama years. By no means is it a historical precedent that has been going on for decades or that people have come to see as an entitlement because of its long-standing tradition. It is essentially brand new and controversy has surrounded it since before and after Barack Obama signed the order.
What is DACA and When Did it Begin?
DACA is the deferred action for childhood arrivals executive order issued by President Barack Obama in June 2012. It allows a wide swath of undocumented and, therefore, illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors 2 receive at least 2 years of deferred action from deportation and provides them legal eligibility for a work permit in the United States.
Who are the Dreamers?
This leads to the question who are the “Dreamers?” Dreamers are DACA recipients. They are the children of undocumented immigrants who were brought with their parent or parents when they immigrated into United States illegally by sneaking across a border or some other way that was not lawful. “Dreamers” only applies to people who are here illegally.
[Everyone else who is here legally and who waited their turn and completed the legal process are welcomed by all and there is no need for an executive order or law to protect them. They are completely legitimate in their (temporary or permanent) residency in the United States].
One misconception about the nature of Dreamers is the frequently communicated idea that, without it, mostly small children would be ripped from the arms of their parents by being deported. The fact is that most estimates are that Dreamers’ average age is 25. Maybe higher. In other words these are not primarily minors. Statistically, nearly all DACA recipients are adults. These are mostly adults who entered the United States illegally some time back when they were brought to the United States by their parents. They are now, almost all, adults still living here years later without documentation, as well. For this reason they do not have constitutional protection because they, like their parents, are in United States illegally, without documentation. That is why they looked to Barack Obama for a solution that was created which we now know as DACA.
What We Know About Dreamers
- Source: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca-profiles
- Approximately 85% of DACA recipients are from Mexico
- The other 15% of DACA recipients come from Central America, Korea, India, the Philippines and other countries in South America and Southeast Asian countries, According to the Migration Policy Institute which conducted their study in 2016. My understanding is that, theoretically, illegal US residents from over 100 countries may have been eligible for DACA consideration.
- There are more than 43 million immigrants in the United States. of these, 25% or 11 million are undocumented immigrants.
- 78% of the illegal immigrants are over the age of 25 and up, as much as 37 years old. Of the remaining 22%, an unclear percentage is 18-24. In other words, only single digits or low double-digit percentages of DACA recipients are actually children. These are the facts.
Being “Undocumented” or “Illegal”
Lots of people from certain perspectives get frustrated by the word illegal. They shouldn’t be frustrated by that designation. Illegal when it comes to undocumented is essentially the same thing. A person who is in the United States is required to have documentation that establishes their right to be here. For citizens, your documentation is your American birth certificate, or it could be other documents that prove citizenship. A person who is not from the United States is required to have documentation as well. But there are millions of people in the United States without this documentation. Since the documentation is required, then those who do not have it are not abiding by the law. For this reason they are considered here “illegally.” If they weren’t here “illegally” then this national discussion would not be happening.
“Illegal” is obviously a “legal” term– it’s simply a word describing the fact that a person has not abided by the law’s requirement for residency. It’s that simple. So though use of the word “illegal” frustrates some, it is nothing more than stating the facts: That a non-citizen currently in the United States Does not have the proper documentation to reside here legally. For that reason they are here illegally. We live in an environment where some people have suggested that even the use of the word illegal is somehow racist but it’s nothing more than a legal term establishing whether a person is or isn’t here in United States in an authorized way. If they are documented then they have the legal right to be here currently and if they are not documented then they are here illegally. It’s similar to if a person is seeking to drink alcohol at an establishment and are asked for ID to establish if they are “legal” or “illegal” in trying to purchase alcohol, which is controlled. Enough said.
What Has to Be True for Someone to Support DACA
Because it’s so controversial, let’s strip DACA down to its essential core. What “must be true” for someone to support DACA? If you are trying to decide if you believe in DACA or not, what does it mean? It’s simple– there are three things:
To support DACA you must be:
- Opposed the 228 year old Constitutional right of Congress to set immigration policy– you have to reject that, since that is what the Constitution says. If you affirm the Constitution, then you accept that ONLY CONGRESS can set naturalization (citizenship and immigration) policy. To support DACA you have to reject that Congress alone has the authority the Constitution gives it.
- Against the precedent and authority of the US Supreme Court who rejected the similar DAPA executive order for parents of illegal alien children (because they are essentially the same thing, and the first of Obama’s Executive Amnesty Orders was struck down). In other words, if you are “for” DAPA and dismiss the Supreme Court and lower courts’ decision, then you oppose the authority of the third branch of the US government as given by the Constitution.
- In favor of any President of the United States and Presidents’ right to reject Constitutional authority and to singularly, as one person, make “legal” what all 535 members of Congress (435 in the House and 100 in the Senate) have said is against the Law. To support DACA, you have to say that Barack Obama acted rightly when he rejected Congressional authority and the Law of the Land in creating DACA in the first place.
Now, you may hear that and say, “No problem– as long as DACA is allowed, I’ll agree. I’m a pragmatist who only cares about getting the end result, no matter if laws are broken to do so.”
Let’s say that you’re serious. Let’s say, for the sake of argument that you feel backed into a corner and still want to support the idea of DACA. OK, but if that’s the case, then two things would also have to be true in order for you to be logically-consistent and to be considered a reasonable person with whom you can have a serious discussion:
If you still support DACA given those 3 objections above:
Problem #1 If you say you don’t accept the Constitutional authority of Congress and also reject the authority of the Supreme Court in their actions against essentially the same order given in DAPA, then you’re only left with belief that a President can rule, by himself, however he wants, regardless of what Congress and the Justice Department and Supreme Court says. In other words, you don’t want a Democracy or a Republic– you want a Dictator who writes laws himself.
That, by the way, is essentially what “fascism” is– for anyone who actually knows the definition of the word nowadays. It’s used a lot, but people use it incorrectly. Look it up– a Fascist is a political system headed by a one person dictator where the government controls things and opposition isn’t permitted.
IF YOU BELIEVE in a government where the former President can overrule and strike laws or parts of laws off the books, unconstitutionally, and if you reject the authority of the Supreme Court in favor of the previous president’s Executive Order, then you want an Emperor– not a President.
That’s the first problem if a person still holds to DACA after knowing the facts.
Problem #2 if you support a President’s right to pick and choose what laws are to be obeyed or not obeyed, and can unilaterally strike down laws he doesn’t like, then to be rational and intellectually honest and consistent, you would have to be OK with President Trump having the same authority as the last President took.
Namely, if you are OK with having an Emperor and reject the authority of Congress and the Supreme Court, then you are actually saying that if President Trump wanted to unilaterally ban all abortions, then you would have to agree that he has the right to do it. In other words, you can’t pick and choose– either the Executive Branch does or doesn’t have the right to make laws.
- The Constitution and the Supreme Court says the Executive Branch (the President) does not have that right.
- President Trump says the Executive Branch does not have the authority Barack Obama took to make immigration laws.
- And, ironically, at least 25 times Barack Obama said he did not have the authority to issue DACA and break immigration laws.
- As for me, I agree with the Constitution, with the Supreme Court, with President Trump, and 25 of President Obama’s statements shared here– the the President does not have the authority to issue DACA.
All Donald Trump did on September 5 2017 was to remove an order that was unlawful and that should never have been issued. That’s why you should agree that Trump did the right thing. He only did what the Constitution said he should have done. He only did what Barack Obama said should happen, as explained by Obama himself in the video above.
Now, let me summarize why DACA was rightly struck down, plus give the three approaches to immigration policy, and then wrap up.
Why DACA Was Rightly Struck Down
Reason #1: The responsibility of setting immigration law is that of Congress. Congress has set laws. The job has been done. The problem was that, a vocal part of Barack Obama’s base repeatedly pushed him to negate the legislature and to exceed his executive powers in the “separation of powers” in the way constitutional government works. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution says that the “federal legislative branch” has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” That means the Congress in Washington D.C..– not an individual state nor the Supreme Court, nor the President has the authority to set immigration law. Find it here: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-i
Reason #2: Repeatedly, Barack Obama said he “could not” use Executive Authority to Change Immigration Law and to Provide Amnesty for Illegal Aliens Against the Law of the Land. In fact, he is on record some two dozen times, speaking to enormous audiences, saying that doing so was illegal. In other words, the President of the United States, at that time, sided with the Constitution– going so far as saying that he taught Constitutional Law for 10 years (see the video link to view that quote and all two dozen statements about the fact it was against the constitution to alter the law on amnesty for immigration purposes, because it would be illegal and non-constitutional: See it for yourself, if you missed it above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-ssumIZIbY).
Reason #3: Another Executive Order Just Like DACA named Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) was Not Upheld by the Supreme Court as Constitutional in 2016. Read it yourself: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-674_jhlo.pdf and read the explanation here: http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/politics/immigration-supreme-court/index.html.
At the time of the Supreme Court ruling, the vacant justice seat previously occupied by Scalia had not been filled. Had it been, and because Scalia held a literal and 240-year-old view of the Constitution, DAPA would have been fully rejected on the spot– but they simply threw the case back to the previous court, and the previous ruling that Obama’s act was unconstitutional was upheld.
Why DACA and DAPA Were Such An Egregious Act Against Congressional Law Concerning “Legal” Immigration
A word about DACA and DAPA is in order. Understanding the reasoning behind President Obama’s issuance of these Executive Orders is instructive. In an unconstitutional but shrewd set of steps, and in spite of the times Obama himself said he did not have the constitutional right to do so, here is the practical outcome desired by supporters of DAPA and DACA:
(1) DAPA Was Established to Allow Older, “First Generation” Illegal Immigrants Permanent Residency (Defacto Amnesty). DAPA essentially allowed Parents of Undocumented or Illegal Immigrant Children from being deported, and established a number of rights and entitlements to that group. By disallowing deportion and providing benefits, DAPA effectively became “defacto amnesty” for that entire group of people– Parents of Illegal Alien Children. That means that the “older generation” of people who came to the United States illegally were protected by Obama’s illegal amnesty executive order. Again– this order, DAPA, was thrown out and defeated as unconstitutional.
(2) DACA Was Established to Allow the Children/Adult Children of those “First Generation” Illegal Immigrants Permanent Residency (Defacto Amnesty). Then, DACA essentially the same as DAPA, was to allow the Children of Undocumented or Illegal Immigrant Parents from being deported, and established a number of rights and entitlements to those groups. By creating these two separate orders, not only did Obama clog up the judicial system with multiple executive actions that would have to be litigated, be he also targeted a second group. Remember that the first, DAPA, protected illegal alien parents from deportation. Here, DACA protected illegal alien children from deportation– meaning, the two executive actions protected the older generation (DAPA) and the younger generation (DACA). Two generations.
Keep in mind that I documented earlier that the AVERAGE AGE of DACA Dreamers are well into their 20s, and even older. All of them are well into child-bearing years.
Why is this important?
(3) Through DACA and DAPA, Permanent Citizenship for Illegals’ Children Was Established, Effectively Allowing Chain-Immigration of 2 Illegal Generations and Their US Children– by Disallowing the Deportation of All Three Generations Through Those Two Illegal Executive Orders. Think about it. If a person is here in the US illegally but has a child– that child, traditionally, has been considered a U.S. Citizen. Stay with me– so by issuing DAPA for illegal aliens with children, and by issuing DACA for illegal alien children and adult children of illegal aliens– and since the children born to illegal aliens in the US are granted citizenship, Barack Obama essentially set up an illegal amnesty that gave permanent residency and defacto amnesty to most illegal aliens in the United States… and to 100% of their children. And even those illegals who remain under DAPA and DACA they were essentially protected “for life” from deportation, even though the entire pretense of the first two generations who came (parents-DAPA and children-DACA) were done against US immigration laws. That is why it was shrewd but cynical– it sought to allow millions upon millions of people unwilling to submit to US law to flout the law and for them to flout it under the illicit authority of a rogue President. Of all people, the US President who swore to uphold the Constitution should not be breaking it. The Supreme Court agreed on DAPA and the new US President agreed on DACA. Now both have been eliminated. Congress, once again, has the freedom to create the bills it wants– and they can be put before the President elected by the people to sign or not sign those new immigration laws, as the Balance of Powers in the US Consitution says he has the right and responsibility to do.
Again, that is why DACA and DAPA were so shrewd but also so cynical. They were illegal and unconstitutional ways to subjugate the authority of Congress and already-written immigration laws– and to instead permit aliens who entered the United States illegally and without permission to stay permanently and to receive benefits, some of which were not available even to US Citizens.
Though DACA had not yet worked its way through the courts, dozens of states’ attorneys general were set to sue against the DACA policy on the same grounds that DAPA was considered unconstitutional (Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtR4TbZBW18). President Trump’s decision to kill DACA made that litigation unnecessary, simply because the Executive Office (the President) rescinded the unconstitutional executive amnesty order of the former President, Barack Obama. In doing so, he simply gave authority for immigration back to Congress, which is what the Constitution says in the first place.
So, Barack Obama was originally right– when he said he did not have the authority to issue executive amnesty. Even after he did, he realized it was not legitimate, but explained it away by essentially saying offering amnesty to illegals was “the right thing to do” (source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO6Yj73DhPo). A large majority of Americans disagreed with Obama’s illegal use of executive actions.
Three Approaches to Immigration Policy
It is important to understand how different people approach immigration policy. You fall into one of these three categories. Which are you and why?
- Open Borders Globalists. Some people support DACA because they are opposed to the government having any laws regarding who enters the country. These are called “Open Borders” people. The open borders idea is one that is a one world concept we’re no nations actually exist. It is one where anyone can live anywhere and negates the idea of national sovereignty and of residency and citizenship. It sees everyone as Global Citizens of the same world. The parts of this sound very similar to the idea of Heaven in the New Testament, practically speaking this is an unworkable and untenable situation in our world. There’s too many entailments to discuss here but it is an important discussion that needs to be had because on its face it appears charitable and beautiful but functionally it quickly falls apart. In other words, the policy is not in any way sustainable.
Open borders globalists support DACA because of their rejection of the very foundation of the United States (the “authority” of the U.S. Constitution– since it is the Constitution that sets forth what citizenship is. Keep in mind that all countries have immigration policies and citizenship requirements. So the United States is like every other country in the world in this way. For this reason, Open Borders Globalists actually stand opposed to every country’s government founding documents.)
- Open Immigration Policy Pragmatists. Open immigration policy Advocates are those who, similar to open borders globalist, want immigration policy to be open to virtually anyone who would like to be here for any reason– but who understand the need for at least some immigration laws. That includes economic immigrants, those who want to come here for a better life, but who do not want to be troubled by the law. Keep in mind that there are laws established to let people come here for a better life. After all, that is the American dream. That is why people have sought to come here for over 240 years. But because billions of people would come to United States if they could and if they were able, that would so destabilize the American way of life that those people could not be assimilated and accommodated and it would immediately wreck the very country that they are seeking to live in. In other words, the America they dream about would not exist if there were no laws to protect immigration.
The problem with pragmatism is that the end always justifies the means. In other words whatever it takes to make it happen, as long as the end result is what people want it to be, is considered good or justifiable. In other words as long as people get what they want they believe that it’s okay to do whatever is necessary to get their way. That’s what pragmatism is. Pragmatism, then, Uses the law when the law helps them achieve their ends. But when the law does not help them achieve their ends pragmatists refuse to abide by the law and become lawless. That’s what pragmatism is.
Pragmatism is dangerous because might makes right. Pragmatism believes that whatever it takes to accomplish that is our goal should be done regardless of the actions taken. This is a dangerous game and it doesn’t take too long to understand why. Historically lots of people, even political despots, have used pragmatism to justify all kinds of horrible things. You cannot break down the law and consider that a good thing just to get your way because then you are lawless and breaking down the very order of society. People truly loyal to any country reject pragmatism and instead work to get the laws they want to see passed accomplished through the legislative and electoral process. In other words, they do it legally. That is why I stand against open immigration policy that is pragmatic. The end does not justify the means. The means or how we do something is as important as what we do– more about that later.
In addition to the pragmatic approach being foolhardy, it’s also unsustainable. You can’t do it consistently without destroying the very thing you’re trying to get.
- Compassionate People Wanting a Legal and Sustainable Immigration Solution
The third approach to Immigration Policy is those who want a legal and sustainable solution to immigration.
I just stated that the Open Borders Globalists and Open Immigration Policy Pragmatists do not technically care whether DACA is legal or sustainable. They want immigration for illegal immigrants regardless of whether DACA should have ever been done or not and whether or not it is actually legal or sustainable. So the third group of people does not fit into the second category.
The third group of people wanting an immigration solution are compassionate people who want to allow or create a way for people to come to United States but to do so lawfully.
That represents myself and most other Americans.
First, keep in mind that there is a legitimate, legal, and sustainable means to immigrate into the United States. Anyone in the world can apply and seek entry. Immigration laws govern this process. It is compassionate because it allows such a large number of people into the United States, and the current numbers of legal immigrants allowed into the United States are currently among the highest ever. It is higher than most other countries around the world.
Even though the “legal” immigration rates are among the highest ever in our country, some immigrants (a) do not get in their first try and decide to come in illegally (b) some don’t even try to do it the legal way because they have no respect for American laws and, therefore, don’t respect our way of life– (I say they don’t respect our way of life because they don’t respect our laws, and our laws are what guarantee our way of life). Honestly, I have no patience for these people because of the simple fact that they don’t care about our laws– so I have less compassion for lawbreakers as opposed to COMPLETE COMPASSION for law-abiding people who want to join this great country and to do so legitimately and legally.
Being Opposed to Illegal Immigration Doesn’t Make You A Hater or a Racist– it makes you a law-abiding citizen
Being opposed to “Illegal” immigration doesn’t make someone a hater. Being opposed to DACA or DAPA (the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans before it) doesn’t make someone racist or uncompassionate. It just means you’re law-abiding.
Compassionate people wanting a legal and sustainable solution to immigration understand that compassion must be balanced with a respect for the law AND for the wishes of voting Americans. America is based on a democratic republic and this allows the nation to be governed by laws that represent the moods of the electorate (voting citizens).
If a person doesn’t like the law, they can seek to get the law changed or can seek to elect people who will change the law. And if their candidates lose– then the law doesn’t get changed. Why? Because the majority of people who voted disagreed with them. So any and all laws exist currently because they have been established by elected officials who represent the moods of the people. The mood of the people is always represented by a country’s laws. Our laws represent the balance of opinion of American voters/citizens, as established by lawmakers in our Republic.
Voters in each community, state and the nation as a whole elect people who then make these laws. If a person doesn’t like the laws and the lawmakers are unwilling to change the law then that shows that the person who doesn’t like the law is out of step with the majority of American voters. That’s called democracy. Every person in the United States disagrees with some laws on the books. But citizenship is about honoring our constitution and the Constitution guarantees our rights, freedoms, and responsibilities. You cannot have rights and freedoms without responsibilities. So we all implicitly agree that the nation is based on laws and those laws are set by are constitutionally elected lawmakers (Congress).
For good citizens, meaning those who agree with the US Constitution and how our legislative process works, the only way to change any law including immigration law is through duly elected officials. They are given the responsibility to make laws and that is the only way for them to be legitimately changed.
Yeah, but Aren’t Republicans Just Racist?
If you think that, you need to go back to the beginning and start again.
Let’s try this one final time, another way. Between 2008-2009, Democrats had TOTAL control of legislation and the White House. With a “super majority” any law they wanted could have been made. They had the freedom to change immigration policy legally at that time, had they chosen to do so. And they wouldn’t have needed even one Republican vote to do so. But they didn’t. Why? Because even Democrats didn’t agree on Open Immigration Policy. Nor have Republicans since that time.
The point is that the aggressive and vocal open-immigration groups have positions that exceed where the average American and the average Congressman is. And laws are set by Congressmen who represent voters– and the majority of voters put people in office who reject Open Border Globalism and who reject Open Immigration Pragmatism.
Legal Immigration is Wonderful
There are laws allowing for an enormous number of immigrants to come to the United States LEGALLY. That is a wonderful thing. I personally LOVE that immigrants are allowed to ask permission to come into the United States and seek entry. I love that our country allows so many to come in each year and to get basic support to get started. I love that legal immigrants can integrate into this great country and join us and become part of us. I love nothing more than hearing a new, naturalized citizen say the Pledge of Allegiance for the first time. I love welcoming these people, born all around the world, from all races, creeds, and even faiths– into our great country. I love it, love it, love it. They, each and every one, are welcomed with open arms.
Like the Statue of Liberty poem, actually a sonnet called the New Colossus:
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome.
Americans welcome immigrants and huddled masses yearning to breathe free– from around the world. The only thing most Americans insist is that those who come do so legally. When this is done, immigrants will be welcomed with open arms, heartily, and in good faith.
I welcome thoughtful responses. I invite you to comment. I will reply to legitimate, non-trolling discussions that show evidence that a person has read this post. I look forward to the discussion.