“In passionate testimony before county legislators, and in tense debates with liberal neighbors born in the United States, legal immigrants argued that offering sanctuary to people who came to the country illegally devalued their own past struggles to gain citizenship. Some even felt it threatened their hard-won hold on the American dream.Their objections stunned Democratic supporters of sanctuary here and helped bring about the bill’s demise in March. A similar proposal for the state collapsed this month in the Maryland Senate, where Democrats also hold a two-to-one advantage. Some of the same immigrants spoke out against it.”
— New York Times reporter Sabrina Tavernise,in a story headlined, “Sanctuary Bills in Maryland Faced a Surprise Foe: Legal Immigrants”
Boy, that’s amazing! Who would have guessed that legal immigrants to the United States support the rule of law?
To the utter surprise of Democrats, some people are citizens and Americans first, and don’t believe that their color, ethnicity, religion or gender should get in the way of the core principles at the heart of our culture and history.
Pointer: Amy Alkon
25 thoughts on “Ethics Quote Of The Week: The New York Times”
Oh come on, Jack. Legal immigrants are deplorables. They’re racists and bigots. They’re white supremacists and Islamophobics. They hate gays too. This is clearly hate speech.
Didn’t the NYT article go on to point this out? I don’t want to squander my last free NYT articles for this month by looking this up. But I assume the story went on to quote various authorities who demolished these arrogant, doubtless Republican, “legal” immigrants.
No, the article then quotes the rationale of several immigrants. You have to go to the comments section to get the explanations for why the legal immigrants are misguided.
Hah. Perfect. Why didn’t I think of that.
Have heard a similar story from a couple of legal immigrants; each bringing up some definite valid indisputable points, but, sadly, compassion was not included in their repertoires.
It seems to me that whenever a lefty is advocating “compassion” or “charity,” it’s always someone else who is paying the price.
In this case, both legal immigrants who did not abuse the system and society in general.
Thank you for clarifying my values. Until you mentioned it I had not noticed I’m an uncompassionate bastard.
I brought workers to the US in 2000, and it cost me $2500 each and a couple months of waiting for their visa processing/extensions. Citizenship takes much more time, much more money and waiting…why have compassion for those who skip all the expense and legalities? I have plenty of compassion for those down on their luck but I have little to none for lawbreakers.
Can anyone tell me why there is so much sympathy and enthusiasm for illegal immigration, because I just don’t understand it.
“Can anyone tell me why there is so much sympathy and enthusiasm for illegal immigration, because I just don’t understand it.”
The argument goes that due to the time, money, and often limits on untrained workers, those who are most desperate to immigrate are often the least able to afford legal means of entry, if they would even qualify at all. This is why they keep bringing up “good illegal immigrant” stories, to imply “see, this person wouldn’t have been here doing well if they hadn’t come in illegally.”
To me, this implies we need to reexamine our legal entry process, but to other people it excuses the illegal aspect of immigration and makes it somelike like the equivalent of stealing a loaf of bread for your starving family.
It’s simpler, dumber and more cynical than that. Democrats think that it will increase demographic changes that will give them permanent majorities, businesses want cheap labor, and everything else are rationalizations and appeals to emotion and anarchy.
I totally agree, but I was thinking more of the people who have been affected by those appeals to emotion. If you ask most of the people wailing and gnashing their teeth at Trump, they’re not thinking in terms of party demographics, they’re thinking of poor families in adobe huts who just want to come to the US and start a Mexican restaurant in Iowa.
I think you’re only halfway to the root: they’re thinking about how good they look thinking of poor families in adobe huts who just want to come to the US and start a Mexican restaurant in Iowa. If someone wants to help the families, that can be done overseas, voluntarily, without ripping at the fabric of either culture. It’s only by picking a victim and a villain and then playing the role of hero that someone can elevate him or herself above both.
There was a story I read where cracking down on illegal immigration was bad, because it would drive up wages and thus food costs.
(Never mind, of course, attempts to achieve a $15 minimum wage is by fiat)
A progressive can change his position on any topic three times before breakfast… just takes some time to get the orders of the day straight.
Present company excluded (I am coming to respect our resident liberals- who are not progressives- for standing up with coherent arguements that can be debated) the big problem is the shut down of discussion and debate. Our liberals may be wrong (/snark) but sometimes they make me think and change my notions.
All discussions about Comey’s firing notwithstanding ✌🏻
I would consider myself a progressive, but I know the term is used derisively by the right.
I would consider you more of a liberal, in the same was JFK was. It IS intended to be a compliment, Chris. Progressives are tainting the progressive title, IMHO
“Compassion” in this context is short for “My ethics alarms have shorted out.”
Would compassion compel us to let a homeless man rob an unattended store to take what he needs? If you were standing there, the only witness, would you just let him do it?
I hope not, but based on your reply, I suspect you would.
As a legal immigrant my reaction is: “Duh! Had you talked to them instead of treating them as pawns you’d have known their opinion.”
Alex-exactly! I went to the city hall meeting where they decided to be a sanctuary city, and no one said one word about the tenacious immigrants who followed the law to become citizens. My step dad came here from Ghana & was so proud when we was naturalized.
My wife once worked for a major retailer in South Texas, and spoke at some length with NUMEROUS legal immigrants from Mexico. Almost to a man (or woman), they felt that they had NOT gamed the system, so the illegals also should not. The defense rests.
Thank God. A post that restores my faith (at least to a degree) in America.
This is an odd pass to find myself in a contrarian position…
I think the legal immigrants griping about the value of their own legal immigration being “devalued” is also an emotional argument.
Either coddling and having Illegals here with no consequence is wrong because of tangible reasons regarding Rule of Law or destabilization of the community or myriad other reasons or it isn’t.
Perceived attack on the value of someone who came here legally doesn’t pass muster.
I think this could be paralleled to an argument made, when the day comes that we actually decide to revamp our immigration laws and protocols, that if Party A wants to repeal the existing laws for looser and more open laws, that the same group of older legal immigrants could make the same argument: “We had it hard getting here, making it easier devalues our immigration experience!”
It really seems like an emotional argument.
That being said, there ARE myriad reasons to stop sanctuary practices and unchecked illegal immigration.
Back to the constant ethics conundrum of reaching the right conclusion for the unethical or non-ethical reasons. Nonetheless, it is preferable to reaching the wrong conclusion for nice reasons.
I definitely agree that their sentiment is fair. They’ve suffered a type of betrayal by our government. They have every right to be angry. I just don’t think their anger or betrayal makestoleration of illegal immigration more wrong. Merely identifies yet one more wrong related to the immigration fiasco in our nation.
And yes, it’s better to teach the right conclusion for nice reasons than a wrong. I don’t want to disagree with that.
“I just don’t think their anger or betrayal makes toleration of illegal immigration more wrong.”
I don’t think it is a case of more wrong, I think the point is that the legal immigrant’s emotional response was predetermined by the Left to be X, and this purports it to be Y. This shocks the Left, who are indignant that their assumptions on behalf of ALL immigrants and their resultant actions are unappreciated.
No, you don’t have a right to feel as you do. You are misguided, or blinded, or greedy, or something. Any rightthinker thinks goodthoughts to be a doubledoubleplus member of society, after all. Badthink is evidence of a need for reeducation.
This is the Left’s position these days.