By Eugene "Gene" Novogrodsky
The arguments had been made: lawyers for 25 or more states claiming President Barack Obama's proclamation to help five million or so "illegals" emerge from the shadows and legally remain in the United States was unjustified, and the federal govenment's lawyers asserting it was wise, necessary and prudent.
I was in a Brownsville restaurant.
I had attended earlier a rally in support of the president, and there read my poem, "Shadows", about "illegals" living in shadows.
All but one rumpled man had sleek suits, perfectly styled hair cuts, elegant watches and highly efficient cell and I-phones.
I stopped at the table and asked, "Are you in town for the court hearing about immigration?"
"Yes," the youngest man said.
"What side, federal government or the suing states?"
"We're with the states," he said.
I should have guessed, but likley the federal lawyers would have exuded the same style though with the opposite position.
I had hoped that maybe the rumpled lawyer wasn't with them. Alas, he was.
I went to the restroom, came back, passed their martini-ordering table and took my seat.
My mind jumped, from my salad, fries and flatbread to the seven:
Why, back in the 1840s they would have argued for slavery.
Then, at the turn of that century they woud have defended Jim Crow laws, and continued that into as late as the 1950s.
Mining and manufacturing interests would attract them, too, all to rip the earth and restrict workers' rights.
Along the way, they would have opposed women's right to vote, and into the present, women's reproductive rights and gay rights.
In short, they are part of the reactionary, and often racist, side of the United States.
And here they were, in Brownsville, Texas, offering lame reasons why the "illegals," (almost all Mexicans) must remain in the shadows.
Jump to Europe in the 1930s, and they would be backing anti-Jewish legislation.
Wherever on the planet there are courts, lawyers can be found who seek to limit human rights rather than enhance them.
"Just doing their job, hired they are," one might say.
"Heck, they might not even believe in what they're arguing," the person could add.
But I would say they do not have to lawyer on the racist side they touted on the border yesterday.
I progressed with my meal.
They did, too.
I got up to leave, and they did, too.
They went into the winter sun, got into their rental vehicles and drove off.
Had they ever given a moment's thought to the hundreds of thousands of South Texans, yes, "illegals," who were hard at work from San Antonio south, thousands within miles of their table?
- Healthcare workers, especially for the elderly.
- Roofers.
- Mechanics.
- Medical assistants.
- Gardeners.
- Workers of many other jobs, and often going to school.- Food service workers.
Likely not.
Fat checks and expense accounts they had gained - all in an effort to keep the faceless "illegals" in shadows.
Home, later, I wondered why I had not returned to their table to berate their work.
I wondered why I had not tipped their food and drinks into their laps.
Yes, I thought about both actions - again, when home.
So so polite I am, so so polite the "illegals," and so so cruel and detached the lawyers and their clients scattered among the suing states.
...a universal, a global issue, haves wishing to keep it all, those under them, wanting a fair share ,,,,
15 comments:
"Gene" continues to be a prolific writer advocating the expansion of socialism in South Texas, Texas and the United States. "Gene" has never met an Obama program that he disagrees with. Why shoul American taxpayers have to pay to support people who broke the law to get here????
I wonder if "Gene" has read the Constitution. It's been around for a while, you know.
The spin and cartoonish nature of this piece is plain to see.
The Hanen decision had nothing to do with immigration. It is about what powers the President has and does not have. It is an fundamental issue about the Constitutional balance of powers. Efforts to turn this into anti-immigrant thing is a non-starter.
We all broke the " law" when we set foot in the Western Hemisphere now called the Americas .The native Americans have been fighting Terrorism since 1492 .
It is a Human issue.
Jefferson, Voltaie, and Rousseau have already hashed this out more so than Hanen has in his life time .
Hey Gene you are welcomed to take him to your house: feed , shelter, educate and give them your car keys, and your bed and maybe someone to marry them..poor illegals..they need a lending hand :,,,, (
I have never read such balderdash as that put out by Mr. Novgorodsky. To equate a position in favor of controlling borders and establishing sane procedures for the admission of immigrants from the south with Nazism takes the proverbial cake, especially from Novgorodsky, who is the scion of a Jewish family.
Granted, demographic projections indicate a great need for immigrant labor in the next two decades. But common sense dictates that immigrants should come to this country in a law-abiding, orderly fashion, not just crashing into the U.S. to become wards of the state and reliable Democratic Party voters.
The Federal District Court ruling was long overdue and reflects real concerns over how the present administration has gone about its merry way in extra-legal fashion to effect its political goals. Mr. Novgorodsky, in overlooking the constitutional considerations of such actions, reveals himself to be either a knee-jerking socialist or, despite his advanced age, a very naive senior citizen.
Hanen's decision is political. Previously he has stated not being in agreement with the President's agenda. His court decision is basically his own Republican ideology.
Hanen apparently wants to make Brownie Points for a Supreme Court appointment under a Republican T-Party administration.
Is that necessarily a bad thing, I would think that a strict constitutionalist on the highest court in the land would be refreshing.
Just because you disagree with some ones politics does not mean they are always wrong.
The Bible is interpreted as per what is convenient to you.
The Republicans interpret the U.S. constitution as to what is convenient to them.
There is something called the rule of law. It applies to everyone. Even the stinking wetbacks have to abide by it. WHY is that such a problem? Oh that's right; the Dems(socialists) believe in selective enforcement of the law. What benefits them is good; what does benefit them is bad.
The Rule of Rule is interpreted as per the convenience of the state and special interests of certain lobbying groups .
Post a Comment