Thread: What if 'illegal' immigrants aren't really illegal?

What if 'illegal' immigrants aren't really illegal?

By Wyc Orr
http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/st ... 7172.shtml
COLUMNIST

The dust has seemingly settled, at least for now. Both the Congress and the people have moved on to other things.

But none should think that the recent failure of the Senate immigration debate to culminate with new laws settling our nation's immigration policies merely preserves the status quo. For there are consequences of such postponement.

As Rick Lavender's Sunday article in The Times illustrated, life goes on "in the shadows" for unauthorized immigrants. And a day of reckoning is coming, perhaps nowhere more than in Georgia, a state with one of the larger immigrant populations.

We should already know this. For we have been here before. Decades, indeed centuries, of delay rendered the integration of black Americans into society's mainstream substantially more difficult. Even now, we continue to reap a bitter harvest of lingering racism from that unjust delay.

During that interminable wait, while civil rights leaders were plaintively lamenting, "how long, how long?" the pressures of injustice and oppression built. As Langston Hughes reminded us, when there is a "dream deferred," it "festers like a sore," it "sags like a heavy load," and it may explode.

And once again, the longer we simultaneously encourage yet defer full realization of aspirants' dreams, the more moral complicity we bear for repercussions from that continued deferral. For while we remonstrate against policies of inclusion, by our employment and other actual practices, we hypocritically and deceptively dangle daily the carrot of eventual acceptance.

We cannot claim ignorance or innocence. The immigrants' "yearning to breathe free" has been known to us at least as long ago as Emma Lazarus' penning of those immortal words adorning our welcoming Lady Liberty in New York harbor.

One of these days, there may be legal consequences as well. Our law traditionally attaches meaning to prolonged acceptance of obvious conditions, and even more so for encouraging those conditions. Legal rights can be lost by nonenforcement.

What if the so-called "illegal immigrant" is really not illegal at all, having gained legal status by slow accretion over time? What if the trump card of "but they're illegal" has been lost, and can no longer be played? What if the much-decried "amnesty" has already been granted by default, or will be by the further passage of time?

Under various legal principles long entrenched in our legal system, including adverse possession, laches, condonation, waiver, estoppel, implied contract, ratification and entrapment, among others, we, including our government, incur responsibility for that which we enable, encourage, approve, accept, cause or subsidize. Even hard and fast statutory law can be negated by nonenforcement.

Under the legal doctrine of desuetude, disuse of a legislative enactment over a long period of time can virtually repeal that statute. Think that could never happen, that only some "activist" judge outside the legal mainstream could so hold? Not necessarily.

No less a conservative icon than Robert Bork, President Reagan's Supreme Court nominee who famously failed to gain Senate confirmation in 1987, has written, although in a different context, with seeming approval of the principle that "a law that had moldered in disuse for many years ... should be declared void by reason of desuetude or that the defendant should go free because the law had not provided fair warning."

The day may come when such a defense may be justifiably raised in deportation hearings or other legal proceedings against undocumented immigrants.

But even if no court or agency has the courage or willingness to accept such admittedly technical legal theory, if an immigrant has labored hard in this country for years -- brought his or her family here, built our structures and our economy -- all while law enforcement looked the other way and all manner of people and institutions utilized that labor and enabled that stay, can the law, in Bork's words, be said to have given "fair warning" to that person?

And who in fairness can say otherwise, consistent with basic American principles of fair play? Do we countenance such cruel hoaxes? When does enduring exploitation earn exemption?

You cannot safely simultaneously stoke and stifle one's dreams. Even Brown vs. Board of Education, which finally declared unconstitutional the "separate but equal" doctrine which had deprived black Americans of equal opportunity for so long, was for decades but a deferred dream. And even unsuccessful court cases can so widely disseminate awareness of injustice as to change society and win the wider war of public opinion.

The Dred Scott decision was lost for the enslaved plaintiff, but ultimately helped pave the way for the Thirteenth Amendment that outlawed slavery.

So let us not deceive ourselves. Deferring realization of others' dreams, especially where we light those dreams, has consequences. And those dreamers, like those of earlier eras, "ain't going back," literally or figuratively.

Wyc Orr is a Gainesville attorney and occasional columnist.

Originally published Friday, July 27, 2007

What a crock......why do they keep trying to compare the black citizens struggle to illegal aliens who have broken a host of laws and owe NO allegiance to the Nation. You can't compare foreign nationals to American citizens.

Constitutionaly speaking Brown vs Board should have been a STATE problem. The feds don't have any right, under the Constitution, to direct the affairs of States. It was very plain, but they could care less, since the govt. has become tyrannical!

The Constitution limits the feds responsiblities and powers. It is NOT a limitation on the people. They have NO business in the affairs of States outside their scope of authority, which is plainly spelled out!

Read the Dummies Guide to the Fourteenth Amendment by P.A. Madison

Pretty sad that the writer of this article can't remember that the majority of blacks did NOT come here of their own volition and the illegal aliens DID!
HUGE difference.
The two groups CANNOT be compared!

Originally Posted by zeezil

What if 'illegal' immigrants aren't really illegal?


So let us not deceive ourselves. Deferring realization of others' dreams, especially where we light those dreams, has consequences. And those dreamers, like those of earlier eras, "ain't going back," literally or figuratively.

Deferring dreams can be applied just as easily to legal citizens who have "dreamed" of our laws being enforced. No precendent has been set here that cannot apply to those opposed to illegal colonization.

I would take the ""ain't going back," literally or figuratively" statement as a blatant disregard of this country's laws from an attorney who should be investigated by his state bar.

Really sounds like a plea from an illegal for the "Dream Act". IMO

Yes, I get tired of their trotting out the civil rights issues.

But - we are missing the point this writer is trying to make.

As long as they are allowed to stay in this country with no enforcement (and we have had NO enforcement - only token), the better the chances are of their being allowed to stay.

Anchor babies are being born - every day. Whether we like it or not - I don't think their parents are going to be deported. Our government may deport some, while they call the media in advance, in order to get some PR.

Anchor babies are being educated in our schools, and universities - everyday.

Anchor babies, armed with their taxpayer provided education, are taking the good jobs in this country.


Anchor babies are entering politics - everyday.

These immigrants are buying homes, businesses, amassing wealth - while Americans are getting poorer because of being forced to support the illegals.


While we sit back and think our government is actually going to do something, we are being lulled into a false sense victory, or misplaced faith in our politicians. While we are thinking they are doing something, the illegals are gathering strength, money, and political clout.

It is time to do something - and stop waiting on the government.

It is time to put our money where our mouth is -

What if 'illegal' immigrants aren't really illegal?

The main issue is not only "Illegal". A large percentage of theses "Illegals" are "convicted Criminals and Criminals at large. Along with Gangs and Gang members.
This percentage "Legally" cannot become "Legal".
Another large percentage of these "Illegals" prefer not to come out of hiding and are happy being "Illegal"


So your "what if" will never become a reality.