- Important: All passwords were reset on 06/15/11. Old passwords will no longer work. Click here to retrieve your password.
- Subscribe to Our Free Dewsletter
We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
Insubordination at ICE
The Constitution of the United States of America is based on the belief that what individuals do is good, unless and until it is proved to have injured or insulted someone else. Also, the Constitution directs the agents of government to provide for the general welfare, which includes individual human rights. Of course, before the ink was even dry on the original document, the human rights of some persons were legally discounted or abrogated. People who had been kidnapped and brought to the Americas in chains were relegated to an inferior status by law. In other words, we have a long history here in the USA of using the law to deny humans their rights.
Most recently it has been the right to perambulate that’s been increasingly restricted, despite the fact that the Constitution is quite clear that the rights of all persons, “within the jurisdiction of the United States,” regardless of citizenship and/or national origin are to be protected. All of a sudden, after centuries of soliciting immigrants from all over the globe, it seems more important to protect the borders of the nation, really an imaginary boundary, than the people who come here for longer or shorter periods. So, the Congress has passed laws to prevent people, who aren’t even here yet, from coming to the United States, if they don’t have enough money to pay for all their necessities, and, not surprisingly, the exclusion of poor people because they might get a job (a good thing) and work, instead of stealing what they need, has been hard to enforce.
Some get picked up and sent back where they came from. That’s the job of ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of the Department of Homeland Security (the homeland’s security is also a higher priority than people’s rights), despite the Constitution’s clear commitment to the person. So, in an effort to reach a somewhat more reasonable strategy than the Congress blanket ban on “illegal immigrants,” as if migration weren’t a basic human right, the President determined that children who had not only done no wrong, but were brought here at someone else’s behest, not unlike the slaves of old, should not be penalized for the sins of their fathers, so to speak, and should be allowed to stay as long as their behavior is good. And President Obama issued a directive to the Department of Homeland Security to that effect, arguing that resources are better spent dealing with real criminals, than ejecting otherwise law-abiding youth.
To this directive, nine personnel employed by ICE objected and have filed a lawsuit, with the support of the junior Senator from Arkansas, John Boozman, challenging the authority of the President of the United States. That’s insubordination. But, as everyone knows, anyone can file a lawsuit. The rationale in the present case?
We are a nation of laws but the President is stepping beyond his authority by determining what laws must be enforced. Americans deserve immigration reform, secure borders and improved workplace verification to hold employers accountable for hiring illegal workers. This requires Congressional approval and I am committed to formulating comprehensive immigration reform without rewarding lawbreakers,” Boozman said.
Somehow these agents of government have missed that it is proper for subordinates to challenge the authority of their superiors. If they disagree, their option is to resign and then rally other citizens to their support. However, it’s not really a surprise that they don’t know that. After all, not only is a United States Senator backing them up, but it’s become increasingly clear that a goodly number of our lawmakers are insubordinate themselves. That the people govern and agents are employed to do what they are told has seemingly not registered with people accustomed to writing laws to suit their whim, rather than serve the interests of justice.
As I noted at the start, this is not new. The law has long been used to subordinate and deprive people of their rights. Sometimes it seems every step forward is followed by a step back. After all, all adult citizens got the right to vote and then military personnel were denied to speak about their associations without suffering retaliation. The legality of segregation on the basis of racial characteristics in public facilities and education was ended, only to be followed by the segregation of housing and medical services on the basis of age. Categorical separation keeps rearing its head and the mania for citizenship documentation is just the latest.
What good is the law, if we can’t use it to exclude people we don’t like? What good is the law if it doesn’t make people toe the line? That the law isn’t supposed to go into effect until after someone’s committed a crime (just being anywhere on earth is not a criminal act) is such an inconvenience! Nevertheless, that’s the genius of the Constitution of the United States and it’s what people all around the globe are coming to appreciate, despite the fact that we don’t always live up to it.
- Image: from BoozmanForArkansas.com (fair use).
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
Could there be a more appropriate monument to the War in Terror than the wasteful and counterproductive prison camp at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base? At a cost of $4,360.00 a day per prisoner, it is among the most expensive lock-ups on the planet and surely the most expensive for inmates who are neither deposed heads of state nor leaders of defeated rebellions. (For that amount you could book a Premier Suite at the Ritz Carleton Central Park and still have a thousand dollars left over to pay for dinner!) The cost in international reputation cannot be calculated in dollars but there Read on →
There are many congressional districts where Democrats have nearly zero chance of winning anytime soon. The recent victory of the disgraced Mark Sanford in a South Carolina congressional race shows how safe a Republican seat can be. The difficulty of winning these seats, paradoxically, presents an important opportunity for Democrats. In the short run, the political battle in America is over who will hold the offices where laws get made. In the long run, the battle is over shaping the public consciousness that determines to whom the people will give power. For the latter purpose, Democrats in very red districts can make an Read on →
That is the 21st Century question. Whether agents of government are tasked with telling the public what to do or, as the United States Constitution suggests, are to limit themselves to prohibiting socially injurious behaviors by individuals and corporations. Republicans, being descendants of royalists, whose model of social organization is the family with its paternalistic head of household, continue to hold fast to the belief that their fellow man needs to be strictly ruled. Because people doing their own thing make them feel really insecure. This is what accounts for the sudden resurgence of legislation all over the country, some organized by Read on →
My Aunt Naomi from the piedmont of South Carolina was visiting my mother in Southern Georgia. I wanted to see her, too, so I invited my parents and Aunt Naomi over for a cookout at my house. Aunt Naomi had been the victim of a stroke some years earlier and had some problems from time to time with speech, but hadn’t aged much, except for long gray hair that resembled Emmylou Harris. The steaks grilled, corn on the cob boiled, field peas cooked just right in chicken broth, and the crescent rolls ready, my wife and I sat down with them f Read on →