The ACLU’s Dangerous Views On Open Borders

Posted on April 2, 2006

It seems the hot topic lately has been illegal immigration. Many different plans have emerged on solving what a majority of people believe to be a crisis situation. While our nation debates the many different philosophies on fixing our Nation’s border problem, we would be amiss if we were not to mention the most dangerous philosphy out there, one the ACLU continually support, that of complete open borders.
We all know that the ACLU opposes any kind of legislation that could actually make meaningful immigration reform. And we have all watched as the ACLU has relentlessly tormented the efforts of the Minute Men who are attempting to do the job that our Federal government fails to do. But lets take a look at what the true motivation to all of that is.

The ACLU’s opening position on immigration is set forth in an essay by Steven R. Shapiro of the New York Civil Liberties Union and Wade Henderson of the ACLU’s D.C. office entitled “Justice for Aliens.” According to this document, the desire to limit immigration can only be attributed to “hostility, motivated by nativism, racism and red?scare.” The authors argue “use of the word ‘alien’ is both precise and powerful. In almost a primitive sense, it draws a line between members of the community and those on the outside . . . . they can be treated unequally . . . . the Supreme Court has concluded that certain classes of aliens may not even claim the right to constitutional protection . . . illegal aliens are not entitled to government benefits . . . . The rationale for this limitation is not an economic one . . . . the refusal to grant these often life?sustaining benefits can be explained only by a desire to punish illegal aliens for breaking the law.

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the ACLU has redoubled its efforts to blur any distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and between legal and illegal immigrants. In Rhode Island, the ACLU protested the decision by the state government not to accept Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITINs) in place of Social Security Numbers when applying for a driver’s license. Anyone can get an ITIN, but only citizens have a Social Security card. The ACLU argument ran “As long as there is a substantial population of undocumented immigrants in the state, it makes little sense to deprive them of a license solely because of their immigration status.” There is no mention that a state driver’s license is the most widely accepted identity document in America, and once gained becomes the method for completely blurring one’s alien status.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has urged officials to enact an ordinance opposing a Justice Department initiative that would give local and state police the power to enforce immigration laws. “While we expect local police to cooperate with federal authorities in apprehending anyone, including non-citizens, who is suspected of criminal activity,” said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida, “local police should not be in the business of detaining or arresting law-abiding aliens based on their immigration status.” Apparently entering the United States illegally is not breaking a law that the ACLU cares about, as an alien can still be considered “law abiding” having done so.

The ACLU has opposed any Department of Justice plan to fingerprint and track immigrants and foreign visitors to the United States. “The ACLU has long opposed immigrant registration laws, saying that they treat immigrant populations as a separate and quasi-criminal element of society and that they create an easy avenue for surveillance of those who may hold unpopular beliefs,” read a press release, “The fingerprinting and tracking proposal is only the latest Bush Administration action targeted at Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent since September 11. Other discriminatory measures have included round-ups, dragnet questioning, the detention of more than a thousand young men and the targeting of Middle Eastern communities for heightened enforcement of minor immigration law violations.”[20] The ACLU also opposes the use of immigration law violations as the means for holding or deporting suspects with ties to terrorism, and the use of secret or classified evidence in deportation hearings.Source

During a dangerous era that our border security is of the utmost importance to our National Security, we have too many people doing far too little to solve the problem. And far too many people are bowing to the politically correct rhetoric of the ACLU’s radical agenda. Its far past time that people in the positions of power stop catering to the special interest groups for fear of the polls, and do what is right for America instead of what they feel is right for their reelections. If Congress does not wake up and stop punting around an issue that the majority of America has voiced their opinons on loud and clear, they may get a wake up call when its time to vote. Don’t let them say they didn’t know what their constituents felt so strongly about. Let them know.

» Filed Under ACLU, Border Control/Homeland Security, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

One Response to “The ACLU’s Dangerous Views On Open Borders”

apostle on April 3rd, 2006 6:34 am

As far as the Minute Men go, hey, the Constitution says a lot about militia. The ACLU doesn’t so much stomp on my rights as it does create rights out of thin air, such as illegal immigration, abortion, etc…all of which cost society dearly of course.