Photo above by Katerkate on Flickr Creative Commons License
By Diana Waterman
Chair, Maryland Republican Party
Two days ago, columnist Barry Rascovar shared his opinion about the situation caused by the high number of unaccompanied children arriving illegally in the United States. While Mr. Rascovar is entitled to his opinion, the Maryland Republican Party finds his partisan attack on members of our party to be both outrageous and slanderous.
Let me first define the term illegal immigration for Mr. Rascovar. Illegal immigration refers to the migration of people across national borders, or the residence of foreign nationals in a country, in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country.
Entering the country illegally
These children are entering this country illegally and that is what Mr. Rascovar is missing in his article. And to call us bigots because we oppose illegal immigration is typical of the liberal left. When they disagree with us on issues they revert to name calling and personal attacks.
Mr. Rascovar wants his readers to believe that the Grand Old Party is somehow an anti-immigration party because a portion of its founding members were part of the Know-Nothing Party. Well some members of the KKK were members of the Democrat Party so using his logic the Democrat Party is also a racist party.
Mr. Rascovar also assumes that it was a Republican who placed graffiti on the Carroll County military building without evidence. No one has been arrested or charged with this crime, but he assumes it was a Republican because of the message. To make an accusation like that is not only irresponsible but unprofessional as well.
Reagan signed immigration reform
In 1986, President Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazzoli Act, a bipartisan immigration reform bill that created a pathway to citizenship for 3 million undocumented immigrants. Now that President Obama is considering legalizing 5 million illegal immigrants, foreigners are racing for the U.S. border before he does so in an effort to receive the bounty of being a U.S. citizen, without having to go through the process. The United States looks like the answer to all of their prayers. The enticement of U.S. citizenship without any strings attached is a very strong motivator.
Mr. Rascovar goes on to attack some of the elected officials in my party because they’re trying to fix this problem and not turning a blind eye to it. The current border crisis highlights the incompetency of the Obama administration and the fractures within the Democratic Party on how to solve our broken border system. President Obama is sending a clear message: the only way he will ever be a firsthand witness of the crisis on the U.S. – Mexico border is if the DNC holds a fundraiser there.
Republicans committed to solutions
Republicans are committed to solving this situation, but President Obama and his administration need to deliver a plan that actually curbs illegal immigration. Disappointedly, Senate Democrats fired the first shot in the border solution negotiations, attempting to block an honest Republican proposal and turn it into a polarizing political prop.
They’re following the same pattern as President Obama, concerning themselves with fundraisers and politics over actually making sure the well-being of kids is taken care of and the border is secure. This is proof that immigration isn’t a policy issue for Democrats, it’s a political prop to trot out in an election year.
Americans disappointed with Obama
With President Obama failing to lead on a slew of issues, Gallup reports that Americans are also disappointed with his handling of our broken immigration system. Americans’ approval of President Barack Obama’s handling of immigration has dropped to 31%, one of the lowest readings since 2010, when Gallup began polling on his handling of the issue. Today, two in three Americans (65%) disapprove of his handling of immigration.
What President Obama doesn’t get about our immigration system is that half of the country, including many independent voters, see a struggling border and weak interior enforcement as a reflection of another mismanaged aspect of this administration. Until President Obama fixes the reality problem at our border and Americans see him enforcing our laws, we will have a perception problem abroad and he will have a favorability problem at home.
In closing the Maryland Republican Party has been and always will be a proponent of lawful immigration. We support everyone’s desire to be a citizen of the United States, but we encourage people to emigrate the legal way. A nation without borders is not a nation.
Barry needs a vacation and detox…
I’m turned off by the people who seem to think that, since their ancestors have made it here in some way, they’re entitled to exclude others who would like to do the same. Since i have an apparent ancestor who arrived at Plymouth on the Mayflower and the American Indians were not asked to approve his entry, I’m not about to oppose anyone else’s entry. If, for some reason, there must now be some new regulations with regard to immigration, how about the reasonable people in the Congress (to the extent that such exist) getting together to enact such. , .
I have to wonder if there would be such excitement from some quarters about the existing situation if those seeking to enter the USA were coming from Canada instead of from the south.
If the Canadians immigrate here legally, following US Immigration Laws, no problem !
The same with those from the rest of the world who do the same…
Why is the fact that “unaccompanied children” and “undocumented immigrants”, “Dreamers”, “New Americans,” etc. have all broken US Immigration Laws and are BEING REWARDED for doing so (in-state tuition,welfare,medical insurance,etc.) !
Add to that our lawless Federal & State Gov’t’s…
Have you asked legal immigrants how they feel about this ?
You wrote : ” I have to wonder if there would be such excitement from some quarters about the existing situation if those seeking to enter the USA were coming from Canada instead of from the south.”
Pretty racist from one accusing others of same…
You seem pretty excited about this issue. I feel no need to run my opinion by anyone before expressing it. At any rate, we all have to look in our own mirrors. I have no problem looking in mine.
Did I ask you to “run it by me” before publishing it ? I didn’t…
But, I did respond to your post… So, sorry to have offended you…/sarc
You started off by impugning people who welcome legal immigrants, and want enforcement of the laws to avoid things like this “crisis” as racists,even though you didn’t openly say it…
I wonder who spread the rumor about being able to stay in America if you are a child/minor ? Hmmm ?
Do you care about the diseases they bring ? It’s gonna come to your neighborhood,friend…
I also hate the lawless nature of these regimes ( Feral & state )… Maybe, I should disregard laws that I don’t agree with… In fact, let’s do away with laws period ! /sarc
If I and anyone else did so, we’d be in prison so fast…
And what is so “sacrosanct” about Mexicans, El Salvadorans,Guatemalans, Hondurans that allows them to flaunt our laws ?
These “children” have nothing to offer to America…
And why is the term/idea/concept SO HARD to grasp ?
Also, MS-13 & Barrio 18,gangs, other criminals, Muslim terrorists, etc… So, we don’t have enough criminals here already ?
These vermin should be executed and shipped back to Mexico, etc. with the message; ” See America & Die ! ”
Am I extreme ? So are these times…
Then, there’s your “Canadians” comment…
As for “looking in the mirror”… I do, I do and see someone who has the high moral & civic standards America once had !
BTW, I also sleep fine !
To ignore the fact that most of these children are refugees fleeing outrageous violence in their home countries, shows that Ms. Waterman knows very little about this issue. And to accuse President Obama of not enforcing our immigration laws when he has doubled the budget of the border patrol and deported more undocumented people than any other President ever has, shows that she has almost no grasp of the realities of immigration enforcement in the US. I blame Obama in part for this problem, but it has nothing to do with the reasons that Republicans cry about. One of the causes of this tragedy is that Obama & the Democrats & the Republicans, all supported the military coup that overthrew a democratically elected government in Honduras and the country has gone downhill ever since, with violence engulfing all aspects of society. If Republicans & Democrats would both stop supporting anti-democratic forces in Central America, we might be able to stop the flow of children trying to escape the violence. It’s the violence not poverty, that is spurring this migration. Notice how almost no children are coming from Nicaragua, although it is much more poor than Honduras, Guatemala or El Salvador. Nicaragua is not plagued by the violence that is rampant in these other countries and it takes care of its children.
And what are the governments of El Salvador,Guatemala, & Honduras doing about that violence ?
And they have the gall to demand money from the US to “help” them…
I’ve seen that movie before…
Ferraro – The history of “violence” and “poverty” is long-standing in central american countries. The cause needs to be addressed by the people there. While the US can help, the answer is to deal with the problem in those countries themselves. Importing this violence and poverty of these countries into the US, by opening our borders for the entry of anyone who wants to declare a ‘victim’ status in the country, due to these conditions, is like giving money to the poor to solve the “poverty” problem. What about the poor, violent young people of Chicago and Detroit? Shall they be considered “refugees” and exported to Honduras or Canada? I imagine that Canada still considers itself a sovereign nation, and would require something more than a “get out of jail free” card to enter. That said, the point that you’re missing is the real purpose of aid to foreign invasion of illegal aliens, has nothing to do with the poor, illiterate victim illegals, who are only pawns in Obama’s power play is to increase the population of his constituents to favor his political ambitions and ideology – building up the number of dependent poor in this country who will cooperate with a big government tyranny. Good for Obama’s control-ego craving for personal power, and not so good for the mass of American citizens, who will ultimately all be enslaved and disarmed by the lack of lawful, constitutional government.
It is truly delusional to think that Obama would want children to enter the US for the purpose of bolstering his voting base. First of all, they are not of voting age and secondly, most of them are being deported and will not be come citizens. Obama, by the way, will not be running in any more elections in the US. Contrary to what you say, my point was exactly that we need to address the problem in the countries of origin. I have seen nothing from the Republicans or the Democrats to this effect, just bluster about needing an armed force to defend the country from unarmed children.
I think Ms Waterman’s overly general statement, “These children are entering this country illegally and that is what Mr. Rascovar is missing in his article,” is sloppy and potentially misleading.
People may read that and think it applies to all the children who have come into the country from Central America. I believe slightly more than half of them did NOT enter the country illegally and will probably be found to qualify for refugee status, as soon as our clogged-up immigration judges can hear their cases. And whatever each individual’s outcome may be, they are innocent until proven guilty, and to make a blanket statement that they did something illegal is the pot (Ms. Waterman) calling the kettle (Mr. Rascovar) black, in my opinion. They get their day in court because of a federal law, signed by President George W Bush, a great Republican who was elected twice to the presidency, as was Ronald Reagan.
Any attempt to stereotype these children as criminals doesn’t sit well with the many good ideas advanced during either of their presidencies, I think.
They are breaking our immigration law… So, what would you term them ? Why, “Criminals”, of course !
Just like their parents.,relatives,”coyotes”, “caring, compassionate” American “fools”, and our lawless feral Federal & State governments (like Maryland… The”sanctuary state” )…
In the Supreme Court of the United States (Coffin v US (1895)), Justice White wrote in the majority opinion of the Court, “The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”
Dale, I understand it’s your opinion that these children are guilty, but I believe we have historically (at least since 1895) presumed people are innocent until they have been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction. That has not happened yet for many of these children, though some have undoubtedly violated our laws. Those who have broken our laws will be deported.
However, there is a meritorious argument for asylum or refugee status on behalf of some of them, and their cases must be heard. Neither your opinion nor mine matters. Only an actual judge can make that determination under our current laws.
Furthermore, they may claim to be “victims” and that may not be the whole truth. You may consider that a “technicality” even if they are judged to be refugees, but our actual laws ultimately come down to technicalities in many cases.
In the meantime, because we need to consider their cases properly and give them the diligence our law guarantees, we need to see that they are taken care of. The point is, SOME of them are probably going to be found guilty, and some of them will be entitled to refugee status. Until our courts can make that determination, Americans are not the kind of people who put people awaiting trial in harm’s way.
Ms. Waterman’s petty and childish use of the term “Democrat Party” invalidates anything she has to say in her piece.
Huh? You must explain how the term “Democrat Party”, used in any context, is either childish or petty.
A) The name of the party is the “Democratic Party”
B) She knows the connotation of the use of the term: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)
You should “correct” the news media who use the term : “Democrats” in their reports, then…
This statement certainly serves to prove the point at the end of Ms. Waterman’s third paragraph.
Why? Because she chooses to use tactics favored by lowlifes like Rush Limbaugh instead of using the proper name for the political party? If she wanted to have a mature dialogue on this important issue she would not sink to that level.
So, all you can manage to do is to attack the messenger for the use of one word that is essentially irrelevant to the substance of the debate, and you seem to be unable to articulate any meaningful discussion of the actual substance of the message. Oh–and how is Democrat vs. Democratic really any different from Rascovar’s use of GOP vs. Republican.?
A) the “debate” is partly about Ms. Waterman’s butthurt about being called mean names, but she goes ahead and does some namecalling of her own
B)Mr. Rascovar is not the chair nor does he hold any position with the Maryland DEMOCRATIC Party.
C) Republicans call themselves the GOP. GOP.com is even their official website.