What do Dreamers offer?
Once upon a time, journalism offered both sides of any story, with the aspiration the readers would be able to arrive at a conclusion.
A recent guest column advocates special “carve-outs” for “Dreamers.” You know what? I don’t care.
Allow me to explain why I couldn’t care less. First, the columnist makes no mention of current immigration laws. Why is their “group” entitled to a waiver? There is no mention of the Vietnamese, who lawfully immigrated to the US, after languishing years in refugee camps. Their circumstances were no different than the columnist’s circumstances. What of the millions of applicants who lawfully applied to gain entry?
Why do “Dreamers" get to cut in front of the line? How is this equitable to the countless others who are abiding by the law? Who gets to decide one group does not need to abide by the law(s), yet others must?
My assessment is that the “Dreamers” are myopic and narcissistic. All I read and hear is a moral justification for the imagined plight and insecurity. If the Dreamers desire special consideration, what do they offer in return?
When being critical, one must offer options. I propose, if the “Dreamers” desire an expedited process, public service or something similar, must be in play. Why not enlist in active-duty military and after eight years of honorable service, citizenship would be granted. If serving in combat arms, three years of service then citizenship. This template existed re: US Navy-Philippines 1947 through 1992.
As an American citizen of Hispanic roots, Naval officer and productive citizen, I believe this is reasonable and responsible.
Finally, I urge the editors of the local press to be transparent and state they advocate a certain political position of an issue or provide the whole portrait. However, I won’t hold my breath.
"The first victim of war is Truth." If true, then the war began about the time of Adam and Eve. Although "the father of lies" is extremely old, he nevertheless spawns countless offspring alive today. I'm told they speak in "hyperbolic mischaracterizations." But, I prefer calling it simply "lies." "Lie" is short, easy to spell and less hyperbolic.
Here's a rather common place example of such I heard on Fox News. After the assassination of the infamous Iranian terrorist general, our former ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley, said: "The only ones mourning the loss of Soleimani are Democrat leadership and Democrat Presidential candidates."
Is that true? I'm not fond of lots of Democrats, but I find it hard to believe any are "mourning" his death. If Ms. Haley, who's regarded as presidential material, has factual supporting evidence, she really should produce it. It could doom Democratic candidates perhaps for a whole generation. Such evidence would be super-hyperbolic sensational!
Sadly, it seems she and others are at war with truth itself. "Hyperbolic mischaracterizations" are inflammatory, dangerous and can get people killed. As we have seen in recent months, there's guys around seeking a reason for violence.
Truth's offspring, I'm afraid, are nearing extinction. And, so is common sense. So, please give us a break, Ms. Haley. Speaking simple truth is much more presidential — at least, it used to be.