Are leaders of the Democratic Party opposed to the rule of law?
That appears to be the case if a report by The Hill is accurate.
In a report titled Dems: Wall is ‘opposite of what America stands for’, The Hill quotes Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.) as saying, “The United States is the shining light of freedom, liberty, and prosperity to the world. We welcome all who are willing to work hard to achieve their American dream. A wall is the exact opposite of what America stands for.”
The Hill quotes freshman Congressman Ruben Kihuen (D-Nev.) as saying, “Stripping funding from cities like Las Vegas endangers the health and safety of all Nevadans and is a wrong-headed approach to a nuanced issue. Not all undocumented immigrants are ‘rapists’ and ‘criminals.’ I was once undocumented – now, I’m a member of Congress.”
The Hill quotes Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) as saying, “President Trump’s actions represent a hostility towards Mexico, one of our best friends and trading partners.”
The Hill quotes Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) as saying, “Remember, this is a bully and he will continue to bully us if we just continue to put down our heads and walk home.”
Let’s cut to the chase.
President Trump is promoting the rule of law while the above-quoted Democrat members of Congress are promoting just the opposite.
President Trump wants to put a stop to the violation of the USA’s immigration laws. The above-quoted Democrats want people from other nations to get away with violating the USA’s immigration laws, especially if those people speak Spanish.
What do non-Hispanic Democratic Party leaders have to say about all of this? They are siding with the above-quoted Democrats.
One does not have to be a Conservative or a Republican to figure out that such Democrats are wrong to be opposed to the rule of law.
If Democratic Party leaders hate the USA’s immigration laws as much as the appear to, then they should introduce legislation that would repeal those laws.
Now, I agree – and have previously stated – that it would be unfeasible to build, maintain and effectively man an actual wall along the USA’s entire southern border. The need to protect that border is valid, but means of protecting it isn’t that simple.
However, it is one thing to say that Trump’s way of protecting the border won’t work. It is another thing to say that the border’s protection should not be improved, which is what Democratic Party’s leaders are implying.
Ask yourself this question: If Democrats are opposed to Trump’s way of improving border security, then what way do they suggest be implemented?
Also, in regards to Trump denying federal money to sanctuary cities, such sanctuary cities don’t have to exist in the first place.
Why should federal money be given to city governments that are opposed to the rule of law?
Folks, that is what this issue is all about – the rule of law.
As I see it, the Democratic Party has trouble telling the difference between foreigners who obey the USA’s immigration laws and foreigners who deliberately violate the USA’s immigration laws.
Why is the Democratic Party pandering to the latter? Inquiring minds want to know!