Specifically with Laura Ingraham. She has her values mixed up a bit. Of course we are a nation of laws and this nation is not doing enough to enforce those laws. But she uses this line to criticize those who wish to save the lives of those who break the law. I think her main concern is that these maps will provide incentive for people to try to cross the border, that is, encourage people to break the law. That is a fair concern, but at what cost? It seems that she is suggesting that she would rather these people die than that they break the law. She should fight tooth and nail for stronger border patrol, but to trivialize the fact that people are dying trying to find their way to a better life where they can support there families is reprehensible.
I agree with Laura on a lot of things, but here she ends up sounding heartless and arrogant. She does not represent me here. I would hope there are enough conservatives to send a message that this opposition to life is inappropriate and helping people survive does not conflict with a desire to enforce our borders.
The maps, although intent on diminishing the number of deaths, may actually increase them by giving people hope, but not being detailed enough to actually help people. This is my concern with the maps.
Mexico, decided not to distribute the maps after deciding that the maps would give Border Patrol forces a lead as to where to find the illeagally immigrating people. I guess Mexico thinks its better that they die than get sent back.
But Laura praises Mexico for this decision. But, of course, they didn't change their mind for the reason they actually said, says Laura, but because the Bush administration criticized the maps.
By Laura's logic, we have no obligation to help someone in a car wreck if they were breaking the law (speeding) the midst of the accident. Helping them out would simply encourage more people to break our laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment