John M. Kunst, Jr.: ‘Illegal’ means illegal
Breckenridge and Cincinnati
Recent editorials and letters to SDN protesting the federal government’s unwillingness to deal with illegal immigration finds an ardent challenger in Cesar Munoz. The Munoz style is to confront the writer with bold accusations of racism, bigotry, failed memory on constitutional history and all of the other race-baiting metaphors minority spokespersons use to make their case. But what is the Munoz case? He advocates a “borderless state,” at least along the border between the U.S. and Mexico, based on the unwarranted assumption that most Latinos are only here temporarily and have no desire to sever ties with their homeland. Thus, as temporary visitors, Munoz argues that illegal Latinos should not have to endure the legal process of applying for a visa and then staying only the permitted period of time. Instead, according to Munoz, American citizens should just ignore the illegal infringement on our sovereignty and give all Latinos a pass. Hogwash! The growing number of illegal Latinos in the U.S. rebuts any notion that these folks are just temporary visitors.
In his latest letter, Munoz challenges a local critic, Tony Flitcraft, not to be timid and disclose “the real reason ‘anchor babies’ bother you.” I can’t speak for Mr. Flitcraft, but anchor babies – legally recognized as citizens of the United States because they were born in this country to illegal aliens – are poster children for those like Munoz who seek open borders. The anchor babies are just that: They assure the illegal parents, particularly the mother, can stay here if caught because who would be so callous as to pull a dependent child from the arms of its mother who is being sent back to Mexico while the child stays here? Munoz and his colleagues love the oppressive image such incidents conjure up in the sympathetic minds of those who don’t care about or understand the importance of sovereignty. Remember the photo of little Elian Gonzales being pulled from a relative’s arms at gun point in Little Havana over 10 years ago? Have we seen a similar photo since? No, and we are not likely to because illegal aliens know immigration authorities have no stomach for such pictorials. Thus, there is small risk that illegal aliens will be separated from their anchor babies.
Finally, Munoz uses the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as a sinister “gotcha” for any effort to bring a reasoned approach to illegal immigration a la Arizona’s recent legislation. He knows, as do most illegal Latinos, that the number of illegal aliens in this country would overwhelm any federal effort to deport them because, even though they are illegally here, they are no less entitled to our constitutional notion of due process.
Adopting Munoz’s confrontational style, I have a question for him: What is it about the term “illegal alien” that you don’t understand?
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.
Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.
Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User