Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
‘No Man or Woman Is Above the Law’
“Do you want me to come home… come from school and my dad get deported?” It was supposed to be a made-for-TV moment, a presidential candidate confronted by sobbing children. Wisconsin, along with 25 other states, is suing to stop DACA — the President’s unilateral amnesty — and according to these activists, that means the governor wants to break families apart. Scott Walker was having none of it, and he knows how to hold his ground graciously: firmly to the aggressive activist trying to jump in, more gently to the little eight-year-old serving as an innocent prop. The President is not above the law, Walker insisted calmly, and neither is anyone else.
So, Flores asked, we’ll be deported when you “fix immigration reform?” Walker responded:
Going forward, we’ve got to fix the system — that starts with securing the border; we’ve seen for security reasons far beyond immigration that that’s important. We’ve got to enforce the law, and go forward with a legal immigration system that puts the priority on families here in America whether they’re born here or come here from somewhere else legally. Again, I completely sympathize with you, but… no man or woman is above the law in this country. That’s the beauty of America.
This is the first and probably last time I recommend the comments section on something other than Ricochet — but scroll through some of the 900+ on Jenna Johnson’s article. Almost no one bought the pro-amnesty narrative — and this is the Washington Post!
This is a winnable battle, but we should expect this set-up many more times in the coming months. The messenger is important, and a presidential candidate must be able to respond as Walker did: gently and firmly, with a clear message. No one is above the law.
Published in General
So making Mexico build a wall, pay for it, and thank us for the work isn’t a solution?
Something I truly appreciate about Scott Walker is that fact that he does not back down from a fight. The only thing that could have been improved upon in speaking to the little boy is to compare it to the rules at school: the rules need to apply to everyone.
Well, he didn’t specifically rule that out.
When you dig into Walker’s record a little more, it turns out that he has a record of pushing tough-on-crime policies (truth in sentencing, etc). It’s actually not all that shocking to see him applying that same mindset to the border.
And the worst thing to support in ‘school’ is having rules that will not be enforced, or that will be enforced situationally. If a rule or policy will not be enforced, it should be changed, or be nullified.
This is true in the home, at school, at work, as well as in the city, county, state and federal government.
I agree about rules needing to be the same for all, but more and more it seems that the legal concept is to write laws, rules, regulations that are vague enough to cover every situation and to then selectively apply them as the powers that be wish to achieve their purposes.
so totally agree. we’re all felons don’t you know? it is only because so many laws are ignored that we aren’t all in jail. :)
It’s easy to say the rules need to be followed when you agree with them and they will never apply to you. Then you’re just following the “rule of law.” What a comfortable position to be in.
Perhaps you’d like to expand that thought, Mike H? So people can respond to what you actually mean, rather than what they guess that you mean?
Yes, this wasn’t quite clear. Are you saying that Walker (and 95% of the people who wrote comments on the Washington Post) are being unjust in insisting on following the law, because it’s easy from their perspective? Are you just trying to say we should have more sympathy for families like this (in which case I’m happy to agree?) Or are you trying to make some kind of deeper point that I’m missing?
Many people complain that we should enforce immigration laws because they’re the law, and laws should just be enforced for that reason. But I would be perfectly happy if Obamacare or practically any regulations for that matter were simply unenforced.
I’m not talking to anyone in particular. Just kind of openly complaining about people who say we should “enforce the laws on the books” to avoid having to say “I don’t want to potentially interact with more poor people.” or “I want the government to enforce bad uneconomic laws on others (immigration restriction) for the chance it might protect me from the government’s bad uneconomic laws (welfare).”
I’ll jump on the complain wagon. You know what grinds my gears? When people assume what others are trying to say.
If it doesn’t apply to you, why are you getting upset? Not assuming it about anyone in particular. Lots and lots of people feel that way, even if many won’t admit it.
It’s a cheap argument to assert that loads of people feel what you want to argue against instead of engaging them on what their argument is.
Could not disagree more.
If the law is on the books it should be enforced. If we’re not going to enforce it, then repeal (or change) the law.
Having an unenforced or sporadically enforced law on the books makes it too easy to use enforcement to harass the politically unpopular or unconnected.
I agree that the laws should be dropped rather than enforced sporadically, but the laws aren’t ever going to be enforced uniformly. Also, I can’t help but say if the law is unjust then it’s unjust to enforce it, ever. And most laws are unjust. It’s doesn’t become ethical to enforce unjust laws, uniformly or otherwise, even if it’s your job to do so.
Look, I’m more than happy to argue against any argument, especially the best ones, but that doesn’t make the fact that many people are being dishonest about their true motivations any less true. It’s not cheap to point that out, even if it doesn’t mean I “win.” Sometimes you just gotta vent.
Sure. “Just following orders” doesn’t cut it.
But that’s not what is going on here. In the first place, this is the President making up a whole new law, giving out effective legal status where he has no authority to do so. That is abuse of office — not prioritizing enforcement.
In the second place, this family — if their situation is as advertised — is not going to be deported, under any set of enforcement priorities. And they know it. The man gave out his name, his children’s names, the town where he lived, and his field of work. There must be about two companies fitting that description in Waukesha. They could be located in about 10 minutes. This is staged.
You’re probably right. I shouldn’t have gone on about my current personal beefs on your thread. It was a little too off topic.
This is so good to hear Walker handling this subject so assertively and in a positive vein. ( If this is staged, might it have been staged by Walker’s people so that he could give that response?)
No, we know who set it up. Voces de la Frontera is an activist group in Milwaukee (it’s in the WP piece). They drove them down to Iowa.
Evidently, according to the piece, this happened at the end of Walker’s stop there — they tried to catch him on the way in. So evidently he had a little time to prepare.
I can’t object too much to rabbit trails — I’ve gone off-topic myself a couple too many times in other people’s threads.
I’ll never be an illegal immigrant, if that’s what you’re saying. Is it?
Questions to the questioner: Are you in this country legally? If not, are you above the law? I suspect Trump would have dealt with this activist more effectively.
From the later comments I don’t think that’s where Mike was trying to go. But let me play devil’s advocate for a minute. What if your hometown was trapped in poverty and racked by a violent drug war? And what if there was a country to the north of you where, it was said, you could get a job and a real home and raise your children in peace? And what if someone promised you that they could get you across the border and the Americans were basically OK with it — they didn’t see it as any worse than going a couple miles over the speed limit? Wouldn’t most people be tempted to consider it?
This is an argument for making legal immigration easier, not for ignoring lawlessness.
(I know that’s not what you advocate, but it’s still an obvious answer to your hypothetical.)
His eight-year-old son is standing right there. No benefit to Walker making those points — he said enough for people to make them on their own, judging by the comments.
His eight-year-old son is standing right there for the express purpose of inhibiting Walker from making this point. Trump would have seen through this ploy, even if you and Walker can’t.
It is an argument for dealing compassionately with those who are already here, though. By treating our immigration laws less seriously than our speed limits we’ve led people along and encouraged them to build lives here.
That doesn’t mean we let the border go, or that we ignore lawlessness, but it is a consideration.
EDIT: And, while it could be an argument for making legal immigration easier, it’s not the only argument in the game, for or against. There are other considerations in play — as Walker noted.
Illegal immigrants are our victims. Love it.
You almost never cut down a parent in front of their child. This just happens to be something I feel very strongly about.
But to the point: Were you able to figure it out from the video without Walker saying it? Then you didn’t need Walker to say it. Thousands of other people were able to as well. He told the man that he wasn’t above the law. He didn’t need to make it personal. It also would probably have been a mistake for him to ask questions — he’s clearly in control here without giving Flores that opportunity to take it in a different direction.
When Trump has managed to win as many elections and policy battles as Walker, then I’ll take another look at his manner in dealing with awkward protesters.