Let’s talk about oaths for a moment.
Even simpler still, let’s talk about promises.
We make them every day.
When you put your car into gear and start down a city street, you’re promising to obey your local traffic laws. When you buy a home, you’re promising to pay the bank until the loan is paid off. When you adopt this country as your own, you’re promising to conform to the laws of your new homeland.
Funny thing is, none of us are paid to uphold these promises. Do you know who is?
Our elected officials.
In fact, when they take their oaths of office, they actually put their hand on a Bible (and yes, I realize one of my state’s representatives put his hand on a Koran) and swear to uphold our Constitution and our laws.
[sharequote align="center"]When you adopt this country as your own, you’re promising to conform to laws of your new homeland.[/sharequote]
So, isn’t it ironic that some of those who get paid to uphold the law are the very same ones advocating that people break the law?
Perhaps even more ironic is the source of opposition to these officials.
While a United States congressman—Rep. Luis Gutierrez—holds town halls explaining how illegal immigrants can take advantage of the amnesty programs President Barack Obama (yet another leader paid to uphold the law!) has put into action, legal immigrants are standing up to the lawlessness.
That’s right. Amidst the scathing debate over what to do about illegal immigration in this country, immigrants themselves are making a stand in favor of—get this—stronger laws relative to immigration.
In Texas, a law (SB 185) is being debated that would “stop cities from implementing policies banning local cops from asking immigration-related questions.”
In other words, it would allow police officers to ensure that the person they’re questioning is following all of the laws—including the ones that dictate whether or not the person is legally allowed to be in this country.
Not surprisingly, the law is being branded as nothing more than racial profiling, codified.
What is seemingly surprising (at least in the pandemonium of the current immigration debate) is the growing Latino support for this law.
Larry DeRocher, of Onawa, Iowa, right, and his grandson Blake stand outside a forum on immigration held by U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Friday, Aug. 2, 2013, in Ames, Iowa. Credit: AP
At the heart of this support is a group called The Remembrance Project—an organization that calls attention to the deaths caused at the hands of illegal aliens.
More importantly however, is an initiative they’re promoting: the simple yet shockingly ignored idea that laws are something to be followed, and that those who follow the law should be a priority:
“We believe that America is exceptional. In our lives and in our country, America is the priority. As are Americans! Learn what you can do to stop the nonsense of ignoring laws and our U.S. Constitution. Help stop public servants from placing other countries and non-citizens before our families. Join us to speak up for Latinos!”
This certainly isn’t a view Latinos are “supposed” to hold.
I’ve written about this before when I spoke of the shock my husband’s coworker expressed when he told her he didn’t support amnesty, or when CNN host Don Lemon couldn’t believe it when comedian Paul Rodriguez expressed the same opinion. The radio program of which this piece forms a part (The Chris Salcedo Show) has sounded this point over and over again: the left expects Latinos, by virtue of their ethnicity, to support amnesty.
And thus by default, Latinos like my husband and Salcedo are supposed to oppose laws that would strengthen enforcement of legal immigration. After all, what would possess a product of immigration to support something that seemingly flies in the face of it, right?
I’ve got a better question: what would possess a legal immigrant, who has been through the legal, financial and bureaucratic nightmare of doing things the right way, to celebrate those who looked at the laws and said, “naaa”?
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.
It’s downright unfair. And my husband and I are still waiting for our refund. (We’re not holding our breath).
And at the end of the day, serious support of our country’s laws—like that propagated by The Remembrance Project— isn’t even about being “fair.”
It’s about upholding the very fabric that makes this country so distinct among the nations. It’s about upholding the integrity of what draws so many immigrants here in the first place: the safety and prosperity that comes with a judicious and equal application of the rule of law.
As he faces fervent criticism from pro-amnesty groups over his position on illegal immigration, the now-presidential candidate Ted Cruz would do well to keep pointing this fact out.
Even better, shout it from the hilltops.
He’s currently a living example of his own willingness to abide by the law—like it or not. He’s facing the fact that he’ll now be signing up for coverage under the very law he has fought so vehemently to oppose. That’s right—Cruz and his family need insurance, and since he’s a member of Congress, he’s legally supposed to seek it through the Affordable Care Act.
He’s setting the perfect example:
Laws matter, and until they can be repealed (in the case of Obamacare) or improved (the case of our complicated immigration laws), they’re supposed to be followed—like it or not.
Because that’s what makes us great.
So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that there ARE Latinos (and immigrants of all backgrounds) who support the rule of law.
They’re definitely out there.
As Chris Salcedo recently put it, “I told you there are more of us than the Brian Williams press lets on!”
So, to all my Liberty Loving Latinos: speak up! Your country needs you now more than ever.
Mary Ramirez is a full-time writer, creator of www.afuturefree.com (a political commentary blog), and contributor to The Chris Salcedo Show (TheBlaze Radio Network, Saturday, from noon to 3 p.m. ET). She can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org; or on Twitter: @AFuture
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.