Amnesty inconsistency
While the following opinion may end up betraying my general apathy about America’s supposed pastime, I’ve been confused lately in reflecting on the drastic inconsistency of rationales regarding granting amnesty - one of leniency for steroid users in baseball, and one of strictness towards undocumented immigrants.
- One the one side, there are multi-millionaires being blankedly pardoned for their offense; while on the other side, millions of poor and undocumented immigrants are hearing calls for their blanket dismissal for being “lawbreakers,” since we are clearly a nation of law & order.One one side, are those who fueled an illegal drug trade to gain not just a competitive advantage, but also the increased salary that is commiserate with that demonstrated advantage; while on the other, immigrants just looking to keep their economic heads above water and improve life for their families.
On the one hand, know offenders are hold records, get lucrative endorsements and extended contracts; on the other hand, undocumented immigrants are deported, seperated from their families and lose not just their jobs, but their opportunity to work.
On the one side, offenders get a voice before Congress to defend what have been generally defenseless actions; whereas on the other, immigration “lawbreakers” never get a hearing with Congress.
On the one side, offenders are called “Hall of Famer” or “World Record Holder” or “All-Star”; on the other hand, immigrants are called “criminals,” “lawbreakers” and “illegals” (even though legality is a judiciary issue, not a matter of human identity.)
On the one side, amnesty is being touted as a way to move forward - in full recognition of the wide-spread disregard for law; while on the other side amnesty is being touted as a disregard for the rule of law and for those who did things the right way.
If the issue maintaining the rule of law, then why is their such an inconsistency in how amnesty is discussed?
April 14th, 2008 at 6:29 am
It seems that one reason (out of many) for the inconsistency is the threat factor. Illegal immigration is spoken in terms of the ways it threatens our way of life. Politicians (and for some reason, immigration issues seem to be primarily left to politicians to address) see immigration through the lens of fear–it threatens our culture, our language, our security, our jobs, etc…
April 14th, 2008 at 7:10 am
And that may be (thought I’ve heard as much rhetoric justifying Congress’ involvement in the baseball steroids issue because of how steriods are dangerously impacting high school & amateur athletics, as well as others in physical active lifestyles.)
And I’m not advocating maintaining an allowance for a broken immigration policy/system that doesn’t just encourage, but benefits from illegal immigration.
But on the question of amnesty ie. how to address those who’ve already broken the law and are here, the “make everyone leave because they broke the law” argument seems inconsistent with the “let’s move on and not punish anyone for the good of the game” argument in baseball.