Tom Toles Editorial Cartoon, June 26, 2012 on GoComics.com

Ms. Ima said, 11 months ago

Oh, seems that making all the illegals ‘legal’ has made everyone in America run to the democrats side. Not really, but this comic infers that.

ARodney said, 11 months ago

The GOP has thrown out anyone who believes in government, who believes in the rights of states, who believes in the rights of people, who believes in the dignity of humankind. All that’s left is people with a lot of money who want lower taxes, America be damned. But that may be enough. Over a billion dollars in SuperPAC spending — turn off your TVs.

Harleyquinn said, 11 months ago

yeeeh, then how come those who made there way here legally and paid their dues are the ones most upset over Illegal immigration and more likely to be in the GOP? mmmm Trying to call it like YOU would want to see it there Toles?

capndunzzl said, 11 months ago

….yeah the right wing Supreme Court will see to that.

braindead08 said, 11 months ago

Republicans want illegals here. If they didn’t, they would insist that those who hire them go to jail.

win said, 11 months ago

seems more like an integration problem…

Greycheck said, 11 months ago

@Ms. Ima

The comic doesn’t infer anything. You’re inferring something from the comic.

144 Cent said, 11 months ago

Not to worry. The elephant is in the room.

Doughfoot said, 11 months ago

Since illegal aliens cannot vote, and the vast majority of Latino voters support leniency for illegal immigrants, Harley’s odd comment is obviously false.

I continue to be astounded at the simple-minded way the issue of illegal immigrant is addressed. If you get a speeding ticket, or a parking ticket, if you drive or park your car illegally, why do we let you keep your driving license? Any punishment short of confiscating your license on the spot is just AMNESTY. Right? What part of “illegal” do you not understand? Yet we let you off with a fine. Speeding compounded with other illegal acts (e.g. reckless driving) is a different matter, of course.

Here in Virginia there was a similar debate 200 years ago. During the Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, et al., proposed a new criminal code in which only murder and treason merited the death penalty. Life is sacred, argued Jefferson, and should not be taken by the state for reasons that do not merit it. A life for a life, an eye for an eye, but not both eyes and both ears for one eye or ear. Jefferson and his allies did not think that taking another man’s horse from his pasture was an act meriting death. The proposal was defeated because the majority of the legislature just could not stomach letting a horse thief live. An English jurist of the 17th century said “We do not hang horsethieves because they steal horses; we hang them so that horse will not be stolen.”

A man enters this country illegally. It is a violation of the law, there should be a penalty. I have never heard of anyone who did not agree to that. But what should the penalty be? If you think that the punishment should fit the crime, and you think the crime a relatively minor one, and you think deportation of people who usually have no place to go back to is a very harsh penalty, then you think the penalty should be a stiff fine and a lot of red tape, with the threat of deportation if they compound the offense with others (e.g. do other illegal things once they are here). Do you hang a man just because he took a horse? Do you confiscate a driving license just because he ran a red light? Is that justice?

But there is another way of looking at it. “Illegal immigration is a problem. It is imperative that we stop people from entering this country without permission. Only deportation is a severe enough penalty to deter it. In fact, deportation is not severe enough of a penalty to deter it, and it is a pity we cannot impose an even more severe penalty. If the penalty isn’t severe enough to prevent people from committing the crime, the punishment should be more severe.” I hear this sort of argument all the time. I hear people all the time say that the death penalty is not used enough in this country, and usually the reasoning follows these lines. (Though I’ve yet to hear this sort of argument applied to illegal driving practices.)

If somebody sneaks into a movie theater without a ticket, should be prosecuted for trespassing? Should he be barred from buying a ticket to that theater for 10 years? Or should he just be removed and allowed to buy a ticket and come back in?

Illegal immigrants are, for the most part, honest hardworking people. They are people who would have been welcomed with open arms at an earlier period in our history. Xenophobic immigration rules and quotas are keeping them out. A very large portion of them actually come in legally on temporary visas and then neglect to leave when their visas run out. Some are driven by poverty and misery break our laws coming in. One violation of the law does not make a man a criminal (see traffic court, or have you ever exaggerated your deductions on your tax return?).

There is plenty of room for thoughtful and intelligent discussion of immigration policy. It is a difficult problem to do deal with. But considering these people as just a bunch of criminals who have “no rights a white man is bound to respect” serves less than no purpose.

Doughfoot said, 11 months ago

@Ms. Ima

Ima, are you just having fun, or are you really that clueless about this cartoon? The “immigration problem” is metaphor. It refers to the notion that the GOP is defining itself so narrowly that it risks losing members. As if.