Thread by @alexthechick

🧵
Let me clamp down as hard as possible on the third rail. Let me monologue, because this is in no possible way a conversation, about the fact that there are, in fact, currently enacted immigration laws and regulations. Grab caffeine conveyance of choice and a snack. Let's go.

This is a link to the Immigration and Nationality Act - these are the duly enacted immigration statutes.



These are the duly promulgated regulations pertaining to immigration.



These exist. I want to stress that, these exist.uscis.gov/laws-and-polic…
uscis.gov/laws-and-polic…

INA was first enacted in 1952. That is 72 years ago. This was significantly revised in the 1965 amendments spearheaded by Ted Kennedy. The amendments were so extensive, in fact, that when most people discuss INA, they mean the 1965 version. That passed 59 years ago.

Then in 1986 came the Immigration and Reform and Control Act, more commonly called the mass amnesty bill. That was 38 years ago. Then in 1996 came the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, more commonly called Everify. That was 28 years ago.

These laws have been around for decades. These are not new. And each of these laws was passed after extensive debate and with what supposed to be concessions on each side. The main concession to gain the votes for those hesitant was the promise of enforcement.

Enforcement provisions, up to and including deportation, are the current law of the United States. This is a fact. Those that shriek about how dare there be deportation ignore, either intentionally or due to stupidity, that those laws currently exist.

I am weary, to my very component atoms, of people acting as if there has never been a serious national debate about what kind of legal immigration should be allowed and what should be done to those who are here illegally. Those debates have been on going my entire life.

The result of each year's debates on that topic are codified for the entire world to read. I linked them. You can read them. That one side or the other lost a matter under debate does not mean that the debate was not had.

You may disagree with aspects of the currently enacted laws, I most decidedly do. You may disagree with the very existence, to say nothing of practical implementation, of immigration regulations, as it is boring to hear me do. You cannot deny these exist.

The laws and regulations linked above are the current law of the land. Those of us now seek their enforcement are seeking nothing more than that the prior agreements made to enact them be kept.

Failure to amend the statutes does not render the current statutes void. All it means is that those proposing the amendments could not persuade enough people to have them pass. That does nothing, not one little thing, to the current statutory text.

Those of us, like me, who are extraordinarily skeptical of any attempts at amendment are so because the prior compromises were not kept. Mass amnesty was passed in 1986 with the promise that amnesty would never be done again. Everify was supposed to be the silver bullet on hiring

The enforcement provisions were the compromise each time. We all know how that has played out. I am weary, beyond belief, of those who act as if anyone who does not believe this round of promises will be kept is foolish. In fact, it is insanity to believe they will be.

My point is quite simple. Immigration laws and regulations currently exist. Those were enacted and promulgated via the legislative and administrative process. Those contain the end results of the debates. Stop acting like this matter has arisen ex nihilo. Have a red panda. /fin