Marcos its easy to refer to a focus on standing law as myopic but that’s clearly not my only issue with this piece. Mark opens in his second sentence with a clear political swipe and supports it two paragraphs later by warning us about “hatred and xenophobia”…that’s political influence and posturing no matter how you slice it. Making fun of a candidate is one thing, but when you label people as ‘xenophobes, misogynist, and racist’, which is the political rhetoric of the day, you’re closing out 50% of our country to what could otherwise be open and honest discussions.

As for my in-laws, they started their process in the early 60’s and nearly two decades later their journey concluded with their citizenship (no-doubt helped by both the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 as well as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986). The fact however is that the so-called ‘Reagan Amnesty’ had a lot more in common with the 2006 Kennedy-McCain bill (S.1033) than anything the current pool of Democrats are demanding. Its easy to argue that strong borders won’t control the issue but that begs the question of the need for borders or immigration reform at any level? If we have no border control, and worse, a complete lack of respect for our laws founded in our constitution, then what do we have?

I agree that the premise of the T.A.C.O. movement is great, but I also laugh when I think about my wife who instantly said “it’s a good thing a conservative didn’t come up with that name” and how that relates to our political discourse today. That is my issue Marcos and that is why I think it is so incredibly important for those with the reach that Mark has, to be careful with such inflammatory rhetoric.

We’re all a lot more alike than we are different, it’s the bomb throwers that make us believe otherwise.

Best,

Dan