Moody Center
That's How Doors Work
RECEIVED Mon., Jan. 30, 2017
Dear Editor,
Your article "Point Austin: Slamming the Golden Door" [News, Jan. 27] reported "As Doggett points out, Austin and Travis County are not even 'sanctuary cities' ...," yet in direct opposition to this claim, on p.10 under “Civics 101,” an "Austin Sanctuary Network Benefit" was featured. Also, the "Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me" quote on p.10 in your News lead article disregards the fact that right alongside the Statute of Liberty which depicts that reference on its pedestal sits Ellis Island, which very explicitly served as a "door" which could be slammed shut on immigrants for any number of reasons – disease, ethnic/nationality group exclusions, rejection of political extremists, or any other restrictions enacted by the U.S. Congress. The concept of "immigration" found in the U.S. Constitution implies a process to become a naturalized citizen, not a green light for anyone to open the "door" to our country whenever, however, and for whomever they feel warrants admission. Would this be appropriate for entry into your own home? Victims of home invasions are due protection under the law, not recrimination from society because they won't embrace their attacker(s) or won't accept a sheriff's redefinition of how to conduct law enforcement in defense of an entirely legal citizen's rights to life, liberty, property, a peaceable environment (which all fall under the banner of "the pursuit of happiness"), etc.
Your article "Point Austin: Slamming the Golden Door" [News, Jan. 27] reported "As Doggett points out, Austin and Travis County are not even 'sanctuary cities' ...," yet in direct opposition to this claim, on p.10 under “Civics 101,” an "Austin Sanctuary Network Benefit" was featured. Also, the "Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me" quote on p.10 in your News lead article disregards the fact that right alongside the Statute of Liberty which depicts that reference on its pedestal sits Ellis Island, which very explicitly served as a "door" which could be slammed shut on immigrants for any number of reasons – disease, ethnic/nationality group exclusions, rejection of political extremists, or any other restrictions enacted by the U.S. Congress. The concept of "immigration" found in the U.S. Constitution implies a process to become a naturalized citizen, not a green light for anyone to open the "door" to our country whenever, however, and for whomever they feel warrants admission. Would this be appropriate for entry into your own home? Victims of home invasions are due protection under the law, not recrimination from society because they won't embrace their attacker(s) or won't accept a sheriff's redefinition of how to conduct law enforcement in defense of an entirely legal citizen's rights to life, liberty, property, a peaceable environment (which all fall under the banner of "the pursuit of happiness"), etc.
Mark Hey
[Michael King responds: Sheriff Sally Hernandez has not "redefined" law enforcement; as Mayor Adler pointed out in his State of the City address, the Sheriff "follows all federal and state laws … and turns over everyone to the federal government that the law requires her to turn over." The comparison of refugees from war and economic devastation – protected under all relevant international laws, and historically welcomed to the U.S. – to home invaders, is not worthy of a response.]