Is Illegal Legal
Probably the most influential lie of the anti-immigrationists is that they believe in the rule of the law. Their opposition to legalization of the undocumented, if their war-cries are to be believed, is based on their belief that such legalization would be an insult to the principle of respect for the law. After all, if a violation of the law can be repaired, especially one of as serious a magnitude as unauthorized entry over our borders, then the law itself is not worth the paper its printed on, so their argument goes. They usually summarize their view on this with their famous sound-bite: What part of illegal don't you understand?
We charge that this argument is a lie.
Firstly, every legal system includes provisions for offenders to "make good" on their offense, to make themselves "whole" after having crossed the law. Fines and incarceration are usually the two ways to do this. A penalty fee for late-payers of taxes owed is an example of a make-good mechanism in the tax codes of most US states. Almost every immigration violation decried by the antis is at-most a misdemeanor (or even a lesser paperwork offense), and a 245i-type fine is, in our opinion, about the right mechanism for curing the offense. The antis would deny this basic feature of our legal system - by their standards the tax amnesties offered by practically every state would be a declaration of failure in the rule of the law. Carrying the antis argument to its logical conclusion, a native-born jay-walker should have the word "criminal" tattoed on the forehead forever as punishment. The position taken by the antis on the rule of the law, and the consequences for breaking it, is out of all proportion to the offense. The antis' argument about the "rule of the law" has no legal merit (in that it ignores proportionality which is a fundamental requirement of any just legal system).
But that is hardly the tip of the iceberg of the calumny perpetrated by the antis. Let's apply the logic of the antis argument on the sanctity of the law a little further. In Nazi Germany it was the law to turn Jews over to the Gestapo. By the anti-immigrationists' argument about respect for the rule of the law, law-abiding citizens in those circumstances should turn Jews over to be murdered. For those who think that Nazi Germany provides a bad analogy for the US immigration debate, lets move closer to home. In the pre-Civil War era, the Fugitive Slave Act demanded that Americans living in the North return runaway slaves to their owners in the South. By the anti-immigrationists' argument, violators of the Fugitive Slave Act mocked the principle of the rule of the law. The antis' argument about the "rule of the law" is immoral (in that it ignores the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum).
If it has no legal merit, and is immoral, just what is the antis' argument on the "Rule of the Law" about? It is about race, plain and simple. Despite loud protestations to the contrary, this is the real reason that the anti-immigrationists are against immigration. As Pat Buchanan openly says of large scale immigration - the only problem he has with it is that it is not from Europe, but from south of the border. The antis would not even be whispering about the "rule of the law" if a couple of million Danish or Finns immigrated each year. And here's the clincher on this issue. In a few years, Congress will overcome the antis' hate-filled message, and will institute a legalization program. Millions of the undocumented will then move to the right side of the law. What will the antis do then? If they believe in the rule of the law they should welcome the immigrants as fellow Americans with open arms. For those who believe that's what the antis would do, the moon is made of green cheese. Really.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com.
Probably the most influential lie of the anti-immigrationists is that they believe in the rule of the law. Their opposition to legalization of the undocumented, if their war-cries are to be believed, is based on their belief that such legalization would be an insult to the principle of respect for the law. After all, if a violation of the law can be repaired, especially one of as serious a magnitude as unauthorized entry over our borders, then the law itself is not worth the paper its printed on, so their argument goes. They usually summarize their view on this with their famous sound-bite: What part of illegal don't you understand?
We charge that this argument is a lie.
Firstly, every legal system includes provisions for offenders to "make good" on their offense, to make themselves "whole" after having crossed the law. Fines and incarceration are usually the two ways to do this. A penalty fee for late-payers of taxes owed is an example of a make-good mechanism in the tax codes of most US states. Almost every immigration violation decried by the antis is at-most a misdemeanor (or even a lesser paperwork offense), and a 245i-type fine is, in our opinion, about the right mechanism for curing the offense. The antis would deny this basic feature of our legal system - by their standards the tax amnesties offered by practically every state would be a declaration of failure in the rule of the law. Carrying the antis argument to its logical conclusion, a native-born jay-walker should have the word "criminal" tattoed on the forehead forever as punishment. The position taken by the antis on the rule of the law, and the consequences for breaking it, is out of all proportion to the offense. The antis' argument about the "rule of the law" has no legal merit (in that it ignores proportionality which is a fundamental requirement of any just legal system).
But that is hardly the tip of the iceberg of the calumny perpetrated by the antis. Let's apply the logic of the antis argument on the sanctity of the law a little further. In Nazi Germany it was the law to turn Jews over to the Gestapo. By the anti-immigrationists' argument about respect for the rule of the law, law-abiding citizens in those circumstances should turn Jews over to be murdered. For those who think that Nazi Germany provides a bad analogy for the US immigration debate, lets move closer to home. In the pre-Civil War era, the Fugitive Slave Act demanded that Americans living in the North return runaway slaves to their owners in the South. By the anti-immigrationists' argument, violators of the Fugitive Slave Act mocked the principle of the rule of the law. The antis' argument about the "rule of the law" is immoral (in that it ignores the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum).
If it has no legal merit, and is immoral, just what is the antis' argument on the "Rule of the Law" about? It is about race, plain and simple. Despite loud protestations to the contrary, this is the real reason that the anti-immigrationists are against immigration. As Pat Buchanan openly says of large scale immigration - the only problem he has with it is that it is not from Europe, but from south of the border. The antis would not even be whispering about the "rule of the law" if a couple of million Danish or Finns immigrated each year. And here's the clincher on this issue. In a few years, Congress will overcome the antis' hate-filled message, and will institute a legalization program. Millions of the undocumented will then move to the right side of the law. What will the antis do then? If they believe in the rule of the law they should welcome the immigrants as fellow Americans with open arms. For those who believe that's what the antis would do, the moon is made of green cheese. Really.
We welcome readers to share their opinion and ideas with us by writing to editor@ilw.com.
posted by:
|
SF Bay Area
|
