The Rules of Laws

The courts are attempting to rule on the Department of Justice lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law in the days leading up to its implementation on July 29th. This is but the first of many challenges that have been filed against this state legislation by both the government and by interested parties around the country, and one would expect that state lawyers will not soon see relief from their labors for some time to come. 


What seems to have become lost in the debate on this particular piece of legislation however is the concept that this country is one which follows "The Rule of Law". Now this concept, for those who have never bothered to consider its implications, simply means that neither the position of individuals or of governments shall be held to be above the laws of the land. The concept was posited at least as early as the days of the Greeks, and by no lesser an individual than Aristotle. 


During Medieval times, the concept was identified with the Code of Justinian from the Holy Roman Empire and the signing of the English Magna Carta in 1215. And even though the latter at least, did not provide the protections to the common man that many seem to think, it did at least provide some relief to barons from the abuses of a monarch. 


Later still, James Madison, the father of our Constitution spoke of the rule in Federalist 57, saying that a legislature can, "can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society". Nowhere is any mitigation for this concept seen either in the writings of the Founding Fathers, or in the Constitution itself. In fact, specific provision was made in this founding document which limits and defines the government methods to change improper or onerous laws, up to and including changing the Constitution itself (by making Amendments). 


I therefore fail to understand how the current discussion of the immigration law seems to justify the attempt to make a certain group of people exempt from such law. We are asked to forgive the violation of such laws because violators have been here so long. Yet many laws already have a "statute of limitations" which prevents the state from prosecuting a person from legal violation after a certain period of time has passed, and immigration law is not one of them. We are asked to forgive the violation of such laws because those doing so only seek a better life for their families. What other laws should we forgive for such benevolent reasons: bank robbing, kidnapping, petty theft? We are asked to forgive such violations because they are after all, only misdemeanors and require no punishment. What other misdemeanors will also be forgivable without further punishment: drug possession, drunk driving, spousal abuse? 


Of course when viewed through the window of such cold logic and using reason as a basis for discussion, such comparisons seem ludicrous. In fact, many of those same compassionate people are calling for increasing enforcement of many of the offenses that I list. Additionally, mandatory minimum sentences have now been made part of law for many such violations in order to remove from the judge the potential for compassion or leniency for violators. 


Also seemingly forgotten in the discussion is the fact that two previous opportunities were provided (in federal law) for legal immigration mechanisms for those in this country illegally. It was promised by Congress that each of these opportunities would solve the problem and would begin the process of stricter enforcement. Yet only the most foolish would believe that they were successful or that stricter enforcement did in fact follow, and those making any claim of belief have no good answer as to why if they were a success, further relief is now required. 


If we are a remain a nation living under the rule of law, we do not get to pick and choose those that we will ignore. While there are stupid laws out there that cannot be enforced, they are still laws until changed. While there are probably more laws on the books at every level of government than can be enforced by all of the enforcement officers in the country, there are mechanisms that can be used to add enforcement or eliminate laws. 


If we are to abandon the principles of governance in this country however, if we are allow selective enforcement for compassionate reasons, if we are to allow the demeaning of one of the principles by which the government functions by that government itself, can we not allow the government and the people of Arizona to similarly choose which laws they will enforce and ask that the federal government not interfere with such choice and drop the frivolous suits?

Summer & Immigration Continue To Heat Up

It has occurred to me that both the planet and immigration reform have been heating up in recent days. The planet (at least the northern hemisphere thereof) can be said to have some excuse for this other than the purported looming crisis of global warming ... summer. Different areas of the country are experiencing this annual event to different extents, with my current home of Kansas City to experience rain and highs in the mid 80's and my former home of Toledo and my daughter's home in the NYC area both expecting temperatures close to 100. 


The heat up of immigration law debate in this country has no such scientific justification; nevertheless, the subject seems to be drawing increasing levels of attention. Having dispensed with stimulus programs that didn't provide all that much relief from the nation's economic doldrums, health care reform that failed to provide relief for rising health care costs (at least in the near term), and having likewise proved that it's little better in dealing with disasters in the Gulf of Mexico than the previous administration; the current one is now apparently directing the full force of its attention to subject of immigration. Both sides on this subject seem to have their share of worthwhile points, as well as their respective flaws of argument and inconsistencies. 


Many choose to stand behind the idea of building a wall at the border, in spite of the consistent failure of fixed fortifications to provide any safety for those who built them (the Maginot Line, the Atlantic Wall of WWII, the Walls of Troy & Jericho). In fact, one cannot help but see an interesting inconsistency in the fact that many of the same people who cheered Reagan when he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." are now those most likely to be those demanding the building of one on our own border. 


Others demand sympathy for offenders of Immigration law, especially for those who have been in this country for some time. This position seems equally inconsistent, since two previous immigration reform acts would have allowed such offenders two previous paths to forgiveness and legal citizenship. Still others point out that violations of immigration law are misdemeanors, and offenders should be cut some slack. And while there is little doubt that we have selectively enforced many of the laws in this country over the years, it also shows a lack of 'big picture' vision when we suggest such laxity while demanding increased enforcement of laws on misdemeanor alcohol or drug related offenses. Like summer temperatures, different areas of the country are experiencing different comfort levels where immigration is concerned. 


Arizona's recent passage of its own kind of immigration reform has certainly put them on the hot seat and at the center of the storm. Apparently a state does not have the right to increase enforcement of existing federal law (when such federal government does not want them to) by the use of its own personnel and funding, and that federal government will not hesitate to say so. Texas seems equally uncomfortable these days, as kidnappings, murders, and armed incursions of drug cartels penetrate their border with the south. Then again, Texas has always had a bit of a reputation for stretching the truth and using the least little thing (like uniformed gangs holding hostages, killing judges and prosecutors, and severed heads being delivered to families as warnings for good behavior) to justify the use of their second amendment rights. 


Not surprisingly, California seems largely untouched by the immigration issue, in spite of the border that they share. Then again, California seems largely untouched by much of reality much of the time. There is little hope that any real action will come of the heated debate on Immigration Reform this summer. Washington DC is also one of those places whose residents can experience serious discomfort during the summer months (which is why Congress recesses then). Additionally, this is an election year, and the polling data is inconsistent for those running for office as to which side of this debate provides the greatest chance of re-election (and the most political cover). 


There will however be a significant amount of additional hot air generated by politicians, advocacy groups, and pundits on the subject; as a part of the heated rhetoric. As such, they will do little to resolve the issue; but will undoubtedly make a contribution to the increase in summer heat.

Questions of the Day

Am I the only one who wonders how many of the same politicians that applaud the use of "red light cameras" to enforce traffic laws can decry the recently passed Arizona legislation to enforce immigration law? 


Aren't both about both safety and holding those accountable who break the law?

Refugee Relief?

For those of you who hadn't noticed, $20.3 million dollars of immigration aid has been quietly appropriated by Congress and signed by President Obama in House Bill 1388 way back on January 27, 2009. Sailing under the radar of discussion on Stimulus Packages, Bailouts, Cap and Trade, and Health Care Reform going on in this country; this seemingly paltry sum has been allocated for use under executive order without fanfare. 

Now I know that $20 million seems like nothing these days when billions of dollars are tossed about like coins in a fountain , but this one caught my attention because it is to be used for "migration assistance" of people from Gaza. 

Now let's be clear here. Gaza has not been a tourist destination for some time now, and anyone wanting to get out of there probably has their head on straight. That being said, at this time of rampant unemployment, soaring government debt, and an economy that's in the tank, is it really time to be paying people to come to this country? 

In light of some of the recently foiled terrorist plots admitted to in this country, I likewise have to ask myself if this is the right time to use government funds to provide refugees with airline tickets and food and housing support to do so; knowing that many of these people may well have ties to Hamas. 

Don't get me wrong. I understand the desire of someone to leave such a troubled area in the hopes of a better life in the US. I am also sure that they will find one in this country (we don't have nearly as many mortar and missile attacks as they do in Gaza) I simply don't understand how our government, in the midst of transition and with all of the crises that it was facing at the time, could place this at the top of their list in January when so many other things could have and should have been there.

Border Security

Lost among the articles on the fatal small plane crash and the primary elections in The Blade edition of January 13, 2008 was a little article from International Falls, MN. It appears that Canada is turning away some US citizens at its border because of DUI convictions in their past. An individual's past is coming much more under scrutiny in recent years for crossing the border to Canada, and such things as convictions for a DUI, passing bad checks, shoplifting, or smoking pot are considered serious enough to deny you entry. Now Canada is a sovereign country and can deny entry to any person that they deem unacceptable or a danger. It is evident that the crimes (which in most cases would be misdemeanors) listed above carry far greater weight and significance there then they appear to do here, especially when looking for those deemed a threat. It also appears that Canada's zeal to enforce border security for their country will pass under most people's radar screen and allow them to escape the criticism that anyone in the US seems to get for any attempt to enforce our own. Ladies and Gentlemen, I can't decide what of this story offends me more; so I will just list my outrages:

1. Where is the outrage in this country when US citizens are denied entry to a neighboring county on what are more than likely misdemeanors, many or which are years in the past?
2. Where are the cries of racism, sexism, or some other "ism" which, though it would have no foundation in fact, would be bandied about as an explanation for such treatment if the US were involved?
3. Where are the tear-jerking stories of vacations and honeymoons destroyed, the hunting and fishing trips ruined, and the long-term emotional scarring left by the callous treatment of these individuals?
4. Was Canada without the offenses of drunk driving, shoplifting, pot smoking, or the writing of bad check; except by foreigners?
5. Have the number of these offenses been reduced or eliminated in Canada by the tougher enforcement of these immigration guidelines?
6. Canada keeps people from entering their country legally, but the US is allowed to do nothing about illegal entry without outrage from both Mexico and Canada.
7. Two border security agents are sitting in prison for their part to keep out a known drug runner, but Canada can deny entry to a person who smoked pot 20 years ago.
8. Three of Canada's major exports are cars, beer, and whiskey; so who is really surprised when they are combined?

Now I have had brushes with some of these offenses in my past, and that may now prevent me from entering Canada in the future (I'm sure that they will recover from the revenue lost in the casinos), but those are not my reason for concern here. These are:

1. Canada used to gladly except people who were violating the law by evading the draft, and now we have lesser violations as reasons for denial of entry.
2. If these offenses are enough to keep someone from crossing the border now, what may be added to the list in the future: excessive speeding tickets, parking tickets, jaywalking, or bad credit?
3. If Canada is allowed to enforce immigration law, why is the US not allowed to?

North America is suppose to be one big, happy family; and the term "Mexamericanada" is often tossed around as a name in our future, as is a currency by the funny little name of the "Amero". (These terms are meant, I suppose, to get us used to a European Union style alliance that may be in our future.) It appears however, that there is a red-haired stepchild in the family, and that this 2nd class family member is the US. We do not seem to have the rights to send our citizens where we will, or to keep out the citizens of other nations without criticism from all sides. Yes, it appears that all nations, like all men, are created equal; but some are more equal than others.

Illegal Immigration

I have chosen not to speak out on the subject of Illegal Immigration up until now in this blog for no particular reason that I can think of, but I have strong feelings on the subject. In going back however, I realized that I had spoken out on the subject in the past. Unless you subscribed to a certain national newspaper at the time however, you may not have noticed it. I decided therefore, to share with you a letter that I wrote to USA Today, which was subsequently published back in March of 2007.

February 23, 2007

Dear Editor: I would like to put forth a question concerning the debate over amnesty for illegal aliens. Have I missed something, or are we only discussing this as it relates to Hispanic illegal immigrants from Mexico or Central America? Do immigration laws only apply to non-Hispanic peoples seeking a better life in the US or should we open the floodgates to people in African nations, Eastern Europe, Asian citizens, or areas of the Middle East where political and religious persecution, as well economic depression are facing the local populaces? Are we only to be concerned about our nearest neighbors to the south, or should we also open our borders to Canadian citizens who might wish to join us? First and last, the United States has always been a nation of laws. The underlying principles that established this nation tell us that neither the populace nor the government may choose to ignore any of those laws which they find inconvenient or politically sensitive. If the citizens do not like the current laws, they have the right and the obligation to change them. They do not have the right to flaunt them without consequences. We have chosen in our very founding, to believe that “All Men are created equal” and that “no man is above the law”. If these principles are to mean anything, then consistent interpretations of these principles and laws are essential to keep this a place that people from other countries will want to become a part of.  

It appears however, that laying the case out as clearly as I did was not simple enough for those involved. Instead, they chose to seek a different solution to the problem. That solution was to build a wall to keep the illegal immigrants out (substitute barbarians here if you want to), or in their own country if you prefer. I hate to be the naysayer here, but this philosophy has been tried a couple of times, and it seems to me unsuccessfully. 

China and Berlin strike me as great examples of the idea that if you build the wall; they will find a way over, under, or around it. Let's face it folks, building a wall would be nothing more than another monumental government project showing just how creative that we have become in throwing away tax dollars to symbols instead of solutions. No, the only way to solve this problem is to attack the cause. So let me lay it out for you. If employers were punished severely for hiring illegal aliens, we could begin to actually solve the problem(s).  

What, you say! How would that solve the problems? If there were no jobs for the people coming over, they wouldn't come, and we wouldn't need a wall to keep them from joining us. How about all of those low paying jobs that no one who want to take, what would we do about that? Well my guess is that if no one fills them, they won't stay low paying for long. Get the wages up, and I expect that they would fill fairly quickly. Every other decent paying job seems to.  

Wouldn't that drive costs up for businesses and thereby drive prices up? Probably, but this could be offset by savings achieved in government programs that could be put back into the pockets of the taxpayers funding them. The truth of the matter is that we are already paying these higher prices, but not to the businesses. Instead we pay taxes that go to government support programs to help people not making a livable wage. Take away the pricing artificially supported by low wage labor, and the market would compensate.  

Oh by the way, more people making more money would generate more overall tax revenue as well as more prosperity in this country. The last time that I looked, that was something I thought that we were trying to achieve. It might also give us some relief from a government which is too large by an order of magnitude. At the very least, we could save the millions of dollars that we want to spend to build the wall.  

As for the term "illegal aliens and the discussion as to whether it should be used with regards to these huddled masses, yearning to be free; I remember reading a Letter to the Editor from the Kansas City Star from September 21st, from Gene Wolenski. I have cited this letter previously, but I think that it bears repeating and puts the entire legal discussion in perspective: "I can understand Ascension Hernandez disliking the Minutemen, but let's face it, calling an illegal alien and undocumented immigrant is like calling a drug smuggler an unlicensed pharmacist." 

Let's try to keep in perspective that no matter how compelling the reason or noble the purpose of these people, they crossed the border of the United States without the proper documentation or permission, and that violates the laws of this county. That makes the act that they committed illegal, and makes those committing it criminals.