Immigration can't be reduced to 'rule of law' (Barf Alert!)

Sidney Herald ^ | July 4, 2007 | Mary Sanchez

[2ndDivisionVet]

In the war of words the immigration reform debate has degenerated into lately, a few terms have taken on lightning-bolt authority - a kind of "we know which side you are on" usage.

Do you say "illegal alien" or "undocumented worker?" Path to earned "citizenship" or "amnesty?" A favorite phrase, increasingly heard in dialogues both heated and mild, is "rule of law." Now, this principle has an important place historically in legal and political theory, but you wouldn't know it listening to the patriots fulminating against illegal immigrants. To them, "rule of law" is a way simply to call out anyone who sees shades of gray in the immigration issue. Those who invoke the term are beholden to a hard and fast view that one group is entirely good - legal immigrants - and another is entirely bad - illegal immigrants.

The phrase is a sort of finger wagging at anyone who would dare find any favor with those who reside and work in the U.S. without a valid visa. Immigrants whose paperwork is out of order - a misdemeanor, in many cases - are to be demonized because, they threaten "the rule of law," or so goes the thinking.

Some, like Rep. Roy Blunt, the House Republican whip, greeted the Senate's failure to advance an immigration reform package as a victory for "those of us in Congress fighting to reestablish the rule of law." Actually, what we are getting is a return to the status quo.

Problem is, our immigration quandary does not yield to black-and-white explanations. After all, some of these workers are actually needed. And, as a country, we are partly at fault because until recently we have given a wink and nod to companies and individuals who hire them. There is little room for those sorts of quibbles when seeing things through the absolutist mentality of "the rule of law."

This is not to argue that we do not need to uphold our laws. Rather, sometimes it is equally important to acknowledge that the old laws have led us astray, and clinging to them more firmly is folly.

One of the best examples of a contorted "rule of law" argument was supplied by Iowa Rep. Steve King. In an essay he proposed a vision of the United States as "an enormous clipper ship" filled with all the nation's inhabitants. Some passengers are retirees who have had their turn at the oars, others are the unemployed who want to row, children who will get their turn - and, yes, the "stowaways," the illegal immigrants, many of whom he alleges are not hard at work as "crew." He says, "Only seven of 12 are swabbing the deck or trimming the sails of 'America.' "

What would happen to his outlook on immigrants and the "rule of law" if Congress managed to rewrite immigration law? Many of those who are now in the "illegal" category would make it to the "legal" lineup? What would King say then? Would he find another tortured analogy to refute the people's change of status? Or would he stand for the new "rule of law?"

Saner members of Congress, too, face a dilemma. Even though they have freely admitted that our immigration laws are broken, they will nonetheless be forced to back them now that Congress has failed to act. They will be bound - by rule of law - to uphold the very laws they have declared so deplorable.

We're in bit of a no-man's-land here.

[STE=Q]

“This is not to argue that we do not need to uphold our laws. Rather, sometimes it is equally important to acknowledge that the old laws have led us astray, and clinging to them more firmly is folly.”

How can laws that have not been enforced ‘lead us astray’?

The problem has been created by the lack of enforcement of the laws, in order to serve some Americans at the expense of others.

Now we want the laws enforced.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>What would happen to his outlook on immigrants and the “rule of law” if Congress managed to rewrite immigration law? Many of those who are now in the “illegal” category would make it to the “legal” lineup? What would King say then? Would he find another tortured analogy to refute the people’s change of status? Or would he stand for the new “rule of law?”<<

What would you think if some act of congress freed all prisoners from federal facilities? Then they would not be “criminals.”

The reason that people shut down the senate phone system is that the law the senate was trying to sneak by us would have been a bad law.

[Niteflyr]

“This is not to argue that we do not need to uphold our laws. Rather, sometimes it is equally important to acknowledge that the old laws have led us astray, and clinging to them more firmly is folly.”

How can laws that have not been enforced ‘lead us astray’?

Exactly!

...why don't we just throw the US Constitution out the window while we're at it...after all it is "old law"...(sarc.)

[doctor jon w.]

If you are speaking of the current immigration situation, I agree. However you used the past tense with your word “came”, which is inaccurate. I was born in California from a 4th generation California family of Dutch ethnicity on my mothers side. On my father’s families side my Great Aunt was a D.A.R. immigrant., so I must assume we immigrated prior to the evolvement of the United States from the colonies. My father (according to my California State birth certificate) and his father, however were born in Canada, and therefore, Canadian citizens. You must be aware there was a great nomadic movement between Canada and the United States which was in essence undocumented during the earlier centuries prior to 1900. Since the time of the Viet Nam war era, the U.S. Immigration Service, in conjunction with the Department of State has been issuing certificates of loss of nationality to U.S. born citizens for maintaining (as in my case) dual nationality acquired by birth. AND at the border between Canada and the U.S., have been denying entry to such persons as myself, into the U.S. (the land of our birth).
This amounts to Banishment which has been ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court. When you say immigration is not a black and white issue, or rather with black and white explanations, I respect your right to an opinion, however when ruled upon by the U.S. Supreme Court, and written about by the U.S. Attorney General in his response to the Supreme Court case entitled Costello vs. I.N.S., which requires a judicial review for contested loss of citizenship or deportation; rather than an administrative review by some clerk in the Dept. of State, I must suggest your opinion is contrary to reality in my view and experience.

[Kimberly GG]

I was unaware of the type of situation you are describing. I find it interesting and will do further research to understand it. I was, however, speaking of the current immigration situation, apparently not to be compared with yours.