The Rule of Law – Cowardice
Last Monday, I observed that the Rule of Law is challenged by cowardice – politicians ducking tough issues. I wrote, "Think of immigration. Why are we stuck with flawed and dangerous immigration policy? Because Congress is too scared to deal with it." This is a theme I've been pounding on lately in public.
Well, according to Tuesday's Tribune: "Calling his colleagues in Congress 'gutless' for refusing to address immigration reform, [Orrin] Hatch mentioned his sponsorship of the DREAM Act, which allows states to grant in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants."
Okay. So where have the courageous politicians been hanging out the last 30 years? Surely not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which should have been dealing with immigration.
Immigration policy is seriously flawed. All sides of the issue agree on that. So, why hasn't the Senate Judiciary Committee addressed immigration reform in a serious manner? Cowardice, I would guess.
Rather than deal with the issue of immigration reform, the Dream Act perfectly illustrates how cowardice (or "gutlessness," if that is a more senatorial term) undercuts the rule of law.
Immigration policy sets up legal and illegal ways to enter the country. The legal way involves time and hassle. Many choose not to follow the legal path. To the degree we refuse the hard work of reforming immigration, but take the soft path of honoring and serving those who choose the illegal path, the stronger we send the signal to those who would follow the legal path that they simply are not too bright – they just don't get the American Way, which is to break the law and have lawmakers reward them for their illegal activity.
The Dream Act does nothing to secure the border or make immigration policy rational. Rather, it uses taxpayer money to heap tremendous benefits on families who are here illegally – 60 to 70% subsidies for higher education. Is this compassionate? Of course it is. Wise? Not if you believe in the rule of law.
What about those families who are following the legal path and who have been waiting and dreaming for a decade or more outside the United States for their chance at the American dream, including higher education for their children? Tough, I guess. They chose not to break the law, and now they have to pay the price for that decision. According to the rationale of the Dream Act, that's their mistake for following the rule of law.
Well, according to Tuesday's Tribune: "Calling his colleagues in Congress 'gutless' for refusing to address immigration reform, [Orrin] Hatch mentioned his sponsorship of the DREAM Act, which allows states to grant in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants."
Okay. So where have the courageous politicians been hanging out the last 30 years? Surely not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which should have been dealing with immigration.
Immigration policy is seriously flawed. All sides of the issue agree on that. So, why hasn't the Senate Judiciary Committee addressed immigration reform in a serious manner? Cowardice, I would guess.
Rather than deal with the issue of immigration reform, the Dream Act perfectly illustrates how cowardice (or "gutlessness," if that is a more senatorial term) undercuts the rule of law.
Immigration policy sets up legal and illegal ways to enter the country. The legal way involves time and hassle. Many choose not to follow the legal path. To the degree we refuse the hard work of reforming immigration, but take the soft path of honoring and serving those who choose the illegal path, the stronger we send the signal to those who would follow the legal path that they simply are not too bright – they just don't get the American Way, which is to break the law and have lawmakers reward them for their illegal activity.
The Dream Act does nothing to secure the border or make immigration policy rational. Rather, it uses taxpayer money to heap tremendous benefits on families who are here illegally – 60 to 70% subsidies for higher education. Is this compassionate? Of course it is. Wise? Not if you believe in the rule of law.
What about those families who are following the legal path and who have been waiting and dreaming for a decade or more outside the United States for their chance at the American dream, including higher education for their children? Tough, I guess. They chose not to break the law, and now they have to pay the price for that decision. According to the rationale of the Dream Act, that's their mistake for following the rule of law.
posted by steve u. at 8/22/2005
Subscribe
4 Comments:
This is what I like to hear...
Are you satisfied with what appears to be the attitude amongst political and government leaders in Utah regarding illegal immigration; e.g. driving permits and acceptance of matricla consular cards?
although there is a corolary in criminal law to what the dream act accomplishes in legislation - the idea that a conviction requires both actus rea and mens rea - a guilty mind or intent as well as a guilty act. In the situation of the illegal immigrants that the
dream act would effect we have the actus rea or the guilty act - they are here illegally but there is no mens rea or guilty intent since these young people have assumed that they were citizens since they were raised in this culture and for all practical purposes are "Americanized" I think it is a mistake, and a cowardly one at that" - speaking of cowardice - to oversimplify the issue here to score points with 3500 members of the electorate. Immigration is a big problem but the Dream Act is not the "demon legislation" that some are making it out to be.
Of course the Dream Act is a big part of the problem. Most parents come across the border for their children. By incentivizing them to come across illegally, you are undermining the rule of law and punishing those that are still waiting in line for citizenship. Talk about trying to score points with the electorate, that is what Hatch was trying to do with the dream act. Unfortunately for him, he badly misread the electorate.
<< Home