A nation of laws
John Adams said that the United States is "a nation of laws not men". The USA was envisioned as a place where laws would rule, not kings or mobs or groups. No ruling class. Have we moved closer or further from this ideal?
The events in Arizona demonstrate the conflict between laws and leaders, between the working class and the ruling class.
DocBrain will attempt to clarify the logic of the conflict in Arizona and to put it into ethical perspective.
Anything that is against a law in the place where the law exists is illegal. The convuluted logic is that it is only a crime to those who have jurisdiction to enforce the law. Illegal immigration is a Federal crime and enforcement of the law is a Federal duty. In contrast, speeding on a state highway is illegal under state law in every state and enforcement of the law is each state's duty. In each case, enforcement is spotty. In special circumstances (such as felonies), private citizens may help enforce a law, such as performing a citizen's arrest. For the most part, enforcement of laws is at the discretion of officers of the law, whose policy and procedures are at the direction of the political leaders, who represent the ruling class in America.
Unless the Federal government specifically requests the officers of the law of Arizona to assist in finding, detaining and transporting illegal entrants into the USA, being in Arizona illegally is not a crime in the eyes of the officers of the law of Arizona. Furthermore, because of the powers given to the Federal government as part of the Constitution, the State of Arizona cannot write or enact or enforce laws that usurp Federal rights and duties.
Does the Federal government have the duty to enforce all the laws on its books? In theory, the answer is yes, but in practice, enforcement is at the discretion of those who determine policy and that is at the discretion of the executive branch of the government. If the President does not want certain laws enforced, then they will not be enforced. If the President wants laws enforced selectively, then they will be enforced selectively. The argument against selective enforcement is that it perverts the concept of the rule of law. The argument in favor of selective enforcement is that sometimes laws do not keep up with the sentiments of the people.
This gets to the specific issue of Immigration Laws. We clearly have a failure to enforce these laws adequately by the Federal government. While the Federal government can request assistance from state law enforcement, the Feds do not have to and the state officers cannot view those who have entered the USA illegally as criminals unless the Feds tell them to. Enforcement of immigration laws at the present time is specifically limited to those who commit felonies. The rationale behind that limited enforcement decision is at the discretion of the President of the United States, as the immigration laws enacted by Congress and signed into law declare that illegal entry into the USA is a Federal crime.
Under the definition of hypocrisy is the stating of one thing while believing in and acting on another. Our laws should reflect our enforcement. To do other weakens the virtue of the government in demanding adherence to all laws.
The arguments raised so far in defending selective (some would say 'non') enforcement are child-like. "Everyone does it"; "its not fair"; "you're being mean". More perverse is the concept that, while we have over 10% unemployment, these illegals work on jobs that even the unemployed US citizens wouldn't do even if asked. Assuming that US citizens are good people, this would suggest that illegals are slaves, working in conditions and for wages that are subhuman. But, then we get the paradox that these illegals are working for US citizens and we just assumed that US citizens are good people. The only rational view is that jobs live in the free market and that the presence of an increased pool of unskilled labor has led to a reduced wage for unskilled labor. Employers need to offer less since the potential qualified employees are more plentiful and compete against each other for the jobs. As long as the illegal immigrant pool is in the unskilled category, those who rule are not personally threatened and may even gain some benefit as protecting these illegals could eventually lead to more votes (and therefore prolonged power).
What happens when highly skilled illegals begin to enter our country? What will the reaction of the ruling class be then? I am certain there are very brilliant college professors in other countries who would just love to take tenured chairs at a US universities and would do so for a lot less than their US counterparts. Similarly for engineers, police, firemen, nurses, physicians, accountants, business executives, machinists, etc.
The concept of being a citizen with specific rights, privileges and duties is the item at risk with selective enforcement of immigration. We do not force illegals to file tax returns in their native lands, but expect US citizens abroad (even those who have relinquished their US citizenships for <8 years) to file and pay Federal income tax. The position of the White House and President in the realm of illegal entry into the USA is hypocrisy of the highest order, as it is self serving and does not acknowledge the quid pro quo that would allow US citizens to bail out of their citizenship.
The events in Arizona demonstrate the conflict between laws and leaders, between the working class and the ruling class.
DocBrain will attempt to clarify the logic of the conflict in Arizona and to put it into ethical perspective.
Anything that is against a law in the place where the law exists is illegal. The convuluted logic is that it is only a crime to those who have jurisdiction to enforce the law. Illegal immigration is a Federal crime and enforcement of the law is a Federal duty. In contrast, speeding on a state highway is illegal under state law in every state and enforcement of the law is each state's duty. In each case, enforcement is spotty. In special circumstances (such as felonies), private citizens may help enforce a law, such as performing a citizen's arrest. For the most part, enforcement of laws is at the discretion of officers of the law, whose policy and procedures are at the direction of the political leaders, who represent the ruling class in America.
Unless the Federal government specifically requests the officers of the law of Arizona to assist in finding, detaining and transporting illegal entrants into the USA, being in Arizona illegally is not a crime in the eyes of the officers of the law of Arizona. Furthermore, because of the powers given to the Federal government as part of the Constitution, the State of Arizona cannot write or enact or enforce laws that usurp Federal rights and duties.
Does the Federal government have the duty to enforce all the laws on its books? In theory, the answer is yes, but in practice, enforcement is at the discretion of those who determine policy and that is at the discretion of the executive branch of the government. If the President does not want certain laws enforced, then they will not be enforced. If the President wants laws enforced selectively, then they will be enforced selectively. The argument against selective enforcement is that it perverts the concept of the rule of law. The argument in favor of selective enforcement is that sometimes laws do not keep up with the sentiments of the people.
This gets to the specific issue of Immigration Laws. We clearly have a failure to enforce these laws adequately by the Federal government. While the Federal government can request assistance from state law enforcement, the Feds do not have to and the state officers cannot view those who have entered the USA illegally as criminals unless the Feds tell them to. Enforcement of immigration laws at the present time is specifically limited to those who commit felonies. The rationale behind that limited enforcement decision is at the discretion of the President of the United States, as the immigration laws enacted by Congress and signed into law declare that illegal entry into the USA is a Federal crime.
Under the definition of hypocrisy is the stating of one thing while believing in and acting on another. Our laws should reflect our enforcement. To do other weakens the virtue of the government in demanding adherence to all laws.
The arguments raised so far in defending selective (some would say 'non') enforcement are child-like. "Everyone does it"; "its not fair"; "you're being mean". More perverse is the concept that, while we have over 10% unemployment, these illegals work on jobs that even the unemployed US citizens wouldn't do even if asked. Assuming that US citizens are good people, this would suggest that illegals are slaves, working in conditions and for wages that are subhuman. But, then we get the paradox that these illegals are working for US citizens and we just assumed that US citizens are good people. The only rational view is that jobs live in the free market and that the presence of an increased pool of unskilled labor has led to a reduced wage for unskilled labor. Employers need to offer less since the potential qualified employees are more plentiful and compete against each other for the jobs. As long as the illegal immigrant pool is in the unskilled category, those who rule are not personally threatened and may even gain some benefit as protecting these illegals could eventually lead to more votes (and therefore prolonged power).
What happens when highly skilled illegals begin to enter our country? What will the reaction of the ruling class be then? I am certain there are very brilliant college professors in other countries who would just love to take tenured chairs at a US universities and would do so for a lot less than their US counterparts. Similarly for engineers, police, firemen, nurses, physicians, accountants, business executives, machinists, etc.
The concept of being a citizen with specific rights, privileges and duties is the item at risk with selective enforcement of immigration. We do not force illegals to file tax returns in their native lands, but expect US citizens abroad (even those who have relinquished their US citizenships for <8 years) to file and pay Federal income tax. The position of the White House and President in the realm of illegal entry into the USA is hypocrisy of the highest order, as it is self serving and does not acknowledge the quid pro quo that would allow US citizens to bail out of their citizenship.
posted by DocBrain at
3:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home