What about the poor saps who obey immigration laws?

My parents worked like dogs and waited for 11 years for their citizenships. What should I tell my children, about following the law? That it’s O.K. some times, and not others if they feel it is unjust? What about rule of law? Should there be rule by ‘well-meaning and naive anarchy?’

Today’s L.A. Times on the matter:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s...mes/immigrationrisingonbushstodolist

On taking the law, into one’s own hands — isn’t that what Mr. Ward Churchill, M.A., did in downtown Denver when he disrupted Columbus Day parades — even though the Italian-American groups had a legal parade permits? To quote the master Cher — ‘when did God die, and appoint him as a replacement?’

http://www.westword.com/Issues/2005-04-28/news/calhoun.html

Joey, at 6:45 am EDT on July 25, 2005

Joey,

I fail to see how you can argue that Churchill was “taking the law into his own hands” as the substantive law did not provide him with a right to be free from Italians marching in his field of view. Now, perhaps if the Italians had written him threatening emails and he had stolen their computers, you might argue that he was “taking the law into his own hands.” Instead, Churchill expressed his views, and apparently, at least according to your story, he did so in a way that was not constitutionally protected. But, as I said, I fail to see what in the name of Zeus Professor Churchill has to do with these people in Texas. Perhaps you should just come out and say that you don’t like Professor Churchill and why you don’t like him.

Now, I do have to note that you are not the only person who feels that someone had an easier time than themselves or their kid. But guess what? Life isn’ t fair. Smart parents tell their kids how to look smarter (e.g. teaching them social skills or how to manipulate grades though taking easy classes). Smart parents tell their kids how to pay lower tuition. This is life, and life will be a lot easier to deal with once you realize that these inequities exist, and will only be remedied once someone with a sophisticated knowledge of the topic sees a real reason to do so.

Finally, a couple of general points, “Rule of Law” generally means whatever the speaker says it to mean. In fact, I can pretty much justify any outcome by saying it follows the “rule of law.”

I am not sure that anarchy can ever be “naive” or “well-meaning.” So, maybe you can elaborate on those concepts.

Third, it is questionable whether the children of illegal immigrants, are illegal themselves.

Fourth, many think that despite the fact that some illegal things go on, it is good public policy to acknowledge that this happens, and deal with it. You seem to disagree with people on this. For instance, I am completely incensed that roads are designed for people to travel above the speed limit (a heinous crime, at least in my world view), and, it would seem, that the government is treating these law-breakers as if their behavior is acceptable. Yet somehow, somewhere a legislature decided that if it was to do the best for the people, it has to accept some law-breaking. The same goes for: 1) needle-exchanges; 2) most privileges that allow someone to communicate confidentially with a priest, lawyer or doctor (which could all be abrogated by an amendment to the constitution, if not just a statute); 3) provisions for rehabilitation of criminals; and 4) amnesties for people who are late in filing tax returns.

LArry, at 11:40 am EDT on July 25, 2005

Return to sender

No problem!

Have INS agents at the school and as illegals sign-up send them back to whatever country they are from, while at the same time applying a hefty fine and making sure they take their kids with them. As a college student fighting to get enough money to pay for college, I find it outrageous that illegals can get money for college or are even allowed to attend any school grade-level through college. Cheers,Mike

mike covert, at 4:36 pm EDT on July 25, 2005

Actually, Mr. Purvis, the “life isn’t fair” argument does lead to fruitful avenues of discussion, as establishing “equality” between people has been an ongoing project of law for quite some time now.

Legislatures and drafters of constitutions have attempted to right various wrongs. Courts have tried to interpret their ambiguously (and often contradictorily) worded declarations and concluded that there are only some instances of inequality between two people that deserve a government intervention.

Indeed, our system of law shuns massive ad hoc “righting” of “wrongs” just because one person insists that something is unfair. Indeed, even structural injunctions cannot be hung just on a vague assertion of the inequity of a situation, but instead must have 1) a life controversy; 2) an actual injured person; and 3) a constitutional or statutory right created by the legislature (or framers of a constitution) that can be remedy by such an injunction. Luckily, Congress saw fit in Constitutional matters to specifically tell the federal courts that individuals could seek equitable relief for violations of their constitutional rights. But not if they just thought that some Mexicans were getting cheap college educations, while they had to make payments on their daughters’ beamers.

Instead, people need to go to a legislature to do that – and, as a practical matter, most of those projects make quite a few people mad (e.g. affirmative action, legacy admission, legacy-blind admissions, bussing, aid to churches, “tax breaks for the middle class,” the “Academic Bill of Rights,” grants, etc.) So, your desire for “balance” can still be met with the objection “life isn’t fair” in the form of another objection “* * * the legislature and/or the drafters of the constitution don’t think that you have a free-standing right to insist that an illegal immigrant’s child not be educated so that your kid can be educated.”

Next, it is worth noting that children born in the US are citizens, regardless how they got into the country (with the exception of children of diplomats.) But, I don’t think that you are complaining about them.

States are free to choose to provide services to illegal immigrants. Indeed, some legislatures might think it is good policy to do this. Again, they figure it is more “fair” to do this then to deal with the consequences of not doing this. To them, this is fair. Your view lost in the democratic process. I realize that it must be confusing for two sovereigns to have differing policies on an issue, but, for some reason we chose this form of government in the US. I am sorry you don’t think it is fair. But, I guess life isn’t fair.

I don’t see the point you are making about illegal immigrants paying or not paying taxes. First you claim they are getting a disproportionate share of tax revenue, then you show how they are, perhaps, adding to tax revenue. In fact, I think many illegal immigrants actually contribute more than others realize since they often pay taxes without receiving SS benefits in return. Again, the legislature is free to, say, immunize illegal immigrants from paying taxes or offer them a rebate. They probably can require that only US Citizens be able to obtain in-state tuition. But, they feel it is better policy not to, because it would be “fairer” to everyone involved.

Larry, at 4:42 pm EDT on July 25, 2005

ARE WE A NATION OF LAWS!

No matter what the number, no matter how noble the intentions of the bleeding-heart groups in Texas, the primary issue here remains that these students entered our borders illegally and ought not to receive public benefits. Why should they be feeding at the public trough at the expense of taxpayers and others who came here legally?

Years ago, Californians overwhelmingly passed an inititative to deny illegal immigrants public benefits, only to be declared as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court. A smiliar initiative in Arizona passed by huge margins, but with no challenge yet.

Considering the status of these illegals, do those who made these educational opportunities possible believe these aliens ought to be hired for public or private jobs regardless? Are we to ignore the laws of the land and allow them to stay indefinitely? When I read the papers here in Florida and in California (two of the largest states with illegals) about planeloads of overstaying illegal aliens being deported to their respective countries, I see double standards when authorities in Texas turn a blind eye to what is a similar offense and, to make matters worse, encourage them to stay and go to college.

Most of us believe in higher education, but I’m afraid we are educating the wrong crowd. This twisted policy in Texas exemplifies thebig immigration mess we find ourselves in because the lawmakers we depend on to enforce the laws become the lawbreakers.

Until we clean up this mess, calling this land a nation of laws is nothing but a big joke.

R. G. LACSAMANA, M.D., at 8:33 pm EDT on July 25, 2005

Racist

Bravo to Texas, I wish many of the politicians should have a back bone and stand up and say we will allow children to get their education, regardless of their status.

To those who oppose; are racist, and they are coward racist; who hide under the hood and burn crosses at night. Those are the same racist who denied my great grandparentseducation just because of their color of skin; those are the same racist who told my great grandparents you are good in the field. Those are the same racist who did not want my great grandparents to drink from the same fountain; those are the same racist who told my great grandparents to ride in the rear of the bus.

Those are the same racist; who do not know or what the Statute of Liberty stands for; those racist are upset now because most of the immigrants now are of darker skin color;those racist did not oppose immigrants who are caucasians during WWI & II.

Dr. David Robertson, Dr at SUNY, at 10:16 pm EDT on July 25, 2005

Joey, You have not addressed single argument. Instead you talk about some pariah professor in Colorado. Then you quote Star Wars. While I never really cared whether stated educated the children of illegal aliens or not, I don’t see what good your education has done you, and why the money would not be better spent on a Mexican.

Also, claiming that other people are convinced by your own argument does not make it so.

Larry, at 7:26 am EDT on July 26, 2005

Dr. Lacsamana,

So, if I understand you correctly, you are now saying that the California Supreme Court never took any action on this matter whereas before you said that they did. Got it. No wonder why I was confused.

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), of course, is a case that every American has read (or should have). As you say, this doesn’t necessarily extend to higher education (though, it could be extended to that), I am unsure how this constitutes judicial activism. As the court points out, “***21.031 is directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control. It is thus difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing these children for their presence within the United States. Yet that appears to be precisely the effect of 21.031.” However, perhaps it is better if states can ensure that there will be a lot of uneducated people running around the country, illegal or legal.

The BICS could, in some circumstances deport entire families. But, they don’t seem too interested in doing this – perhaps because some of them are legally entitled to asylum, or many people wish to tolerate a certain amount of illegal immigration in the US. However, if it were up to me, DHS would go to every single restaurant and diner in the country and round up all of the dishwashers and people who are paid under the table. While this would certainly raise prices for food, it would mean more jobs washing dishes for Americans, and therefore justice would be done. Huzzah!

It is probably a good thing that the illegal immigrants from the Philippines was deported. The violated the law, and unlike kids, they did so knowing exactly what they were doing. It is irrelevant what a Congressman thinks. Indeed, in INS v. Chadha. 462 US 919 (1983), the court specifically rejected any statutory regime which would allow for Congressional review of executive adjudications. America is a better place without such illegal aliens. They could have been terrorists.

There are many laws that are not enforced. Many kids drink or possess liquor while they are under 18. This, to me, is unpardonable, and I think they should do serious time in jail for that. But, not too many police departments listen. People speed, too.

Larry, at 11:39 am EDT on July 26, 2005

Which of MY activities are “socially-deficient” and what does Mr. Churchill have to do with illegal immigration ? Is he an illegal immigrant ? You seem to have a lot of difficulty answering this basic question.

Larry, at 1:35 pm EDT on July 26, 2005

Again, while you might not like Mr. Churchill, and you seem to blame him for your problems, I am still attempting to see the connection you draw. I personally don’t care one way or the other about affirmative action, but I know that most of the people who feel victimized by it are losers who are blaming Mexicans for their own personal failing. (I blame Icelandic people, myself. I should have been Bjork.)

Are you really sure that he was hired on the basis of state-mandated affirmative action or did you make this up? Once you have showed the existence of this state-mandated affirmative action, perhaps you could show me how you know he lied about something. (Don’t bother with the second if you can’t do the first, because I think you made it up.)

People who are unemployed are unemployed because they are lazy and/or got drunk in college or high school. I don’t have much sympathy for them. Likewise, children of illegal immigrants did not commit any crimes, themselves, so I don’t see how blaming them for your problems advances the conversation or even makes the world a more “just” place.

Mr. Churchill seems to have succeeded where you failed (e.g. in getting a job), and you blame him for 1) your failings; and/or 2) Mexicans taking your job.

Larry, at 2:19 pm EDT on July 26, 2005

Joey, 1) people accuse each other of violating their copyrights all the time — this has nothing to do with affirmative action or immigration; and 2) you still failed to present proof for any of your assertions, so I think that you were lying from the beginning. It is pretty simple: I think a better qualified Mexican took your job. To get back at the Mexicans you complain about Ward Churchill, who, to you, is an illegal immigrant who claims to be a minority. As proof of this you present a URL which indicates that some people think he violated a copyright.

Larry, at 5:26 am EDT on July 27, 2005

I think the issue is a valid one for Americans.

I find myself unable to take valid comment from someone who suggest teenagers “do serious time in jail” for possessing liquor or that “to travel above the speed limit (a heinous crime...". Ummm. Heinous? Not over the top here?

However, as I come from Iceland, nobody who suggests wanting to be Björk cannot be serious.

So, I will not comment further on Mr.Larrys commets, as he must be having a good laugh.

BR, at 4:35 am EDT on August 17, 2005

Im a High School graduate from illegal immigrants parents who worked really hard to bring me here, everyday I have to see them CRY because things did not turn as they wanted to, a greater future for me, as a higher educations, just because Im illegal as well, it BRAKES my heart to see how cold some people can be, but I assume they jsut don’t understand, that’s why Im here to say, you should have commpssion God doesn’t make any differences and who are we then to make them? Law? ...law? yes I do understand and I do obey it, but I would give everythign just to study and make my simple dream come true of just giving my parents a place to live, and giving myself a carrer, teaching, the word of God, in christian school, and maybe to some of your children, who knows.

Clara, just listen to this from me.... at student, at 12:20 am EST on November 12, 2006