Poll
|
do you like El Editor Site?
|
|
Reader's Letters
| |
 |
|
Posted on 01/12/2006 10:10 PM EST
|
|
Open Vs Closed Borders
|
Editor’s Note:
Recently in the local daily newspaper, a letter to the editor written by Lubbock resident Cowboy Fred Ortiz was published in response to a column by national syndicated columnist Miguel Perez, who wrote about an anti-immigration measure that had been passed by the U S Congress.
In his response, the letter writer clearly states his opposition to illegal immigration and goes so far as to refer to those person’s who cross into this country without proper documentation as criminals; and implies that these “illegal immigrants” do not have civil rights as do citizens of this country.
We asked our readers for their opinion on the letter writer’s assertion that illegal aliens are “criminals” and they do not deserve to enjoy the same civil rights as American citizens. Some other responses appear in our “Community Voices” column. Here are reader’s letters in their entirety.
Open Vs Closed Borders
From the ruling described in U.S. SUPREME COURT "PLYLER v. DOE", 457
U.S. 202 (1982) (1), The Supreme Court recognized that in allocating
governmental benefits to a given class of aliens, one "may take into
account the character of the relationship between the alien and this
country"(1). Governmental benefits vary from state to state; however
only in the case of federal naturalization do federal benefits supersede
state benefits.
This means that if legal aliens have made their best efforts to abide by
the laws of the United States, pay their taxes, and contribute to the
communities they reside in, then they may enjoy the same protection of
law enjoyed by natural citizens with a few exceptions, Mathews v. Diaz,
426 U.S. 67, 80 (1976) (1).
When that "relationship" is a federally prohibited one, there can, of
course, be no presumption that a state has a constitutional duty to
include illegal aliens among the recipients of its governmental
benefits. 7 [457 U.S. 202, 247] (1).
This means if the alien is an illegal, the state is not obligated to
provide benefits. If a state does provide benefits for illegal aliens,
it is provided out of respect for humanity (human rights) and not the
law (civil rights). The law clearly states that states are not
obligated to serve illegal immigrants.
This is where people begin to confuse the difference between human
rights and civil rights. On one side, you have the "Open Border Crowd"
who says that the rights of illegal aliens are being violated. This can
be a politically charged statement as it may be true in cases of human
rights abuses; however it may not always be true in cases of perceived
civil rights abuses. The Supreme Court clarifies this further by
describing how much the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment protects illegal aliens. The Supreme Court states that illegal
alien's civil rights are indeed protected by the 14th Amendment; however
states have a right to determine how these rights are enforced and
protected based upon the "character of the relationship between the
alien and this country". (1)
The Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of
different categories of persons. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 549
(1972); Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75 (1971); Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S.
141, 147 -148 (1940).
The reason why courts allow states to dispense illegal alien's 14th
Amendment rights is for purposes of allocating and distributing finite
state resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate
between persons [457 U.S. 202, 244] who are lawfully within the state
and those who are unlawfully there. The distinction the State of Texas
has drawn - based not only upon its own legitimate interests but on
classifications established by the Federal Government in its immigration
laws and policies - is not unconstitutional. (1)
This policy exists because a vast number of illegal aliens (not all of
them Hispanic) do not pay state or federal income taxes, do not pay
their medical bills, do not contribute proportionately back to their
communities, are in the United States for illicit personal gain and do
not intend to immigrate. The law is clear about these types of illegal
aliens. They are not welcomed in the United States and may have their
civil rights, not their human rights, revoked due to the "character of
the relationship between the alien and this country" sub-clause. It is
this group that is creating the problems and the political backlash
observed in the press today.
This is where the "Close the Borders Crowd" comes in. They are pointing
fingers towards the uncontrolled southern border as a source of
increased crimes committed by illegal aliens and widespread state
deficits in the health and education sectors. The Supreme Court
recognizes this perceived reality and have noted Congress' and past
President's (Democrats and Republicans) collective failure to address
the issue of illegal aliens: "We trespass on the assigned function of
the political branches under our structure of limited and separated
powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today. The
Court makes no attempt to disguise that it is acting to make up for
Congress' lack of `effective leadership' in dealing with the serious
national problems caused by the influx of uncountable millions of
illegal aliens across our borders. 2 [457 U.S. 202, 243] See ante, at
237-238 (POWELL, J., concurring). The failure of enforcement of the
immigration laws over more than a decade and the inherent difficulty and
expense of sealing our vast borders have combined to create a grave
socioeconomic dilemma. It is a dilemma that has not yet even been fully
assessed, let alone addressed. However, it is not the function of the
Judiciary to provide `effective leadership' simply because the political
branches of government fail to do so" (1).
The whole illegal alien situation has been a "slippery slope" best
avoided by politicians due to the ubiquitous nature of their Hispanic
constituencies. They are afraid of offending legal voting Hispanics, so
they avoid appearing to enforce immigration law (just like W). The
federal government's perception is that if they enforced the law then
they would be labeled as bigots for hating Hispanics. This is not good
for politicians especially if they are up for re-election and have large
Hispanic constituencies.
This is a politically motivated; yet immoral tactic, on the part of the
politicians, that leaves the federal government hands clean of the
illegal alien issues and forces states to shoulder the burden of funding
and dealing with the illegal immigration situation. To make matters
worse, due to the lack of federal government leadership, American
citizens feel betrayed on both sides of the issue: Closed Border
Advocates ask "Why is the government not controlling the flow of illegal
aliens" and Open Border Advocates ask "Why is the government not trying
to help those illegal aliens who want to stay in the United States as
contributing citizens?"
The answers to these questions are still being debated within all levels
of government; however the solution may be more close to home.
We voters must hold business owners accountable for hiring new illegal
aliens. We have enough Hispanic voters to make this an enforceable law
in Texas. These jobs belong to American Citizens first. We must tell our
congressmen that we are displeased with their inability to enforce labor
laws. If they continue to avoid the illegal alien issue then we should
collectively vote them out and put in place officials who will hold big
business responsible. When the jobs become unavailable for illegal
aliens, they will go back home.
As for the illegal aliens who wish to become US Citizens, a criterion
must be created to allow a mechanism to be set in place to quickly
naturalize illegal aliens. For example: illegal aliens should have
American children, established work history, no felonies, and can pass a
basic English exam. This can be made a reality if every Hispanic
American in Texas were motivated to vote. Then afterward, the future
Mexican immigrants we will allow into the country will follow the same
immigration rules that pertain to British, Canadian, French, Indian,
German, et al. immigration quotas.
Violators of our immigration laws will be severely punished not in
American jails but in jails of their country of origin. This would
require some real diplomacy and friendship between our government and
foreign governments. If there is a disproportionate amount of European
and Canadian immigrants, then we should vote to ensure that the numbers
of European immigrants are proportionate to the numbers of Mexican
immigrants. Currently this rule of law does not exist in Texas because
of uncontrolled borders, government inability to enforce current laws,
unjust Human Rights violations in the form of human trafficking for big
business, unjust state civil rights rules in the case of determining who
in the illegal alien community gets help based on subjective rules, and
Hispanic Americans not voting as a collective people. Hispanic Americans
need to become aware and vote on issues that rise above partisan
politics such as Human Rights and Civil Rights for all people. We can do
this now at a state level in Texas, Arizona, and California. If we
choose not to vote, then the radical fringes on both sides of the
illegal alien issue will rule the day and the Hispanic American people
will suffer as a result regardless of which side wins the argument. The
current political establishment wishes to protect itself and will not
hesitate to sacrifice the Hispanic American people for its own selfish
purposes. Today, Hispanic Americans are now in the situation very
similar to the Spartans from ancient times who were regarded as second
class citizens and were sacrificed for the safety of their imperial
masters in Greece (read Washington)(2). Now is our opportunity to keep
our democracy alive by becoming active participants and heirs to a new
political kingdom that awaits us as the voting majority of Texas.
As for the part of the question "whether this person should or should
not be working with young Hispanics". Let him read this article so that he can
be educated and corrected of his error. If he is still believes that
illegal aliens are criminals and have no civil rights, then by all means
he is fair game for public admonishment. He is obviously ignorant of the
law and out of touch with reality like a large number of the rest of
Spartan, err, I mean American society. He was probably regurgitating
something he heard on the radio, T.V. or read from a newspaper. To say
that illegal aliens are criminal and have no civil rights is the same as
saying the Jews were criminal and had no right to live in WWII Germany.
Also, if anyone out there reading this article really wants to help
Hispanic children, please get involved today with your kids and grand
kid's Sunday school and public school instead of complaining that your
kids are not getting what they need from the schools.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing." -- Edmund Burke 1797
Jerry Perez, Lubbock, Via-Email
|
|
|
rss
