In a recent column ["Rethinking  Deportation" Oregonian, January 23], Richard LaMountain denounced  President Obama's proposed rule that would make it easier for illegal  aliens to become legal residents, claiming it will undermine respect for  law. But don't immoral rules also undermine respect for law?
What  would satisfy people like LaMountain? Would it increase respect for law  to load all 12 million illegals into boxcars and deport them,  Stalin-like, to Mexico? Or would they prefer to let illegals stay in the  U.S. as a permanent underclass, discriminated against by government and  denied educational opportunities?
Did it increase respect for  law when, in June 2009, a federal jury convicted Walt Staton of  littering? His "littering" consisted of leaving jugs of fresh drinkable  water in an area near the Mexican border for entering aliens who might  otherwise have died from dehydration (as a great many indeed have).
The  logic here was impeccable. If more illegal die from thirst, this will  make crossing into the US less attractive and reduce the burden of  policing the border. Similar logic led Congress to outlaw employment of  illegals.
What next? Should we make it illegal to give or sell  food to anybody who cannot document that they are a citizen or here with  official government approval?
How about allowing or requiring  everybody to shoot down undocumented people on the spot? Some  soft-hearted Americans might feel this would be going too far.
I  guess the real question is: Once we assume that such a category of  people as "illegal aliens" is a legal and moral possibility, where do we  draw the line in doing something about it?
An alternative which  would not require us to draw any such line would be to abandon the  whole concept of an illegal alien and regard every human being on the  planet as a member of the human race and a citizen of the world. Inside  the United States no matter what state we were born in, we automatically  acquire state citizenship merely by moving there. Thus I was a citizen  of Michigan for 36 years despite having been born in Oregon, and my wife  is a citizen of Oregon despite her birth in Connecticut. There is no  reason why this system could not work at the world level, and I am sure  that at some future time we will have such a system.
In the  meantime we have to live with a different system, but we need to  recognize just how crazy this system is and the impossible choices with  which it confronts us.
Christians, for example, including  fundamentalists (perhaps especially fundamentalists!), need to think  about the implications of their faith here:
"For I was hungry  and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me a drink, I was a  stranger and you welcomed me ..." (Matthew 25:35)
Does anybody  really want to live in a world where it is illegal to give a fellow  human being a drink of water? 
**********
This column has run in the (Portland) Oregonian and on Commondreams.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are e-mailed to me. I will post excerpts from those I think will most interest readers.