Respect for Law
I have written on this topic in the Schiavo context, but we also see the weakening of the respect for law, its makers, interpreters and executive in the context of citizenship.
La Shawn Barber cuts to the chase in two simple paragraphs:
(Even the Govanator agrees.)
Is this really a floodgate for the disrespect of law we want to open?
Politicians usually think near-term, but they do not see (or do not care) about the long-term implications for the rule of law and how Joe Citizen views the law.
If breaking the law is rewarded, what does that mean?
La Shawn Barber cuts to the chase in two simple paragraphs:
As you may know, the Senate is voting today [It failed -- Ed.] on George Bush���s amnesty-for-illegal-aliens scheme. The so-called AgJobs bill will, among other things, direct ���the Secretary of Homeland Security to grant qualifying alien agricultural workers (and their spouses and minor children) temporary resident status and subsequently lawful permanent resident status upon the fulfillment of specified agricultural work and residency requirements,��� according to the Congressional Research Service.
Let that sink in. The person in charge of the security of our nation will grant ���temporary resident status��� to people who didn���t bother going through legal channels to get here. Criminals, in essence, will be rewarded by the Department of Homeland Security for breaching the security of United States!
(Even the Govanator agrees.)
Is this really a floodgate for the disrespect of law we want to open?
Politicians usually think near-term, but they do not see (or do not care) about the long-term implications for the rule of law and how Joe Citizen views the law.
If breaking the law is rewarded, what does that mean?
April 22nd, 2005 at 6:40 PM
If I propose that we should weaken penalties for certain crimes, does that amount to endorsing lawbreaking? Not at all. There’s still a penalty. It’s just not as harsh as it used to be. So certainly is doesn’t amount to rewarding lawbreaking. Bush has proposed reducing the penalty for illegal entry. Some of the current restrictions on what such people can do would be removed. Not all of them would be. For instance, the path to citizenship would still be a good deal harder than it is for legal immigrants.
It’s just plain not a reward for illegal activity any more than reducing the death penalty for murder to 40 years would be rewarding murderers for killing. If they didn’t kill, there’d be no 40 years. If they hadn’t entered illegally, they wouldn’t have a more complicated process toward getting legally recognized. Therefore, there’s still a penalty for the crime, just as some other crimes don’t have a death penalty but just have a fine. It’s not rewarding people for parking in a handicapped spot just because all they get is a fine instead of a night in jail. It just seems unfair to me to use the kind of rhetoric you and La Shawn are using. The facts don’t support such language.