From: Luis Felipe Molina [mailto:lfmolinat@sulanet.net]
Date: Friday, May 12, 2006 11:15 AM
To: vice_president@whitehouse.gov
Subject: LAW AND ORDER AT THE SOUTH BORDER
Page 1 of 5
Dear Mr. Vice President,
The following is the contents of an email I sent on May 7, 2006, to an anchor of a
national TV news program. I am sending these same comments to your Office and, in a
separate email, to the Office of the President, because these comments offer a plausible
alternative in securing law and order at the south border.
These comments explain why it is not necessary to build a wall to control immigration in
the future and, with basis on the President’s Proposal for a Temporary Work Program,
suggest slight shifts in mechanisms which may enhance effectiveness while focusing
intensively in (1) freedom, (2) economics, (3) a changing world and (4) the leadership
role of the US into the world of the near future.
The email begins:
Please read these five comments –specially the third one:
(1) Retroactivity of a Legal Benefit Vs Legal Amnesty
You have emphasized that illegal aliens in the US are obviously in violation of Law. You
would also point out that persons who came into the US illegally are not longer staying
illegally if now enjoy the benefit of TPS or have been otherwise entitled by Law to live
and work in the US. You have also emphasized that the US Government (i.e.: the
Executive Branch) cannot approve what is illegal. But, you would also point out that the
People of the United States, by means of its representatives in the Legislative Branch,
obviously exercise the right to decide what is illegal –with approval by the President.
More than seldom, the National Congress has made legal what was illegal. For example,
during the second decade of the 20th Century, distribution of alcoholic beverages was
declared illegal and then, later in 1933, that decision was reverted. Another example is
when it was decided that voting by women would not longer be illegal.
The point is that something undesired or illegal can be legitimately declared legal and
become acceptable, at any point in time, if that’s good for the People. In the present
immigration situation, either retroactivity or amnesty can be lawfully issued. Neither
declaration of legality needs to allow jumping ahead of people waiting in line for
citizenship and, as explained in comment (3) below, either way of granting legal status
would not promote more immigration than the volume which nevertheless would be
allowed under a strictly controlled process.
|
|
