Dear All:
I recently posted this as a blog and have submitted it as a letter to the editor for some papers. Thought I would share it.
I retired from the U.S. government in 2001. I am a former FBI agent and a former U.S. Customs Agent, including time spent investigating narcotics smuggling on the Mexican Border. Since 2001 I have operated an Immigration law Practice in Roswell, Georgia. I am an Adjunct Professor of Law at John Marshall Law School and a Past President of the North Fulton Bar Association.
WHY ARIZONA HAS IT WRONG
I have gotten a lot of calls recently about the new Immigration related law in Arizona. The calls range from outraged to interested. I received a very thoughtful call from a friend. He was scheduled to attend the ABA conference in Arizona and was torn as to whether he should go. He called me and asked what I thought of the legal issues and the situation. Let me share what I told him.
You have to search your heart on an issue like this, not the law. How will this be looked at fifty years from now? Lawyers, Judges and politicians have made defensible arguments about many things, some of them morally reprehensible. The U.S. defended not allowing Jews into the U.S. from Germany in the early Nazi years. The Supreme Court held that slaves were property, not persons. Lawyers defended internment of Japanese citizens in World War Two. The Courts upheld barring Chinese from the U.S. in the late 1800's. In the 1890's the government argued that Native Americans were not persons under the constitution and could be simply taken onto custody and required to remain on reservations.
In 2007 I attended a conference in Budapest, Hungary. The head of the Budapest Bar Association spoke. He told the attendees that he had gone back and reviewed Bar Association articles and statements during the time that the Hungarian government was disbarring all Jews as lawyers and judges and handing their practices and positions to Christians. What struck him was that there was nothing in a Bar Journal or an article simply saying that what was being done was wrong. He cautioned all of us as lawyers to make sure that we don't get sidetracked in looking at things legally. Sometimes you just have to say that something is morally wrong.
Even if the Arizona laws are legally defensible, they are simply wrong. They are wrong in the same way that the refusal to admit Jews from Nazi Germany was wrong, that Dred Scott was wrong, that Chinese Exclusion laws were wrong, and that federal decisions to not consider Native Americans persons under the law were wrong. They should be condemned as such.
Joseph H. Rosen
Immigration Law Offices
Adjunct Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School
Past President, North Fulton Bar Association
What do you think? Does this law compare to the other laws he lists? How do we judge the morality of such an issue if it is technically legal
I agree with some of what Dr. Rosen says. There have been times in our country's history where the wrong choice has been made, morally and ethically. However I find a problem with this sentence, when he states that-
ReplyDelete"You have to search your heart on an issue like this, not the law."
You have to search your heart? This is real life, and not a Disney movie. This article smacks of relativism. What is true in my heart may not be true of the heart of another. By me saying my moral law is correct, and my moral beliefs, I am then condemning the moral thought of another who disagrees. The law, in general, represents the majority's opinion- yes, the dominant groups ethics. So while there is still relativism- it is relatively a majority.
This guy is trying to evoke emotion about the new Arizona law by comparing it to difficult times in history---like the Holocaust. These past laws are not the same as the Arizona law. He misses the point. He doesn't understand the law, like many people. I agree that just because something is "legal" doesn't make it morally right. But in the case of this law, that's not the issue. The writer assumes that it is a discriminating law, but it is a law that does not discriminate. It is a law that says if you are sited for an unlawful action, like being pulled over, you have to show your ID to prove that you can be here in the country. Is it morally wrong to illegally sneak into a country? I say yes. Is it morally wrong to tell them they have to go back? I say no. I understand why Mexicans come here, If I was in their position I would do the exact same thing--come to America. But there are consequences for doing so illegally.
ReplyDelete