Making the "rule of law" a god

In my state of Utah we have legislators who justify sponsoring and voting in favor of anti-immigration laws because of their respect and commitment to the "rule of law." Although I, too, understand and value the "rule of law" principle, I become very nervous when it is made a "god." Putting so much stock in man-made laws can be harmful and even dangerous. Looking at all the silly, dumb, and stupid, not to mention the unjust and even unconstitutional, laws that have not only been on the books, but still are, should make all of us more than a little leery of putting all our eggs in the rule of law basket when making decisions.

Will Legislators Get the Message?

Because of the LDS church's strict policy of political neutrality on all but what it considers to be an important moral issue, it would be wise to listen when the church chooses to speak.


Even though other churches in Utah had been taking a stand on 2008 Utah legislative bills in regards to immigration, many were hoping that the LDS church would also speak out because of the fact that it is the predominant religion in Utah. Those hoping and even praying for this were not only LDS people, but many non-LDS people as well.


Recently Elder Marlin Jensen did speak out at a symposium held on Wednesday night (2/13/08)at Westminster College. He emphasized at this symposium that he was not speaking solely for himself, but that he had been sent by the LDS First Presidency and was speaking on its behalf. It is extremely important to keep this in mind when considering his following statements:

• "slow down, step back and carefully study and assess the implications and human costs involved."


• "with decisions handing in the balance that have such significant consequences, I believe a more thoughtful...not to mention humane, approach is warranted."


• "immigration questions are questions dealing with God's children," and legislators should "measure twice before they cut."


• "The church's view of someone in undocumented status is akin, in a way, to a civil trespass," relating it to coming on someone's property uninvited. "There is nothing inherent or wrong about that status."

....and Elder Jensen's asking Utah lawmakers to consider proposed immigration legislation with a "spirit of compassion" and to use a more "thoughtful and factual, not to mention humane, approach" to the issues.

Elder Jensen also noted that immigration is not only a political issue but a moral and ethical one as well.

Elder Jensen's remarks came on the heels of a January 11th meeting that a group of lawmakers had held with LDS Apostle M. Russell Ballard and other LDS Church officials. Rep. David Litvack said, "The basic message was that we need to step back, not be so reactive, and let cooler heads prevail." Even though the LDS church remains neutral on the specific action that should be taken on immigration legislation the message was that lawmakers need to listen once again because the legislation could be disastrous for new arrivals, hard-working and generally law-abiding individuals who, like all of our ancestors, are in search of a better life, and make our state a better place.

It is also important to note that Elder M. Russell Ballard is a member of the Alliance for Unity which is a group of civic, business and religious leaders that has taken a strong stand against the bill that would repeal the current law that allows undocumented students to pay in-state tuition in Utah's colleges and universities. Dr. Alexander Morrison, the leader of this group and an emeritus LDS general authority, said, "We are concerned about not wanting to take away the American dream from these kids, and these kids had come to America as little youngsters, as 2-or3-year olds, many of them, and how can you blame the sins, if there be sins, of their parents on their shoulders?"

The Alliance as a group states, "In our view, making a college education unaffordable to students simply discourages them and will result in their making less than the best of their intelligence and talents."

Dave Ure, the former representative who sponsored this tuition law said that because Congress will eventually have to act on immigration, "it is very short-sighted to repeal this bill."

Taking into consideration all these statements, and especially the timing of them, seem to indicate that the church has some concerns about the direction of some current state immigration legislation. Therefore, it is quite disconcerting and heart breaking at how some legislators, especially LDS legislators, are rationalizing and justifying immigration bills on the table saying such things as:

• "We have taken a very cautious approach." Dave Clark
• "They're [church leaders] just asking us to be deliberate in our process. We are living up to that." Rep. Dave Clark
• "they [church leaders] really want us to remember the human element" when debating the illegal immigration issues. "I do not see anything in this comment that says do not respect the rule of law." "We need to be compassionate but also remember the rule of law."Senator John Valentine
• "I don't know if we are compassionate if we ignore the law." Rep. Glenn Donnelson
• "I don't think there's any lack of compassion. I don't think anyone is rushing to judgment." Senator Margaret Dayton

I am wondering as Michael Clara is when he says, "I'm just wondering why legislators don't get the message."

It also seems that putting aside all immigration proposals and instead supporting Senate Bill 97 being sponsored by Sen. Scott Jenkins that would create a bipartisan "immigration task force" would mesh well with what cool and calm heads are suggesting and advising. Duane Cardall in his Editorial on February 15, 2008 reminds us that this measure has received strong support from Utah's business, manufacturing, and agricultural communities as they realize the unintended negative effect much of the state-based immigration reform could have on the state's economy.

If legislators will rise above all the emotion and rhetoric, exercise some humility, and really take to heart the wise counsel that is being suggested from a variety of arenas, they can concentrate on more important matters and not waste time addressing immigration issues that Congress will need to eventually address...and once they are addressed could very well nullify anything the state now decides.

Legislators Need To Be Compassionate

Article #3:

Legislators shouldn't punish immigrant children
By John Florez
Published: February 4, 2008—Deseret News

Religious leaders have said immigration is a moral and humanitarian issue and have asked we view it with compassion. It is a message that must not be lost on our Utah legislators, some of whom seem to be considering laws based on fear, rather than compassion, such as the one denying in-state college tuition for undocumented students.

Last week, Catholic Bishop John C. Wester said immigrants are part of the human family and should be treated with dignity. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has called for compassion regarding immigration and welcomes all, including undocumented residents. Our nation's policies have been based on humanitarian principles and promulgated by our religious institutions; we are viewed around the world as holding the moral high ground. Utahns, especially, take pride in upholding our "Utah values" of family, compassion and caring for one another.

We were taught in our schools that we live in the land of opportunity and that with hard work and sacrifice we could realize our dreams. Teachers made us believe in ourselves. I was one of those students — a son of immigrant parents — who had teachers that were tough but gave us hope and taught us to have big dreams. Now there is a new generation of students sitting in today's classrooms with teachers who tell them the same and still give them hope — to work, study hard and succeed.

However, some legislators appear eager to exploit the fear in those looking for vulnerable scapegoats, then use immigrants for political gain. They argue costs. Yet last week, on the House Education Committee's agenda, two bills were passed: One denies in-state tuition to motivated students who will contribute to society, which would have cost the state only $350,000; and the other appropriates $1.5 million for post high school education for prison convicts. The message: Commit a felony and you can get a college education.

Some legislators fail to see the negative consequences of their actions. They not only douse the dreams teachers have instilled in students but, most destructive, demean and marginalize those students. The result is that such policies relegate a group of motivated students to a lifetime of poverty, when they could contribute to our state. There may be another Bill Gates in that group.
What is at stake in the debate are the values that have made us the compassionate and moral society for which we take pride and others look to as a beacon of hope. Unlike past generations that built our country out of hope, some of our leaders today are trying to make political gain out of fear. Rather than working for the common good and promoting the principles we claim to hold dear — compassion, humanitarianism — some lawmakers seem eager to make scapegoats out of the most vulnerable group in our society, children who have no voice.

Our religious leaders have called for legislators to make policies that reflect our moral and humanitarian values, but lawmakers ignore those pleas, saying they are responding to the public's wishes. If that's the case, how come they didn't listen when they quickly gave $35 million for a soccer stadium and voted for school vouchers, both contrary to the people's wishes?
I like to think the average citizen wants to see public policies reflect the values we live daily and teach our children. But unless the legislators hear from all of us, it will be business as usual.

Every child deserves hope.


Utah native John Florez has founded several Hispanic civil rights organizations, served on the staff of Sen. Orrin Hatch and on more than 45 state, local and volunteer boards. He also has been deputy assistant secretary of labor. E-mail: jdflorez@comcast.net

Do What Makes Sense

Article #2:
Denying education to undocumented immigrants doesn't make sense
By George E. Brooks
Article Last Updated: 02/04/2008 12:12:59 AM MST
Salt Lake Tribune

For the past four years I have been working very closely with Utah students for whom House Bill 241 would virtually eliminate the chances of pursuing postsecondary education.

I understand that the bill's sponsor, Rep. Glenn Donnelson, R-North Ogden, believes that HB241 would help solve the very real problem of illegal immigration; that removing the benefit of in-state tuition will somehow motivate the parents of would-be students to relocate or not come here intending to take advantage of this system.

This rationale is fundamentally flawed, as is understood by anyone with firsthand experience with these immigrants. To imagine that the prospect of resident tuition for their children crosses the minds of persons immigrating to work in this state is to either misunderstand or just ignore the more immediate and material factors that actually drive immigration.

To be candid and specific, the majority of the students affected by this bill are children of undocumented immigrants, brought here as infants or children with no choice in the matter, and raised here. If college is even academically an option for them it is because they have gone to school here, studied hard and successfully integrated into their communities.

A child of undocumented immigrant parents has no access to the resources that would enable him or her to attend college paying non-resident tuition. So, essentially, denying in-state tuition sends the message that, hard work or not, they will find only closed doors after high school. Rep. Donnelson contends that closing these doors to these undocumented members of our community will somehow serve as an immigration enforcement strategy, and that those who are impacted by the bill will just finish high school and go home to their country of origin.
,
The reality is that, by now, these students are more American than anything else. Those students who are here, who have grown up here, are not going to go away, and denying them an education is neither in their nor the state's best interests.

The argument that resident tuition for these students puts any kind of undue strain on the state is false. In the 2003-2004 school year, the 117 students statewide who took advantage of this resident tuition cost the state about $300,000 in lost tuition, according to state System of Higher Education figures.

That same year 10,424 nonresident students paid $34 million in tuition and fees over the in-state rate. And when one considers the long-term benefits of having motivated, well-educated, well-integrated second-generation Americans, the cost becomes even more negligible in comparison.

Again, we are talking about students who did not choose to come here but are now making choices about what kind of Americans they will be. Denying them access to college education is morally wrong and civically irresponsible. ---

* GEORGE E. BROOKS is an adjunct instructor at Snow College's International Center and coordinator and instructor for the Snow/Sanpete adult literacy program.

Jacoby With Answers to the Immigration Challenge

I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised to discover that a strong conservative seemed to offer the most reasonable solutions to our immigration challenge. Yet, that is exactly what I found in Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

In a bulletin adapted from a transcript of a Manhattan Institute forum held in New York City on May 15, 2007, Jacoby comments that even more important than resolving the technicalities of immigration is the need to address what happens to immigrants once they come to America.

Jacoby reminds us that there are already about 35 million foreign-born people living permanently in the U. S. and another 1.5 million coming every year to settle. If they aren't allowed to "be all they can be," not only will their economic success and social mobility be in jeopardy, but as Jacoby asks, "...what will happen to the United States?'

Jacoby goes onto explain how both the right and the left are getting it wrong as the right fights for a tow the line stance and the left fears that assimilation will force immigrants to give up their identity. "I feel that the right and the left have failed the immigrants, and failed the nation, by not figuring out a way to talk to each other about this," warns Jacoby.

For more information on Tamar Jacoby's suggestions regarding how to address immigration visit:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/jacoby.htm

Let Mercy Season Justice

The following is a Co-ed that I submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune on December 21, 2007. Even though it's focus is on immigration, the principle is applicable to many education issues.

Someone said, “You can judge the greatness of a country by the number of people trying to get into it compared to the number trying to get out.” If this statement is true, then the United States is truly great when we consider that we not only have about 12 million illegal immigrants living here, but we also add about one million legal immigrants each year.

Our “spirit of hospitality” as Reverend John Webster, the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City, would describe it is one contributor to the greatness of the United States. We understand that we have been given much in this land of opportunity, and we have been generous in our willingness to share that bounty.

Another contributor is that in spite of the fact that we have failed miserably throughout our history to live up to our ideals to treat each person with dignity, respect, and equity, the laws of this land still offer the greatest hope to combat the harmful effects of prejudice, discrimination, racism, and every other form of “ism.”

These attributes as well as others that contribute to America’s greatness also make responding to the immigration challenge that much more complex. Many are uncomfortable with proposals such as building longer and higher border fences and/or increasing illegal immigration raids because they are contrary to America’s “spirit of hospitality.”

Yet, this quiet, compassionate “spirit of hospitality”: voice is being drowned out with the deafening shouting words, “We must adhere to the ‘rule of law’.” It has left good and honest United States citizens in a quandary as they question if there is any possible way to reconcile these two conflicting voices. I would argue that not only can the two be reconciled, but they must be if America is to retain its greatness.

For this reconciliation to occur, there are some facts we must understand about the “rule of law.” First, “rule of law” is a principle that subjects the actions of both the government and the citizens to the law. Second, abiding by a “rule of law” prevents the “rule of men” which can lead to tyranny and abuse of power because of capricious whims.

Yet, an understanding of the “rule of law” is not sufficient. It must also be understood that law and justice are not synonyms. Although Abraham Lincoln was a staunch believer in the “rule of law,” it was he who also believed and taught aspiring lawyers that circumstances rather than the letter of the law should dictate the judgments of a case. He expressed this sentiment with the words, “I have always found that mercy bears richer fruits than strict justice.”

While law gives a society a set of important laws or rules to which to govern itself, equity and fairness allows for the subjective but necessary qualities of mercy and tolerance. One without the other is inadequate if justice is to occur. The scale of law and mercy must be balanced.

As we go forth to retain America’s greatness as we resolve the immigration issue, it would behoove all of to remember and employ the words Shakespeare uses in the Merchant of Venice, “And earthly power doth then show likest God’s when mercy seasons justice.”