 |
| The opinions expressed in guest columns posted on this site do not necessarily reflect the opinions of AmericanPatrol.com. Visit the Alamance Independent to read Mark Andrew Dwyer's weekly column posted every Sunday. -- Click here for more Mark Andrew Dwyer columns. -- Please, send your comments to readerswrite@yahoo.com |
Originally published in the December 19, 2004 issue of the Alamance Independent
INVADERS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
By Mark Andrew Dwyer -- December 22, 2004
Day laborers (a.k.a. illegal aliens) in Farmingville, NY, exercise their 1st Amendment rights - [Image Courtesy of DayLaborers.org] Here is a classic example that demonstrates how a skillful manipulation of words' meanings allows one to draw absurd conclusions from known facts using superficially logical, albeit flawed, argument.
Imagine you own a dog that just gave birth to cubs. So, she is your dog. But she is also a mother (of her cubs); therefore, she is your mother. But being a female dog, she is a bitch. So, your mother is a bitch. Hence, you are a son of a bitch. (The trick here is based on switching between two different meanings of word "your" indicating something that is your property or a person that is your relative.)
The above is but one of many fallacies that have been long known to and avoided by those who are well versed in logical reasoning. Unfortunately, some judges and lawyers seem to be unaware of this kind of traps, or otherwise unable to comprehend subtleties of logical reasoning, and naively use similarly flawed arguments in order to arrive at conclusions that defy logic and common sense. Here is a recent example.
Per L.A. Times (see [1]), "a [U.S.] judge [Consuelo B. Marshall] issued an injunction Monday [December 10, 2004] against Redondo Beach [Calif.], preventing authorities from using traffic enforcement laws to arrest day laborers [a.k.a. illegal aliens] who solicit work on public sidewalks." According to L.A. Times, the judge said that "there are serious questions" as to whether Redondo Beach's restrictions are "constitutional on its face and as applied to day laborers under the 1st Amendment."
Illegal aliens have 1st Amendment rights that prevent police from arresting them? What a nonsense! What if an alien army invades the U.S. without firing a single shot (which is not a very distant possibility taking into account President Bush's stubborn reluctance to defend the American border)? Would judge Consuelo grant them the 4th Amendment right against "unreasonable searches" except "upon probable cause"? Would he honor their 2nd Amendment right "to keep and bear arms"? What about their other 1st Amendment rights, like the right to wear a military uniform (of a foreign country) or to free association (into a foreign army)? Would he extend to each soldier of that army a 6th Amendment right to a court trial (or, at least, to a hearing by an immigration judge) before the invasion can be repealed? As absurd as it seems, judge Consuelo might be tempted to argue that all the above are logical (or, at least, plausible) conclusions of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Here is some more of this kind of fallacy.
As reported by Sierra Vista Herald (see [2]), an American lawyer Jesús R. Romo Véjar keeps filing lawsuits against Cochise County, Ariz., rancher Roger Barnett for the latter's infringements of trespassers' rights (most of them illegal aliens) to free travel through his ranch.
Per Arizona Daily Star (see [3]), "a [U.S.] judge in Tucson blocked the state [of Arizona] Tuesday from enforcing Proposition 200 [that prevents illegal aliens from voting and from collecting public benefits], at least for the next three weeks [...] after concluding that lawyers hired by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund raised "serious questions" about the measure's legality."
"It seems likely [the judge said] that if Proposition 200 were to become law, it would have a dramatic chilling effect upon undocumented aliens who would otherwise be eligible for public benefits under federal law." (Is this because some illegal aliens pay taxes so they should be automatically eligible to vote according to the "No taxation without representation" principle?)
Another source (see [4]) reports that "a unanimous three-judge panel overturned a rule in which illegal aliens who were previously deported and found again in this country could summarily be shipped back to their homeland. Instead, they are entitled to go before an immigration judge." (This, I guess, should also apply to soldiers of the defeated alien army that would try to re-invade us again.)
And the list goes on and on and on.
The obviously fallacious reasoning behind the above absurd examples may be well hidden behind superficially logical arguments and notorious for its ambiguity legal language. (As to the U.S. Constitution, no one ever called it a marvel of clarity.) But the main flaw in this reasoning has a striking similarity to the fallacy quoted at the beginning of this article. The meaning of "the People of the United States" at the time of signing of the Constitution on September 17, 1787, was quite different from the meaning of the same phrase after the constitution has been duly ratified, and for this simple reason: before the ratification took place there were no citizens of the United States (neither the Declaration of Independence nor The Articles of Confederation mention them) but "the good People of these Colonies", "persons", and "men", that is, the residents of the U.S. only. Although after the Constitution was ratified "the People of the United States" gradually became U.S. citizens, it wasn't until 14th Amendment became a law on July 9, 1868, when the notion of citizenship was properly defined. Taking into account this 90 year long chronology, it's inconceivable how a reasonable person, never mind a U.S. judge, a doctor of law, or a constitutional scholar, might insist that "the People of the United States" (also referred to as "the People") refers to everybody who legally or otherwise managed to put his foot on American soil, as it did in 1787, and not to the U.S. citizens as it did later on, and does now. After all, those to whom "the People of the United States" clause of the U.S. Constitution referred to all died long time ago.
America is not an abstract concept, nor is it a "proposition nation", in which to experiment with flawed reasoning and risky argument. It is a home of some quarter billion people whose lives and well being depend on her sovereignty and security from would-be intruders. The laws of American land, including the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were created for a specific purpose: to protect this nation and to secure its liberty and prosperity. They were supposed to benefit Americans and not to make it easier for all others to grab a piece of our land, our wealth, and our might. And although all men were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, like life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, no legally binding document entitles them to pursue these on the U.S. territory, unless they are U.S. citizens or were lawfully admitted to this country. We may extend, as a courtesy, some of the rights of the People of the United States on legal immigrants and invited guests, but delegating these rights to intruders, however peaceful, hard working, and needy they might be, is an idiotic idea that only a half-educated moron or cosmopolitan deconstructionist can come up with.
Our judges and lawyers may need to be reminded of this. After all, they are here for our convenience and not for the convenience of the intruders.
[2] Plaintiffs discuss suit against rancher
http://svherald.com/articles/2004/11/30/local_news/news1.txt[4] Prior Deportees Get Hearing, 9th Circuit Says
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1100535366414
| 
| 
| 
| 
