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.

Originally published in the November 16, 2003 issue of the Alamance Independent

REASON

November 17, 2003

There was an article "Re-Propping 187: California's controversial 1994 measure makes a comeback" published in August 14, 2003, issue of "Reason" (see [1]), by its associate editor, Matt Welch, insinuating that the main objective of Proposition 187, baring the State of California from providing free public services to illegal aliens, is inconsistent with societal efforts to keep California's youth from gangs, drugs, violence, and crime. The author, apparently unimpressed with others' efforts to counter the so-called "reconquista" of American Southwest by Mexicans and their descendants, quoted then-candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger saying:

(a) "The most likely time for kids to get into trouble with sex, drugs and violence is between 3 and 4 in the afternoon. [C]rime dropped two-thirds in high-risk California communities when kids participated in after-school programs. Which shows you that helping kids fill that after-school time by focusing on positive activities really works!"

and contradicted these statements with the following synopsis of Schwarzenegger's past support of Proposition 187:

(b) "Yet just nine years ago, the man who may be California's next babysitter-in-chief was happy to kick tens of thousands of children out of schools altogether, initiate deportation proceedings on their parents and guardians (even when the kids were perfectly legal citizens), and block a significant number of toddlers from receiving things like measles shots."

The fallacy of this superficially sound argument wouldn't be worth of a column, after all, so many post-modern moral relativists are at odds with common sense and logic, not to mention the "open border" and "illegal alien driver's license" crowd, if it weren't from the fact that the name of the magazine, "Reason", strongly suggests at least above average rationality of the commentaries published under its auspices. Indeed, there is no inconsistency between calls to fund after-school programs that would turn troubled youngsters away from crime and, at the same time, to deny paying for the illegal aliens' participation in such programs. Those illegals who are more interested in learning English, math, and useful skills than in gangs and drugs don't need any programs to keep them on the right side of the law; those who are not don't belong here. Period.

We, the citizens of the U.S., are parties of the social contract that, under certain circumstances, makes us responsible for providing for our fellow citizens in need, but there is no contract that would extend our responsibility over aliens, particularly, the illegal ones. If an American citizen happens to be an actual or prospective lawbreaker, bad luck for us; we are stuck with him/her for life and it's our problem to make a law abiding member of the society out of him/her. But if an alien breaks the law of the land, or is planning on doing so, there is no good reason for American citizens to assume costly, and often risky, responsibility to rehabilitate such a person. In ideal world, the only logical and the most economical solution would be to deport all the alien lawbreakers (which term, by the definition, include most, if not all, illegal aliens) to their countries of origin each and every time we are given a chance of doing so, assuming that we don't want criminals and gangsters in our society. In our currently imperfect world, the least we can do is to not assist those aliens who show a lack of respect for the law, and an inclination to crime and violence, with their staying and prospering in this country. Even though several law enforcement agencies look the other way when they come across an illegal alien, which is equally reprehensible as it is common, as soon as there is any doubt about subject's commitment to the law and order they should unconditionally assume the "zero tolerance" approach and turn the sucker to the INS. This straight and perfectly lawful measure would make us all safer, our freedoms more secure, and our taxes lower.

We are doing a big favor to all foreigners whom we let visit our country. We are doing even greater favor to all "undocumented" guests by occasionally not enforcing our deportation laws. Those wishing to obtain an immigrant visa have to demonstrate that they are not likely to become a burden or a danger for our society before they are let into America. So, it would be completely irrational if we did not deport at least those illegal aliens who appear to belong to that troubled category and offered them public assistance, instead. "Reason" and its editorial board may wish to take a note of it.

NOTE

For those not particularly familiar with logic, here is an informal explanation of the term "inconsistent". Two statements, say, p and q, are inconsistent if, and only if, under no circumstances both p and q are true at the same place and time. For instance, the statements: "Today is Sunday" and "Today is a business day" are inconsistent, because no matter what day is today, it's either not Sunday or not a business day (or neither Sunday nor a business day). In particular, to show that two statements are not inconsistent (or, in other words, that they are consistent) it suffices to find possible scenario under which both statements are undeniably true. For instance, the statements "Today is Wednesday" and "Today is a holiday" are consistent because if they are made on January 1, 2002, they are both true. It follows that there is no inconsistency between (a) and (b) above.

REFERENCES

[1] "Re-Propping 187: California's controversial 1994 measure makes a comeback"
     By Matt Welch
     Reason

Mark Andrew Dwyer's past columns posted at American Patrol can be found here

|  | | |