Thursday, June 15, 2006

When I was teaching school, I operated under a strict point system grading only on the basis of test scores.  I did not have quizzes, extra credit, homework, or credit for class discussion.  If I had six tests in a grading period with each test worth 100 points, an A was 540 points to 600 points, a B was 480 points to 539 points, a C was 420 points to 479 points, a D was 360 points to 419 points, and an F was anything below 360 points.  I told this to the students at the beginning of the semester in writing and verbally and also said there would be no exceptions.

One semester a student received 479 points and as I said I would, I gave him a C.  He took exception to my grade.  He thought he should have received a B since he was only one point away from a B and thought he participated well in class discussion.  I said a C is a C is a C and his class participation was irrelevant.  When he couldn’t convince me to change his grade, he wrote a complaining letter to the school’s newspaper.  If he went to the administration, I never heard about it.  His C remained a C.

Why do I bring this up?  I thought about this last night in relation to the Senate’s immigration bill.  To refresh our memories:

“Highlights of immigration and border security bills passed by the Senate:

  • Allows illegal immigrants who have been in the country five years or more to remain, continue working and eventually become legal permanent residents and citizens after paying at least $3,250 in fines and fees and back taxes and learning English.

  • Requires illegal immigrants in the U.S. between two and five years to go to a point of entry at the border and file an application to return.

  • Requires those in the country less than two years to leave.” (Peoria Journal Star, May 26, 2006, page A10)

Of course, the above is only a summary of the proposed law.  The actual content of the bill is much more complicated, complex, and complete.  As I have already quoted in an earlier post, some critics believe this proposal is unworkable, allows for opportunities for massive fraud, and will greatly increase bureaucratic influence among other problems with the bill.

What happens when an illegal immigrant doesn’t quite meet the requirements in the bill to become an American citizen?  What if he is just days away from meeting the length of residency requirement?  Does he peaceably accept the requirements of the law or does he challenge those requirements?  We already know that by definition (illegal immigrant) he has violated United States legal requirements.  Why would he not do it again?

Perhaps he will march down to the local ACLU office.  He will complain to the ACLU that the laws are not valid because he does not have an opportunity to benefit from them.  He convinces the ACLU that he is being abused by the system.  

The ACLU files a law suit claiming that the laws are arbitrary, capricious, vague, and discriminatory.  All terms that the ACLU loves to use to convince our libertine judges that Congress has once again passed a law that is unconstitutional under the United States Constitution.            

What happens in the courts is anyone’s guess.  Our courts have already required States to permit the murder of unborn babies, not prosecute individuals who are living a homosexual lifestyle, and remove symbols from public places that were deemed by the courts to be religious (Christian) in nature.  The courts could very well declare the law unconstitutional.  The courts may then decide that the Court should determine the requirements for citizenship for illegal immigrants.  It won’t be the first time that the courts have “written law” while determining the constitutionality of a Congressional law.  

Do we want the courts to determine the basis for citizenship in this country?  I don’t!      



Post a Comment

<< Home