Rule of Law 3

This will be the last post on this topic, at least for now.

First, there were a few more amazing essays in the Lapham's spring edition called Rule of Law.  One was by Joan Cocks, professor emeritus at Mount Holyoke College, called Immune From the Law? and the second by Ralph Nadar called Land of the Lawless. 

Cocks essay discusses various outlying organizations that reject the most basic understanding of our society and the rules which have been established by society, which admittedly, attempt to balance the level of individual freedoms with the need for laws that limit such freedom.  She details a few of these organizations using history to describe other times when tectonic shifts in society created an environment that produced philosophies and reactions similar to that which we are seeing today in light of the growing fear of globalization.  As I read my summary, I realize I am not giving her essay true justice, but found it extremely fascinating and helpful in understanding the wave of nationalism (populism) that exists in the world today.

Nadar's essay focuses on what I can only label as a rebuke to the belief that America operates under "the rule of law" and that "nobody is above it".  Again, an enlightening piece, notwithstanding the possible scenario should Robert Mueller subpoena President Trump.  Nadar delves into many examples of how the rule of law is skewed most severely to benefit those with resources which the average person does not have access to, resulting in laws that do more harm than good, if good is measured as the most benefit for the most people. 

As a connection to this essays, and perhaps, a way to illustrate how the points made by these two thinkers can be linked to current events, I did some research on illegal immigration.

First, are you aware that President Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)?  And, that this law, among other things, required employers to attest to their employees immigration status, made it illegal to hire and recruit illegal immigrants as workers, legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants, and (hold on to your hats) granted amnesty to about 4 million illegal immigrants who had entered America before 1982, lived continuously in America since then, had committed no crimes, admitted their guilt of illegal entry, paid a fine, and possessed a minimal understanding of English and American history, etc.  Then, as a follow up to address the children of said illegal immigrants, signed an executive order in 1987 legalizing children whose parents qualified under IRCA, thereby creating a blanket deferral of deportation for these children.

The law was intended to address the illegal immigration problem by focusing on one of the main reasons people were entering America - jobs - with some of the onus placed on the employers who, it was thought, would significantly help stem the tide of illegal immigration if they stopped hiring the immigrants.

That law is still on the books.  It is still illegal to hire an undocumented worker, or help an undocumented worker obtain false identities so as to obtain work.  And, since then, E-Verify has been created, which is an internet-based system that compares information entered by an employer from an employee's Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, to records available to the US Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to confirm employment.

Unfortunately, the law is unequally enforced.  The recent images which were splashed all over the media, while embarrassing the president to back off the separation of children from their parents did not change his belief in a zero tolerance immigration policy.  After all, those people were breaking the laws his supporters are all too eager to note.

But what about the employers who are hiring undocumented workers?  Most estimates put the number of illegal immigrants working in our country at 8 million individuals.  How many of those employers are in jail today, separated from their children?  Where is the zero tolerance policy on them?

You see, the law was not meant to punish employers.  There were some years under Bush (1) that an aggressive approach to identify businesses was employed, but the simple fact was that some industries are dependent on employees who will work long hours for low pay and no benefits.  And, of course, some of those industries have friends in Congress so the actual working of the law only requires a "good faith effort" by employers.   If someone produces a SS card and driver's license and is willing to work 12 hour days in the blazing heat or close quarters of a meat processing plant, the employer can quite easily avoid the  responsibility of checking the employee's eligibility to work by blaming the employee who presented false documents, especially since there has been no federal law passed to make E-Verify mandatory. 

President Trump does support E-Verify, and has indicated he would sign a bill making it mandatory.  Such bills have passed through committee, but as far as I can tell, have never received a floor vote.  Democrats have resisted its passage without addressing a path to citizenship for those who have lived and worked productively in America for multiple years, without criminal activity, and those children who were brought to America illegally by their parents.  Similar to the handling of illegal immigrants by President Reagan and Congress in 1986.  I am not sure why some GOP representatives do not support it, but could conclude that their votes are effected by campaign donations from industries that depend on undocumented workers to turn a profit.  Or perhaps they represent the constituents in the states whose economy is more dependent on undocumented workers.

Why our elected officials can't do both, help stem the tide of illegal immigrants by removing one of their main reasons for entering illegally, while also establishing a path to citizenship for those who have proven themselves to be productive law abiding people since their arrival, speaks to the essays mentioned above.  The fact is, there is a small but vocal minority of Americans who wish our country to be white again, and resist granting citizenship to so many brown skinned people, while there is even a smaller but far more powerful group of people who have lined their pockets via the sweat and blood of workers who allow them to avoid paying certain taxes (or worse, collect the taxes from the workers but don't turn them in), that there are far too many Americans who seek simple answers to complicated questions, and too many politicians, who are more concerned with getting re-elected, or making pretty speeches, than they are with actually solving the immigration problem.  And, sadly, that a partisanship wall has polarized our country into an us vs them mentality.  It is as if cooperation has become a bad word.

So, employers are generally immune from the law while undocumented workers and illegal immigrants are treated with zero tolerance.  Our President calls for cooperation from the Democrats while demonizing them personally, and ridiculing them at every turn for their past efforts.  And, those with the most continue to reap the benefits of our great country as demonstrated by the recent tax reform effort and the ongoing attacks on programs that help the least fortunate.

Certainly, justice has never been blind, and perhaps will never be as long as humans are in charge of the system which determines right and wrong.  And, if my choices are having a system of rules and laws that are followed by most people, at least most everyday people, rather than no system, then I choose the former.  Thankfully, we have people who will continue to remind us that the Rule of Law is a concept that requires fairness in the creation and execution of the laws which encompass it, and that we need to be always on guard when our body of laws tilts too far in one direction or, worse, viewed as a method of controlling the populace while rewarding those in power.