Response to Lavelle
Let’s put the politically correct aside and look at the real facts. Why are people Republicans or conservatives? Take SMU for example, the day the gay community had the event where it wore shirts with labels, I overheard many conversations about “whacko liberals” and how they thought SMU was a “conservative school.” There are exceptions of course, but it is very hard not to say that the Republican Party and its base are mostly white, Christian, oppose homosexuality and happen to be the primary group that racist groups side with. Same reasoning applies to Democrats. Accept it for what it is. The group you choose to be with represents to some extent your views and opinions on different subjects.
On the topic of intellectual consistency, I do not think that your intellectual capacity is involved with laws at all. In fact, I believe that being intellectually consistent and sound is solely based on the way we face and examine our attitudes about the events around us. Laws are put in place in order to keep civil order, protect human rights and prohibit actions that could be deemed as dangerous to others or to oneself. In America, human values and life are highly regardless of what party you support. The basic principle of being able to pursue happiness was the ultimate goal of the forefathers of this nation, to create a nation where the civil liberties, opportunities and involvement in governmental affairs far surpassed any other nation’s governmental structure. Laws are not meant to be broken, that is true, but they are also not carved in stone.
The current immigration debate is far deeper that some of our intellectual critics seem to perceive. Intellectual consistency is slightly applicable to laws but in my opinion is very important to morals and human values. As I type, there are soldiers all over the world dying to protect another person’s rights to live and prosper. The war in Iraq, for example, is a war supposedly based solely on the pure and sincere intentions of giving those people freedom, opportunity and a better quality of life. We are sending soldiers from our own country, in a way sacrificing them, in order to preserve the well being of another group of people. Why should that not apply within our borders? If “intellectual consistency” is so important, why are we so concerned of the welfare of people across the globe while some choose to ignore the trauma and sacrifices that illegal immigrants face here in the United States? I firmly believe that “intellectual consistency” on human rights and values far surpasses consistency in laws.
The quote by Harry Reid I find highly offensive. It is my experience that most illegal immigrants are NOT “freeloaders” and “scam artists.” They come here to work and to support their families. I value a human life more than money. It appears that the primary concern with many conservatives over illegal immigration is money. Wouldn’t the legalization of illegal immigrants inject a major financial boost to the economy? They would pay taxes, wouldn’t they? Regardless if it helps the economy or not, I find it depressing that in a country where Christianity and the value of life are so highly regarded, some cannot see past the monetary gains. Laws change over time in order to adapt to the changing times. If Mr. Lavelle can tell me of any law that has been in the books without being changed or modified (aside from the obvious such as murder), I would sadly give up my case for illegal immigration. If the laws put in place are meant to be consistent until the end of time, I should be drinking from a different water fountain labeled “brown” or even worse, I would not be typing this in a college dorm right now.
Daniel Olivares is a first-year mechanical engineering major. He may be reached at [email protected].
