On August 7 the Star ran three columns authored by members of Congress -- Sen. John McCain, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick and Rep. Martha McSally, and an editorial by a correspondent for the Miami Herald, all of which addressed the issue of federal immigration policy.
While I thought all the authors had some good points, I fail to see the mention of one issue that in my mind is critical. One of the core beliefs upon which the United States is based is the rule of law. In our civil society the law does not change on whim or due to the characteristics of the persons to whom it is applied (we are not perfect, but we strive for that.) We have a court system to adjudicate disputes peacefully. Thus all of us know there is a body of law which we should abide by and upon which we can rely.
The discussion of federal immigration policy often centers on issues of compassion and economics. But at the same time we discuss improving immigration law, which is needed, we should not ignore the fact that some immigrants used the legal path, while others did not. We need a policy which make the U.S. government, the people it represents, the determinants of who enters as an immigrant, not the immigrants themselves. (I note Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick acknowledges the "rule of law" in the context of post-reform legalization law, but not otherwise.)
I hope that our leaders give the rule of law consideration, along with family and labor issues, and create a legal system which can last for a good period of time. Solving the immediate problems alone will not necessarily achieve that.
Jim Greene
Oro Valley
