What if the federal government passed a
law changing the speed limit on all interstate highways to 25 miles-per-hour? How fast would you drive?
If you had to drive to Little Rock for a 10:00 a.m. meeting, would you follow the law,
leaving at 2:45 a.m., budgeting the extra time for the 7+ hour trip?
Would you invest in a radar detector or CB radio so that you could evade law enforcement?
If you saw everyone else traveling at 70, would you scrupulously observe the posted speed
and crawl along at 25, or would you join in the caravan? If a car with a scanner in the window passed by
and signaled you to follow, would you let him be your rabbit and clear the way for you?
What if people were flaunting the 25 mph limits and wantonly driving 70? Would
you call for more enforcement? If the State Police couldn't catch all the speeders, how would you feel
about deputizing every constable and cop in every sleepy town along I-40 and charge them with authority to get the traffic
under control? If the feds and the big boys can't maintain the laws, let the locals do it.
Would it make more sense to you to build speed bumps? Would you support
the construction of speed bumps every 100 feet to force people to stay at 25? A real good physical barrier
might stop the speeders.
And what should we do with those illegals who break
the law? How much should the fine be for, say 55 miles-per-hour? That's 25 miles
an hour over, double the speed limit. Would you regard that as comparable to 95 in a 70 zone, or 140 in
a 70 zone?
What about truckers? Should
we fine trucking companies who employ illegal speeders?
Should speeders
be pulled over and taken into custody? Should they be retained until they face a hearing to determine what
sanctions they should face?
Maybe fines aren't
enough. Should someone going considerably over the speed limit lose their license? What
about someone traveling 75 miles per hour? How would you feel if they faced jail time? Or
maybe had their license revoked? ...permanently? If they are traveling on business,
shouldn't their employer be punished?
If hundreds or thousands of drivers
ignore or flaunt the law, what should we do about those illegals? After all, it's the law.
They've broken the law.
Or would you say, it's a stupid law!
Change it. It's ridiculous for automobiles to travel 25 miles per hour on a four-lane interstate
highway. It's unreasonable and bad for the economy. Businesses depend upon the commerce
of getting products from place to place efficiently. Wouldn't you call for the federal government to
change the speed limits to something more reasonable? Wouldn't you resist local efforts to enforce
that stupid law, at least for those of us in Arkansas driving across I-40?
We've
got a comparable situation with our federal immigration policies. Our immigration policy grants about 5,000
legal visas annually for laborers from Latin America while our economy successfully absorbs about 300,000 workers a year.
Immigrating legally takes about 10 years, sometimes 22 years. This system is as dysfunctional as
a 25 mile-per-hour interstate speed limit.
Yet outraged Americans are crying
out for enforcement -- enforcement of a bad law. Throw the illegals in jail, they say; deport millions,
let the locals do the feds' job, fine the employers, jail the employers, build a fence. Underneath
much of the rhetoric is more than a little racism.
Bankers in Oklahoma are
saying that their state's recent "get tough" law may cost that state $1.8 to $3 billion in lost revenue.
The Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation reports that immigrants bring $3 billion a year to Arkansas and pay more in taxes
than they use in services. (Yes, illegal immigrants have taxes withheld even though they won't be able
to claim their social security benefits.)
Don't try to enforce bad laws.
Demand that the federal government change the immigration laws and policies.
The Executive Council of the Episcopal Church has said that good immigration laws should
do four things: (1) permit the orderly entry of legal workers to the US to respond to recognized labor
force needs; (2) ensure that close family members be allowed to enter or be reunited with individuals legally entering the
US to accept employment; (3) permit undocumented migrants residing in the US at the time of the enactment of legislation to
pursue legal residence and eventual citizenship if they are employed or responding to an offer of employment; and (4) ensure
that migrants working legally in the US be granted the rights and benefits accorded US workers, including the right to change
employment.
Give people who want to work a reasonable route to immigrate legally,
and they will follow the law. But trying to enforce our current 25 miles-per-hour immigration policies
is folly, unjust and doomed to failure.
__________________
P.S. A couple
of letters to the editor referenced Luke 22:35-38 as a critique to my previous column "Who would Jesus shoot?"
They didn't finish Luke's paragraph. The purpose of the swords was that a scripture from
Isaiah 53:12 might be fulfilled about Jesus: "And he was counted among the lawless."
When the disciples produced two swords, Jesus replied, "It is enough." The presence of
the two swords would be enough to justify Jesus' being counted among the lawless. Later in Luke's
account, as I pointed out, when one of Jesus' followers used one of those swords in defense of him, Jesus rebuked him,
saying "No more of this!" and healed the injured party.
There
may be compelling rational, secular and ethical arguments for individuals using guns, but please do not do so in Jesus'
name.
