[home]


When We Abandon the Law. . .

Scripps-Howard News Service 11.27.01
Balint Vazsonyi

We are in the middle of a national tizzy about the president's decision to jail aliens and apply military justice to terrorists when the Nation's defense is best served thus. William Safire (The New York Times, Nov. 15) went as far as to accuse George W. Bush of seizing dictatorial powers. Pros and cons fill the media, and it is only a matter of time before the A.C.L.U. declares war on the president along a broad front.

An excellent discussion of rationale, precedents, and reasonable safeguards has been provided by Catholic University's Douglas W. Kmiec in the Wall Street Journal, also on November 15.

Yet, as usual these days, all discussions are about symptoms with no reference to the cause. George W. Bush is responding to an acute crisis, brought about by decades of chronic neglect of our national health.

No bona fide American can be happy at the prospect of even the slightest dent being permitted to disfigure our legal system. But where have they been all these years? Our laws, and their reasonable application, have fallen into disuse to an extent that defies human reason.

Based on possibly well-meant but nonetheless ludicrous political views, alternately labeled "Liberal," "compassionate," or "inclusive," a demographic assault upon these United States has been allowed to proceed unchallenged.

Contrary to the battle cries of the Multicultural establishment, the issue has nothing to do with the continent from which immigrants arrive. In other words, the damage sustained has not been caused by the expansion of the immigrant pool beyond traditional, mostly European, places of origin.

The damage has been sustained because of the number of immigrants admitted within a given period, the individuals selected, and the manner in which newcomers have been encouraged to conduct themselves over here.

The vast numbers have made it simply impossible for immigrants to be absorbed gradually, the way they used to be when the frequency of new arrivals was controlled by reasonable laws and officials.

Individuals selected no longer are required to be of good health, of good character, of good intentions, or to possess the basic ability to build a life in America.

Once over here - unlike the pre1965-days - no one is responsible for their sustenance, and newcomers are no longer required to study, comprehend, and adopt the ways of America. Indeed, they are encouraged to rely on the state, and to build ever-larger communities in which the way of life they had chosen to reject in favor of a new one in America is reconstructed - language, customs, appalling political and absent legal traditions all included.

And this is just the damage inflicted by laws passed to satisfy political agendas that run counter to the interest of the United States.

There is no intention to observe the law, even for appearance's sake. As everyone knows, our borders have been open to all and sundry. We even corrupted our language by renaming illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants."


As we abandoned our laws and their reasonable application, so our woes multiplied. 19 men caused the horrible death of six thousand, and material damage we may not ever be able to quantify. None of the 19 should have set foot in this country. Bad laws and their negligent application, acting in concert with political agendas unsympathetic to the interest and security of this country, enabled them to be here, learn to fly the latest passenger aircraft, and board the flights we shall never forget.

Because all 19 were of the same cloth, potentially innocent millions are under suspicion, no matter how many times we state the opposite.

"Innocent until proven guilty" has been among the primary assets of this nation from the beginning. All the U-boats of the Third Reich, all the ICBMs of the Soviet Union proved powerless against that asset.

But now, our president believes he has to make concessions because the risk to the nation has become too great. We might not be able to afford traditional trials by jury - a crown jewel of the English-speaking world since King Henry II introduced the concept around the year 1172!

The tragedy is, the president may have a point under the prevailing circumstances. We may have to pay this bitter price because we had abandoned our laws and their reasonable application. Right now, we may not have another option.

Beware! This path leads downward. Each step away from the strict rule of law brings on the next step in the same direction. We can still take stock and recommit ourselves to the rule of law. One way or the other, there is now a price to pay.

But if our choice is to abandon the law, let no one be surprised if, before long, the law will abandon us.