The Most Basic Underpinning
When teaching government classes at the community college where I serve as an Adjunct Instructor, one of the first discussions I have with my students at the beginning of the semester has to do with the unique level of success that the United States has enjoyed with regard to its democratic form of government. Why is it that America’s government and society has enjoyed so much more stability over time than many other nations’ attempts at various forms of democratic self-rule?
The answer that is hashed out in the course of the discussion invariably comes down to the fact that Americans play by the rules – voluntarily. It is the difference between George H.W. Bush and Manuel Noriega when each lost a presidential election in his respective country. It is the difference between the citizen who doesn’t steal the loaf of bread by the shop door because it would be wrong, and the one who does steal it because he can.
It’s not that coercive enforcement of the laws is not a factor, mind you. Obviously there are many thousands of men and women across the nation who serve honorably in various vital law-enforcement roles. But the success and stability of American culture has been attributable in large part to the fact that regard for the laws by coercion has not been the primary means of enforcement of the rules. The primary means has been for citizens and inhabitants to enforce the rules upon themselves.
And this “self-policing” in which good citizens engage is borne of that most basic underpinning of American culture: a respect for the rule of law. In other words, a recognition that in America the law rules. Americans, by and large, can be expected to abide by the established laws – even those they find silly or inconvenient – because they respect the law for the law’s sake. They recognize the self-evident truth that compliance with only those laws one likes, while refusing to comply with the one he dislikes, demonstrates a disrespect for all the laws. That is the difference between complying with a law because it is the law, and complying with the law because it meets your approval. The former is conducive to the rule of law, in which all men are equal. The latter leads to the tyrannical rule of men in which the strong can impose their will upon the week.
This is what I think of when I read about the huge demonstrations taking place across the country in response to legislation being considered by Congress that would toughen the laws against illegal immigration. Who among the nation’s founders would have ever dreamed that so many people who acknowledge their willful violation of the nation’s laws would be emboldened enough to take to the streets and demand that their lack of respect for the law be not punished, but rather rewarded and praised?
Apart from any economic and national security (as pertains to the ongoing war on terror) arguments against the rather flippant attitude of our government toward the illegal immigration issue, I am concerned about the implications that the de facto institutional acceptance – illegals can receive many benefits distributed by the government – of certain criminal acts has for the future stability of the United States.
Perhaps the single most vital component of assimilating new arrivals into American culture is requiring a respect for the rule of law within America’s borders. But what message are we sending out in this regard when the first thing that eleven-million current inhabitants of the United States did in coming here was to break the law – and then get rewarded for being successful at it?
It’s not that I’m against immigrants coming to our nation. Frankly, I’m a big fan of those folks who come here in accordance with the law so that they can try to build a good life for themselves here. I sincerely root for their success and applaud them when they are successful. But, again, these are people who first demonstrated a respect for the laws of the land in which they wanted to live. Many of these people recognize, as do I, that the culture being cultivated by the current attitudes toward America’s immigration laws is one that will eventually, and ironically, lead to an America that is no longer attractive to people from other nations.
The answer that is hashed out in the course of the discussion invariably comes down to the fact that Americans play by the rules – voluntarily. It is the difference between George H.W. Bush and Manuel Noriega when each lost a presidential election in his respective country. It is the difference between the citizen who doesn’t steal the loaf of bread by the shop door because it would be wrong, and the one who does steal it because he can.
It’s not that coercive enforcement of the laws is not a factor, mind you. Obviously there are many thousands of men and women across the nation who serve honorably in various vital law-enforcement roles. But the success and stability of American culture has been attributable in large part to the fact that regard for the laws by coercion has not been the primary means of enforcement of the rules. The primary means has been for citizens and inhabitants to enforce the rules upon themselves.
And this “self-policing” in which good citizens engage is borne of that most basic underpinning of American culture: a respect for the rule of law. In other words, a recognition that in America the law rules. Americans, by and large, can be expected to abide by the established laws – even those they find silly or inconvenient – because they respect the law for the law’s sake. They recognize the self-evident truth that compliance with only those laws one likes, while refusing to comply with the one he dislikes, demonstrates a disrespect for all the laws. That is the difference between complying with a law because it is the law, and complying with the law because it meets your approval. The former is conducive to the rule of law, in which all men are equal. The latter leads to the tyrannical rule of men in which the strong can impose their will upon the week.
This is what I think of when I read about the huge demonstrations taking place across the country in response to legislation being considered by Congress that would toughen the laws against illegal immigration. Who among the nation’s founders would have ever dreamed that so many people who acknowledge their willful violation of the nation’s laws would be emboldened enough to take to the streets and demand that their lack of respect for the law be not punished, but rather rewarded and praised?
Apart from any economic and national security (as pertains to the ongoing war on terror) arguments against the rather flippant attitude of our government toward the illegal immigration issue, I am concerned about the implications that the de facto institutional acceptance – illegals can receive many benefits distributed by the government – of certain criminal acts has for the future stability of the United States.
Perhaps the single most vital component of assimilating new arrivals into American culture is requiring a respect for the rule of law within America’s borders. But what message are we sending out in this regard when the first thing that eleven-million current inhabitants of the United States did in coming here was to break the law – and then get rewarded for being successful at it?
It’s not that I’m against immigrants coming to our nation. Frankly, I’m a big fan of those folks who come here in accordance with the law so that they can try to build a good life for themselves here. I sincerely root for their success and applaud them when they are successful. But, again, these are people who first demonstrated a respect for the laws of the land in which they wanted to live. Many of these people recognize, as do I, that the culture being cultivated by the current attitudes toward America’s immigration laws is one that will eventually, and ironically, lead to an America that is no longer attractive to people from other nations.
posted by JeffreyH | 12:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home