USE OF "ILLEGAL ALIENS" PHRASE DISCOURAGED
by Leo E. Laurence, J.D.; Member: San Diego "Pro" Chapter; Member: National Committee on Diversity
We have the good fortune is live in a democracy and in a free society. But, there are duties, responsibilties and costs associated with life in these United States.
Among the "duties" are the obligations to (1) to vote, (2) to serve on a jury, (3) to pay our taxes, and (3) to obey the law.
There are no exceptions to the duty to obey all laws. Our state and federal Constitutions apply to everyone, including those without citizenship documentation, those whom some would angrily call illegal aliens.
In an earlier blog, I wrote that journalists should avoid using the phrases "illegal aliens" or Illegal immigrants."
Both phrases are popularized by crusading politicans on the campaign trail and by the "minutemen" organization that focuses only on our border with Mexico, and not along the Canadian border.
The reason for my advice to journalists is that a fundimental rule in our criminal justice system that everyone is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law.
That legal doctrine is so basic to our legal system that even kindergarden kids know it.
But, in angry and sometimes insulting responses that I've received to my original blog (which expressed my personal opinion as a blogger based on the rule of law), some people had the absurb notion that our Constition protections apply only to citizens, and not those who are undocumented in this country.
In other words, in a strange twisting of legal logic, they argued that while the immigrations laws apply to undocumented individuals, our procedural laws do not. The law doesn't work that way, folks.
All our laws - including the procedural protections of presumed innocence until found guilty in court - apply equaly to everyone. That's why the statute of Lady Law is blindfolded.
A person is not ipso facto guilty of a crime just because somebody thinks they are a criminal. They become an unlawful, illegal criminal only after a conviction in court.
If some of those who sent me angry e-mails want to live in a legal system that does not include the constitutional protection of "innocent until proven guilty," then I suggest they move to a dictatorship that doesn't have our system of laws.
If anyone can pick and choose among those laws that they will obey - and ignore the presumption on innocence - then we will have anarchy in America.
Personally, I prefer democracy to anarchy.
_______________________
For comment, contact Leo E. Laurence, J.D. at leopowerhere@msn.com or (619) 757-4909