Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
Email: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
-Oregon Daily Emerald
Commentary
Editor in Chief:
Michael J. Kleckner
Managing Editor
Jessica Richelderfer
Editorial Page Assistant
Salena De La Cruz
Wednesday, May 7,2003
Editorial
Supreme Court
has lost faith
in U.S. judges
The Supreme Court’s April 29 decision that says legal
immigrants may be held without bail during deportation
proceedings should be setting off alarm bells with Amer
icans, although perhaps not for the obvious reason.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court found that a 1996 federal
immigration law — which made it mandatory for im
migration officials to incarcerate immigrants convict
ed of deportable crimes while awaiting deportation
proceedings — was constitutional because the gov
ernment had a legitimate interest in trying to deport
criminal immigrants.
There’s no reason to argue that point; the govern
ment obviously has such an interest (although it
could be argued, if all it takes to subvert due process
is an interest in reducing crime, why have any due
process for anyone in America?). And our concern
doesn’t stem from a bleeding heart for immigrants
who have committed crimes. The real problem with
this ruling is the scope of the law.
Judges are meant to judge. Increasingly in recent
years, however, laws have been taking that most impor
tant function away from the nation’s judges. This law
falls in that pattern, and the Supreme Court should
have overturned it.
Let’s say a legal permanent resident is convicted of
petty theft and could be subject to a deportation hear
ing. Under this law, the immigrant would have to be
put in jail until her case was resolved, even if she is
n’t a flight risk and she poses no threat to the commu
nity. Let’s also say she has a family, a house and a job.
Add in that the petty theft case was a non-malicious
mistake. She’s likely not to be deported, given that
she has a stellar employment record and her skills are
an asset to this country.
Americans commit low-level crimes all the time,
and no one suggests booting them from the country.
People make mistakes, and often they deserve a sec
ond chance.
Sometimes they don’t, however. Let’s say a different
immigrant is convicted of murder and has no family in
the United States. He’s held no skilled job since becom
ing a resident. He very likely will be deported, and he’s
likely a risk.
Under the 1996 law, neither immigrant will get a
hearing to determine if he or she actually is a flight risk
or a danger. Essentially, immigration officials are as
suming the outcome of the deportation hearing (kick
them both out!) without a trial, and no one gets to ar
gue about it.
More importantly, no one gets to judge whether in
carceration is the right decision in each of these cases.
That’s what judges do, and the Supreme Court should
have had more faith in America’s judges to do their job.
Editorial policy
This editorial represents the opinion of the
Emerald editorial board. Responses can be
sent to ietters@>daitye me rald.com. Letters
to the editor and guest commentaries are
encouraged. Letters are limited to 250 words
and guest commentaries to 550 words.
Authors are limited to one submission per
calendar month. Submission must include
phone number and address for verification.
The Emerald reserves the right to edit for
space, grammar and style.
Editorial board members
Michael J» Kleckner
Editor in chief
Salena De La Cruz
Editorial page assistant
Jessica Richelderfer
Managing editor
OJ Fuller
Columnist
Jenna Cunningham
Student representative
‘Choice’ activists ignore abortion problems
Guest commentary
I’m amused with people’s reactions to
the anti-abortion protesters that came
to our campus on April 30. Rachel Pil
liod’s apologies to students for having to
view “gruesome photos” and how “Stu
dents should try to ward (students) off
so they don’t have to see these things.”
Why? Are we afraid that people might
have to think about abortion as some
thing more than a “choice?” Is the pro
choice movement afraid that some one
might question the liberal orthodoxy of
“abortion rights?”
I know people don’t like to face harsh
truths and think about the controversial
issues of our society in terms that go be
yond ideological dogma, what television
told them and other forms of intellectual
laziness. Unfortunately for us, abortion,
like war, capital punishment, CIA opera
tions and other matters of life and death,
is a messy thing and is not a pleasant is
sue to talk about. It requires thinking,
philosophizing and other things the
masses (myself included) are unaccus
tomed to.
It took some “gruesome” pictures to
make people think about abortion, and
while I’m not “pro-life” myself, I think
this society could use a wake-up call to
the reality of abortion and stop swallow
ing everything the pro-choice media and
propagandists tell us.
I’m reminded of an ad looking for
submissions to a publication about
abortion, and only asking for “positive”
abortion experiences. Do we want to
pretend that negative abortion experi
ences don’t happen, that sometimes
women regret having them and some
times they experience psychological
trauma (despite what the pro-choice
medical industry says)?
Hopefully, we’re better than that. On
a side note, I’m wondering if people had
adverse reactions because it was pro
abortion activists that were holding up
huge photos.
I’m wondering what people would say
if I held up giant pictures of the rotting
corpses of El Salvador death squad vic
tims, Vietnamese peasants burnt by na
palm or children tom apart by cluster
bombs. Would Pilliod try to ward stu
dents away from those?
Lucas Szabo is a junior political science major.
Letter to the editor
‘Religious right/ not
Christians, are problem
Lucas Szabo describes my recent
letter defending the principle of aca
demic freedom as “a hate-filled and in
tolerant rant” against Christian funda
mentalists (“Stop hating Christian
fundamentalists,” ODE, April 15). In
doing so, he commits a basic logical
fallacy: the setting up of a straw man,
which he can then demolish, by evad
ing my argument and misrepresenting
my position.
As a Christian grade school, high
school and university graduate, and a for
mer teacher at a Christian College prep
school, I certainly agree with Szabo that
many Christians, like his “conservative
aunt,” are “very thoughtful, kind and in
telligent.” Nowhere in my letter did I say
or imply otherwise.
My reference was to the highly
politicized “religious right” leaders
and their followers who wish to im
pose their peculiar brand of monothe
ism as the official state religion. For
decades, they have undermined pub
lic education, demanded prayer in
public schools, and, supplementing
their tax-exempt privileges, subsi
dized religious schools and missions
with public tax dollars.
Their extremist intolerance has led
to abortion clinic bombings and sniper
killings of doctors, to the denial of
Planned Parenthood information to
desperately poor people worldwide, to
vile public statements by Reverends
Falwell, Robertson and Graham, and
to complex international disputes
about sovereignty and resources re
duced to “good vs. evil” by their cru
sading imperial president who believes
that God has chosen him to “rid the
world of evil.”
To describe such political/religious ex
tremism accurately might upset Szabo,
but it’s not “hate speech.”
Jerome Barger
Eugene
Oregon Daily Emerald WORLDWIDE