The rule of law or the Golden Rule?

http://www.jewishworldreview.com | Whether the rule of law, or the Golden Rule, should guide the treatment of those not titled to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution is becoming a troubling matter.

It revolves around how the U.S. and state governments deal with illegal aliens and non-citizens. It is greatly complicated by partisan overtones and the admirable American history of welcoming newcomers.

Specifically, it involves the wisdom of extending the protections and benefits enjoyed by citizens and law-abiding residents to those who are neither.

It doesn't seem a good idea to me, but there are many Americans who think everyone deserves the protection of the U.S. Constitution.

However, it defies common sense and potentially creates serious problems for those the Constitution was written to protect - American citizens, both native-born and naturalized. Moreover, the emotionally laden issues involved make for hard feelings on both sides that reflect an unwillingness to give the other any benefit of the doubt for good intentions.

Whether the specific issue is if noncitizens caught up in the war on terror should be given the same constitutional legal protections, or if undocumented aliens should be given opportunities available to those here legally, the split showcases seriously different mind-sets.

On one side of this are those who identify with the undocumented immigrants and noncitizens alleged to have broken the law. They need to be treated as generously as possible because, the argument goes, it diminishes the United States to treat them otherwise.

That is hogwash.

It was just common sense when the Supreme Court ruled this spring that immigrants who had committed serious crimes may be deported without the due process given U.S. citizens.

Immigrants are not citizens and, until they are, should not enjoy the privileges that come with citizenship. They are applying for membership in a club, and their behavior while the application is pending is relevant to whether they get admitted.

The same goes for the unsuccessful court challenges by self-described "civil libertarians" to the treatment of al-Qeada members captured in Afghanistan held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. There, too, the "treat everyone, whether friend or foe, as if they have constitutional rights" crowd wanted the U.S. courts to extend unmerited rights.

Most Americans this side of the ACLU see those issues as do the courts, but there is more disagreement on how to treat illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Obviously, they are breaking the law by being here and subject to deportation if caught, although relatively few are sent back to their native lands. With millions of them woven into the fabric of American life - many for more than a generation - questions about privileges that implicitly acknowledge and disregard their illegal status have become more frequent.

Perhaps the most vexing is the effort to allow illegal immigrants to pay the lower in-state tuition rate at public universities than is charged to U.S. citizens who reside in one of the 49 other states.

Most undocumented students are needy, and the tuition break might determine whether they go to college. Obviously, if there are to be millions of illegal immigrants in our midst, everyone benefits if they are educated and they prosper.

It is hard not to sympathize with their aspirations since we are virtually all the descendants of immigrants, and the sacrifices many undocumented aliens make to come here for a better life is admirable.

Yet, it is even harder to see how a country can control its own borders when many of its political jurisdictions openly ignore the legality of someone's status to grant them privileges not even enjoyed by other American citizens.

So far California, New York, Washington, Illinois, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah have decided to charge illegal immigrants the in-state tuition rate and a dozen more are considering it.

The impetus comes from immigrant-rights groups, and for the most part - although not exclusively - Democratic politicians trying to build the type of voting allegiance they now enjoy from blacks among Hispanics, who are the vast majority of undocumented immigrants.

Washington Gov. Gary Locke said it was the "logical extension" of state support for education to offer the discounted rate to illegal immigrants.

Perhaps, but what about the logic of providing special benefits not enjoyed by all Americans to those who by definition are breaking the law by showing up for class?

It sure doesn't pass the smell test to me.

Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here.

07/22/03: A cautionary tale for those who naively believe that political posturing can override the laws of economics
06/24/03: Let seniors make their own choices
06/03/03: Bush bucks NRA to woo soccer moms
05/28/03: Bail out states? It's not D.C.'s job
05/20/03: Lawyers' party hits a new low
05/13/03: Bush mimics Nixon, Reagan by going against the political grain