ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Advanced search

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network


Chinese Immig. Daily


Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free

Immigration LLC.

< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

Dear Editor:
I agree with David D. Murray, Esq. and R.L. Ranger. Editorials and articles are far more effective without language used purely for insult, like "Communist," "Fascist" and "Nazi." I lost family to each of these movements and when a writer uses these terms to dismiss something they clearly do not apply to, I lose faith in the article. Yes our immigration policies are getting more harsh. They almost approach Swiss, Mexican or Greek levels of arbitrariness and harshness. This is generally a bad thing. However, I have yet to see or even hear of any indications of mass brutality. Those who would argue the point ought to live abroad in a normal, non-university setting for a few years. Ashcroft's policies are clearly questionable and may sometimes be highly objectionable. He has not even begun to approach the policies of the Gestapo, the Mukhabarat or any revolutionary secret service. Yes immigrants are sometimes, perhaps even often mistreated in custody. The difference is that few Americans take pleasure in that and no one in authority wants us to routinely break the limbs of detainees or expropriate property from large classes of heretofore legal residents, much less work them to death in radium mines, Arctic labor camps or death factories. There are more effective ways to criticize policies or people whom we dislike than calling them Nazis. It is my experience and hope that those who agree with an editorial will learn little from name calling and those who do not will become more adamant in opposing it. That certainly has been my experience with judges who read briefs telling them that the opposing brief is "obviously incorrect" or "manifestly insane." Language like that reflects a lack of confidence or introspection on the part of its user. If registration were such an obviously bad idea for security purposes, why does every police state or nation at war I can think of require it? It may not be the best policy, but it is not manifestly stupid on it's face. The argument for and against it is much like the argument for and against gun control. We all know the arguments that registering all guns guarantees a criminal monopoly on gun possession and that enforcing gun controls lowers the number of guns overall and thus limits criminal possession too. These track the anti-registration and pro-registration arguments. One of the many ironies here is that the advocates of immigrant registration will most likely oppose gun control and its opponents will most likely support them.

Honza J. F. Prchal, Esq.
Birmingham, AL