Letter: If no deportation for illegal immigrants, then what are the consequences for law-abiding natives?
|
| Published on Wednesday, February 17, 2010 |
Email To Friend Print Version |
Dear Sir:
On Monday, February 15, 2010, there was an interview on the St Maarten radio-station PJD-2 with Mr Remco Remco Stomp, lawyer and secretary of the Bar Association.
In this interview the good gentleman expressed his concern that illegal immigrants, based on the BTA (Brooks Tower Accord), which represents the law of the land by the way, might be deported, if they do not qualify for a temporary residence-permit.
Never mind of course, the little detail that this concern for offenders of the law, comes from a lawyer, whose fraternity is not exactly known for working pro deo for any cause.
More important than the obvious concern of a lawyer to protect a potentially tremendous market of clients however, are a number of really fundamental questions.
For instance. What does allowing for people to break the law of the land, without consideration of all consequences, de facto mean for society as a whole ?
Besides. Where does tolerating, and even accepting such violation, start and where does it end ?
Not to forget, who decides on that, and who qualifies to break the law without repercussions for such ?
Also. Does it any longer make any sense at all to be law-abiding ?
In addition, what is the 'incentive' for young people not to get involved in criminal activities, if they see that illegality or crime can pay.
People. Does it all make any logical sense to you?
These are some very relevant issues that will be tested to determine whether or not we live in a state of law, or in a state of anarchy and lawlessness.
In the meantime, what is the 'prize', if any, for people who are law-abiding?
Or should law-abiding citizens simply be 'punished' for being foolish enough to do such?
The gist of this letter is not to necessarily oppose introducing a sense of humanitarianism in executing the law of the land.
Quite to the contrary. The question is, in the event we apply some 'leniency' to certain groups of people, shouldn't the overall socio-economic equation be adjusted as well to guarantee fairness, equity and socio-economic balance, by also rewarding the 'other side' of the equation?
How, you ask? Fair question.
We figured out such a delicately balancing scheme many years ago. Remember our proposed Marshall Plan concept' for the 'Friendly-island'? Ask the politicians why they have not implemented such a policy ?
And especially, question them on why they prefer to keep the socio-economic situation increasingly out of balance and consequently very unstable, pitting groups up against each other.
The great thing about our proposed concept is that it allows for all kinds of favors /exemptions to the law to be granted to certain groups of people by immediately compensating such by making the corresponding adjustments to others in the overall socio-economic equation.
What might be bad about this idea? Perhaps, that it was not conceived by some highly paid foreign consultants or smart lawyers, but that it was formulated by a group of natives from right here.
Meanwhile, even suggesting that the BTA be set aside in order to allow for illegal persons to remain on the island, might only serve to fuel the flame of mutual distrust between locals and illegal immigrants.
Lawyers and Government should be smarter than that.
Dr Leopold JAMES | | | | Reads : 1068 | | | |
|
|
