February 2007

Letter to the Editor

Bar News welcomes letters from readers. We do not run letters that have been printed in, or are pending before, other legal publications whose readership overlaps ours. Letters should be no more than 250 words in length, and e-mailed to letterstotheeditor@wsba.org or mailed to WSBA, Attn: Letters to the Editor, 1325 Fourth Ave., Ste. 600, Seattle, WA 98101-2539. We reserve the right to edit letters. Bar News does not print anonymous letters, or more than one submission per month from the same contributor.

Immigration — The Inconvenient Truth?

Henry Cruz is probably right (“What Are They So Afraid Of? Facts and Myths About Immigration,” Diversity and the Law, December 2006 Bar News) that undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be labeled “illegal,” that immigrants do not cause an increase in crime, that immigrants do pay taxes, that they don’t take jobs from most Americans, and that they are not a threat to national security.

The objection that I — and others: this was the brouhaha roiling the Sierra Club’s board election in ’04 — have to undocumented immigration is merely (“merely”?) environmental, related to our ecological footprint. In February of 2003 a “Governor’s Sustainable Washington Advisory Panel” (“A New Path Forward: Action Plan for a Sustainable Washington”) revealed that increasing consumption and population is putting our health at risk, that social inequities are on the rise, that almost all natural systems in the state are in decline, that we are generating increasing waste, and that “if our present behavior continues unabated we — and our children and grandchildren who come after us — will live in a state that is likely to offer little of the quality of life that has made Washington so attractive.”

These problems are caused by or are exacerbated by population growth. The natural population increase in Washington is nearly zero; growth is mostly from in-migration.
 
A country should be able to control the influx of people from outside its borders. If we can’t do that we are going to have further difficulties preserving our quality of life simply because of population increase. We’ll be like southern California.

At some juncture, of course, the population of Washington will stabilize. That will happen because the natural resources to sustain population growth collapse, or because we take responsible steps to control our population, or because it gets so bad here that even out-of-state immigrants find the place undesirable. Which is the best method?

Maybe some people concerned about undocumented and pretty much uncontrolled immigration are — as Mr. Cruz implies — racist. But you don’t have to be racist to think uncontrolled immigration is a bad idea because it is a significant factor exacerbating ruinous population growth.
 
Dan Warner, Bellingham

Mexicans First in Line?

I was left shaking my head after reading the recent “diversity” article, “What Are They So Afraid Of? Facts and Myths About Immigration.” Just a few points in response:

1.  There is nothing “diverse” in promoting the interests of Mexican immigrants to the detriment of all others. Hundreds of millions around the world would join us tomorrow, if allowed. Why are they any less deserving? I’m open to tweaking immigration numbers, but the underlying principle must be one of fairness to all. Worse yet, would be to undermine the hopes of legal applicants by allowing those who have a geographical border advantage to “cut in line” without penalty;

2. According to the U.S. Office of Immigration Statistics, the total number of naturalized immigrants to this country in 2005 was 1,122,373. Of those, 161,445 were from Mexico (the next closest country of origin was India with 84,681). By a margin of almost 2 to 1, Mexico had the highest number of legal immigrants in 2005. If that is unfair to the authors, then they should propose different numbers, but let’s stop the name calling and recognize that reasonable people may disagree; And,

3.  Unlawful = illegal; Therefore, an unlawful presence is an illegal presence. More interesting, is the assertion by the authors that something is not “illegal” if the term, itself, does not appear in the violated statute. If correct, murder is not “illegal” (at least as defined in WA Code); Criminal defense attorneys rejoice!

Mike O’Neill, Minneapolis, MN

Don’t Leave It Up to Judges

Your recent article regarding bestiality legislation (“Substantive Due Process and the Problem of Horse Sex,” November 2006 Bar News) was quite troubling. The article notes that majority rule can result in oppression. Yet it equates legislative decisions of elected representatives with majority rule, while failing to acknowledge this is a critical element of our republican form of government. Judges, not just legislators, have wrong decisions to their credit (e.g., Dred Scott v. Sanford). Rather than following the current trend toward activism, our judicial branch should fulfill its constitutionally limited role in balancing the legislative branch.

In addition, while cultural views of morality can and do change, this does not establish that morality is not an absolute truth. Instead, this strongly suggests a culture can view morality rightly or wrongly. Our entire society will be impacted by the consequences of the moral choices we are now making, and it is appropriate that those choices involve as many members of society as possible (legislatively), rather than being dictated by an activist judiciary.

Lastly, state interests in the regulation of bestiality are actually quite compelling. It is unreasonable to assume that someone willing to risk a perforated colon will reliably practice “safe sex.” Furthermore, prohibiting bestiality is hardly analogous to prohibiting ranching or pet ownership. Mankind has been ranching for thousands of years, and the risks and benefits are fairly well known. Do we really appreciate the risks of making animals sexual partners? Is the judiciary, limited to the record before it, the best governmental body to make such a decision? I think not.
 
Corrie Burwell, Covington

Au Revoir, Bar News

Happily receiving my monthly WSBA Bar News, now that I live in Paris, I cannot tell you how surprised or embarrassed I was as a Washington lawyer that the WSBA chose to publish a “legal analysis” concerning “substantive due process” issues around “morals legislation” that would ban bestiality as a result of the fact it was not a crime for humans to have so-called “sex” with horses or other animals. The “article” raises the question in analyzing a ban on bestiality in these terms: such legislation represents a “desire to persecute a politically unpopular group — the animal lover.” (Emphasis added.)

The notion that persons who purportedly “love” animals in this way is so wild and lude [sic]— as if animals have any capacity to consent to such acts of abuse — is simply unworthy of any article to question the legal grounds for outlawing such acts. Of course, any person can entertain such fanciful thoughts — dressed up under the fiction of a “legal article” or otherwise — but the notion that such legislation is a form of “persecution” is no more valid than questioning the legitimacy of laws that prohibit child pornography or child rape. The real crime here is that the WSBA actually would legitimize this utterly absurd and depraved advocacy for bestiality, which is itself a terrible form of animal abuse.

The WSBA’s decision to print this filth under the guise of “scholarship” is so plainly shameful and embarrassing I would welcome an investigation of the Bar News editorial board for the decision-making processes in accepting an article like this for publication. First Amendment here is not the issue. The appropriate exercise of good judgment in publishing articles that offer serious scholarship is what is demonstrably lacking, and must be corrected.

Thanks for reminding me to throw my Bar News in the trash, where it belongs. Better yet, save the postage and don’t send it at all.

Dave Dadoun, Paris, France

Editor responds:  I am sorry the reader found the article offensive and my motives in publishing it questionable. I did not choose it for any prurient value readers might see in it. I chose it because it presented a legal analysis of a law that was passed amid international headlines, lots of jokes around water coolers, and almost no legislative debate. There seemed to be such unanimity that something must be done by the Legislature, and so quickly, I thought it would be interesting to consider a law that was passed largely because of public noise and pressure.

I will be pleased to take up the reader’s concerns with Bar News’ Editorial Advisory Board.