In this interview the good gentleman expressed his 'concern' that ILLEGAL immigrants, based on the BTA, 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, 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 i tend ?
Not to forget, WHO decides 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 article, is NOT to necessarily oppose introducing a sense of 'humanitarianism' in executing the law of the land.
Quite to the contrary.
The question is, if we apply some 'leniency' in 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' for the 'Friendly-island' ?
Ask the politicians why they have not implemented such a policy ?
And especially question them 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 this concept is, that it allows for all kinds of 'favors' /'exemptions' 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 highly paid foreign consultants or 'smart lawyers', but it was formulated by a group of natives from 'right here'.
Meanwhile, even suggesting that the BTA be 'set aside' by allowing 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 that that.
Do have a nice day.
--
Leopold James
President SNBF & L'Esprit de Concordia
