There is a doctrine in law that states that if the source of evidence is fraudulent or illegitimate, then anything derived from that evidence is by its very nature illegitimate.
This doctrine stems from a U.S. Supreme Court Case from 1920 called Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States. In this case, the defendant was charged with tax evasion. In an illegal search, Siverthorne's books were copied and used as evidence. The case raised the argument that admission of evidence, regardless of its veracity, should be denied because of the manner by which it was obtained. The Supreme Court ruled that admission of such evidence despite the improper method by which it was obtained only serves to encourage circumventing the rule of law and The Constitution (specifically the Fourth Amendment). Paraphrasing biblical text, a tainted tree can not yield untainted fruit.
Consistency and universal applicability of law are foundations of our current system and critical to any Constitutional Republic. That is why litigators reference prior case law when presenting their arguments. We are supposed to have a rule of law in this country, not the rule of man. This is because man has the complexity of emotion that clouds judgment and creates inconsistency.
Why then do we abandon this legal precedent when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration? When an illegal alien violates immigration law by entering this country without documentation, they become the poisonous tree. Currently we accept any children they may have while living in this country as citizens, despite the parents being here is in itself a violation of law. Hence the "anchor baby" strategy of circumventing U.S. immigration law.
If we are to remain consistent in legal doctrine, then something has to give. I would hope that the deterioration of The Constitution would not be a price the citizenry is willing to pay for the allowing circumventing of law simply to make us feel better about a problem that is in no way made better by such amnesty.
No comments:
Post a Comment