Tuesday, April 9, 1996
Letter writers should know U.S. law before attacking
immigrantsBy J. Manuel Urrutia
While I often find david aguilar’s columns to be grating because
of their confrontational style, I found the responses printed on
April 8 to be even more offensive.
The letter from Chris Clark ("Shared guilt") explicitly states
that the passengers in the truck involved in the Riverside incident
were all criminals. That is totally incorrect under U.S. law. Up to
the moment that the truck stopped, only the driver could be
considered criminal. They became SUSPECTS of a crime only once they
ran to evade arrest. To conclude from those facts that they
deserved a beating is extremely offensive and, as Clark should
know, the beatings are currently illegal.
If Clark and others feel it should not be so, let them strike
those laws off the books. I agree that incidents in other countries
are equally abhorrant. However, they do not in any way excuse
immoral behavior elsewhere.
Robert Guyader ("Korrection") is entitled to his opinion that
"aguilar and others … have no respect for this country." However,
I urge him to analyze the reasons for this lack of respect. Could
it be that "they" have a reason for their disrespect? Are these
reasons valid? Can the country do something about it?
I would also like to remind him that the people beaten were not
yet "found guilty in a court of law." Even if they were, the
punishment meted out by the side of the Pomona Freeway is not one
he can find in any U.S. law book.
The comments of Joshua Saint ("Love it or leave it") can only be
described as bigoted. Has it occurred to him that the people who
are oppressed by racism are entitled to live in the United States
without being subjected to a substandard of living and sundry
insults? In my opinion, the reason why other people are trying to
get into this Earthly paradise is because of the myth that this is
the land of milk and honey.
Material wealth, courtesy of the U.S. movie and TV industry, are
seen the world over as something to be attained, and undocumented
immigrants just try to make a better living. Who can blame them?
Unfortunately, once they get here, they realize it isn’t so.
Perhaps the Riverside beating will remove their blinders and make
undocumented imigrants choose their present misery over a
marginalized existence.
Indeed, no one is holding a gun to "aguilar and his ilk(‘s)"
heads. These individuals are, however, entitled to voice their rage
and change THEIR country. Aguilar and his supporters do not have to
accept Saint’s vision of a "beautifully white-skin(ned)" America
(which, incidentally, is a term I find extremely egotist since
America is not just the USA). To imply that they can just go 150
miles to the south is simply a racist statement since these people
are U.S. citizens, even if Saint does not like it.
I was disappointed to see that A. Aanand Patel did not include
in his list of remedies the keystone to the "immigration problem"
 "the role of exploitative employers." Oh, he does mention
the institution of an electronic verification system, but he
forgets to point out that the laws really have no teeth. Major
punitive fines could be levied on employers who knowingly hire
illegals. But we’ll never see that since this country is, whether
we agree or not, ruled by capital.
And finally, I happen to disagree vehemently with Patel about
using armed forces to patrol the border. If that day were to come,
I suggest that several myths be removed from the national ethos. A
certain statue and national anthem do come to mind.
Urrutia is an associate research physicist in the department of
physics and astronomy.
… This country is, whether we agree or not, ruled by
capital.