Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 16, 1982)
opinion Battalion/Page 2 June 16,1982 Slouch By Jim Earle Free education for illegals - Absurdity of the Century Yesterday’s landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court should most certainly receive the 1982 vote for Absurdity of the Century. In a 5-4 decision, the court has de clared it illegal to deny a free education to persons who are in this country illegally. Such a thought might actually be worthy of a good laugh if it weren’t so sickening. by ( of close friends and the party wasaL hy a group of strangers fromdoim street who found the sound of and the smell of the beer and We j appealing, how would you feeli|L| e0 g; were obligated by law to enterfclLarter strangers just as you would youilactivity friends, feed them and offer theirpadoiiM ing for the night? There were certain rights long ago written into this nation’s constitution which were intended to promote the wel fare of all. All citizens, that is. At the risk of sounding selfish, some times you just have to watch out for num ber one. the point of no return, somewhere in the darkest realms of absurdity. In all of its infinite wisdom, the Court has opened the door to those illegal aliens who will do all in their power to take a mile after they’ve been given an inch. Nobody likes a freeloader. The justices have dedared constitution’s “equal protection applies to illegal aliens. But, simply stated, people whot “1 don’t care for it too much but they say our room is directly over a rich oil deposit, so what the heck, it may be worthwhile. Granted, the immediate results of this decision are bad enough. It involves tak ing a right formerly reserved for indi viduals who deserve it and giving to indi viduals who don’t. But that’s by far not the worst part. There is bound to be a snowballing effect whose results won’t be seen for some time. And those results won’t be correctable through any amount of 20-20 hindsight. The decision carries with it implica tions which reach even further toward Medicare. Food stamps. Medicaid. The list could go on. It shouldn’t, although it probably will. There are a lot of people who may find the court’s decision disturbing, but most of them will simply dismiss it as some thing that will never directly affect them. Perhaps it will only be fully understood if it hits closer to home. Picture this. dally have no right to be hereiml place (isn’t that why we calltherai I Pu ^ have no right to take ad vantage vileges normally afforded citizens. Brengtl For this nation to prosper, it con® rman must work diligently to cure the do® problems which are inherent ® exas societ y- Iducati But such a task is impossible!® when our nation’s panel of wistBr™ 1 ]' seems to be working diligently lotp 11 e ^ new problems to solve. If you were to host a party for a group On second thought, watching# number one doesn’t seem so selml all. Arab-lsraeli fuse shortens once again I have always had a large reservoir of respect for Israel. This is in part because of my admiration for her tenacious will to survive, which the world witnessed in four Arab/Israeli wars, and in part it de rives from an appreciation for her stable democracy, a rarity in that part of the behrooz moghaddam world. It is this Israel that duly deserves support. Yet, there is another side to the Israeli coin, one which depicts a disproportion ately powerful country unilaterally wreaking havoc when and where it pleases. Furthermore, as such, Israel re flects a nation which pays little heed to potentially grave consequences by risk ing the West’s vital strategic needs, dashing hopes for regional peace and running over humanitarianism with armored personnel carriers. The June 6 invasion of southern Lebanon is in line with this trend. Today, more than ever before, a heal thy western economy is dependent on the steady flow of oil from the Middle East. Anything hampering that lifeline threatens the security of the free world. The West, particularly the United States, therefore, had good reason to tremble as Israeli and Syrian troops clashed. These scattered exchanges risked no less than a full-scale war be tween the two powers, and thus inevit ably a widening of the conflict to other Arab states. Simply put, this scenario would be the American-Middle East nightmare. As concerns the issue of a Palestinian homeland, itself, will the elimination of the PLO remove the thorn from Israel’s side? The First point to be emphasized in answering the question is that the PLO is an effect of Palestinian grievances, not their cause. The Israelis are therefore left with the dilemma of not curing the Palestinian disease but rather simply treating its PLO symptom. There are millions of Palestinian re fugees in and out of occupied territories who still suffer and grieve. From their ranks, there are undoubtedly many ready to take the places of Yasir Arafat and his army. Moreover, the Arab states, for their part, will remain active by financing whatever group follows. Finally, what about the human costs incurred? For every Israeli killed, hun dreds of Palestinians and Lebanese died. Cities were razed and hundreds of thousands were left homeless. The justification Isfeal repeatedly puts forth is the principle of self-defense, one which follows the old cliche that the best defense is a good offense. In theory, I think most of us agree with and subscribe to this position. In practice, however, we have a different ballgame. Where Prime Minister Menachem Begin sees no end to its application, we do. Con sequently, where countless Arab lives for one Israeli life is fair play for Begin, it is barbarism for us. In summation, the Israeli invasion puts the Middle East on a most preca rious footing. Strategic, regional and humanitarian factors all have dire poten tials as more and more states act and react from reflex rather than reason. Party politics in Senate elections Visor, kidnaj; nothei daughi inothe Tuesd; Mi MessE n the rated nurde W W.H.l bulled] Sharp. Hi afterm *ived t< matior: A pi by David S. Broder Perhaps as a way of doingjust that with th; Israel, that is reasoning, I would ask Prime Minister Begin to consider the in explicably pressing circumstances en gulfing the United States. Once done, I would ask him if he is all that certain America would come to its aid again, if worse came to worse. The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member of Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Letters Policy Editor Diana Sultenfuss City Editor BernieFette Sports Editor Frank L. Christlieb News Editors Tracey Buchanan, Daniel Puckett Diane Yount Staff Writers Cyndy Davis, Susan Dittman, Terry Duran, Colette Hutchings, Hope E. Paasch, Joe Tindel Jr., Rebeca Zimmermann Copy Editors Gary Barker, Carol Templin Cartoonist Scott McCullar Photographers David Fisher, Peter Rocha, John Ryan, Editorial Policy The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news paper operated as a community service to Texas A&M University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions ex pressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Texas A&M University administrators or faculty mem bers, or of the Board of Regents. The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography clas ses within the Department of Communications. Questions or comments concerning any editorial mat ter should be directed to the editor. Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must also be signed, show the address and phone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, and are not subject to the same length constraints as letters. Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M Uni versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phone (713) 845- 2611. The Battalion is published three times a week — Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday — during Texas A&M’s summer semesters, except for holiday and ex amination periods, when it is published only on Wednes days. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843. United Press International is entitled exclusively to the use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved. Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843. WASHINGTON — Sometimes, cov ering politics is no more complicated than listening to what the people in poli tics say. Sometimes, they know what they are talking about. Back on Jan. 6, a couple of us paid a call on Vince Breglio and Susan Bryant, who run the Republican Senatorial Cam paign Committee. My notes from that day include this sentence: “Senate races will provide the real referendum on Reaganomics.” Five months later, with about half the Senate nominations settled, it is clear that Breglio and Bryant were right. But don’t take my word for it. Ask Leon Billings, the director of the Demo cratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “The public is going to have a clear choice this fall,” Billings said the day after last week’s final big batch of spring primar ies. “Almost all the Republicans are pure or relatively pure supply-side on Reaga nomics. And almost all of our candidates will make that the issue of their cam paigns.” They are already doing it. The night he was nominated, Frank Lautenberg, the businessman who captured the Democratic nomination in New Jersey and will face Rep. Millicent Fenwick (R) in November, put it this way: “The voters have a clear choice be tween a staunch supporter of Reagano mics and a staunch supporter of what’s good for New Jersey.” In California, Gov. Jerry Brown (Dem.) began his uphill fight for the Sen ate against San Diego Mayor Pete Wilson (Rep.) with a full-scale assault on the “dis astrous, unfair economic policy” of Reagan. So obvious was Brown that Wil son told him in their first joint appear ance, “Jerry, no matter how you try to run against Reagan, it’s me against you.” It’s not surprising to find sharp parti sanship on economic issues in urbanized states with big and diverse electorates. You didn’t have to be a genius to figure that in states like Michigan, Ohio, Penn sylvania and Tennessee, which went Democratic in 1976 and Republican in 1980, and where unemployment is high, Reagan’s economic policies were bound to be at the center of the debate. But who was to know that in Montana, Sen. John Melcher (Dem.) would draw a Republican challenger, Larry Williams, who is an investment counselor and the author of a book titled, “How to Prosper in the Coming Good Years?” And who was to know that in Virginia, where moneyed gentlemen usually arrange for both parties to nominate safe conservatives, the consensus would end with the rtirement of the Senate’s lone Independent, Harry F. Byrd? Rep. Paul S. Trible Jr., the Virginia GOP nominee, pledged to uphold “the time-honored conservative principles.” But Lt. Gov. Richard J. Davis, the Demo cratic senatorial choice, said more than “me, too.” He said, “it is unsatisfactory to me that we have the highest unemploy ment rates since the Depression, the highest interest rates internationally since the time of Christ and the highest rate of business bankruptcies. So, suddenly, Virginia was added to the list of states where the Senate candi dates were offering a choice — and not an echo. In this instance and others, it is the Democrats who are pushing the econo mic issue to the forefront. But Reagan and the Republicans also deserve credit for making 1982 a significant referen dum year. Reagan set his economic prograi the centerpiece of his 1980 campaf ; for 17 months has kept it at the topof political and governmental age has used his persuasive powers Republican Party’s resources of i# and organization to keep Repui legislators lines up, for the mostf behind Reaganomics. Even those Senate hopefuls whom! be tempted to stray have found itif tic to do so. Despite the current ecoi*! 1 strains, Reagan retains a hard con support in the country. Among [I* who vote in Republican primaries, ty to Reagan is still a litmus test ceptability. Wilson found that to be the can California, and Fenwick in Newje fi Both of them are moderate Repi# 1 who backed Jerry Ford over 1976. But in order to defeat pi opponents with better Reagan ci dais, both Wilson and Fenwick 1 identify themselves strongly with nomics. And their Democratic ofi nents will not let them forget. The reverse side of the coin can seen with some of the Democratic tors running in 1982. Last year, sudi f as Lloyd Bentsen of Texas, Robtf 1 Byrd of West Virginia and John CA nis of Mississippi voted with Reaga 1 some of the key economic roll-calls But all of them have been outflanl on the right by Republican challenged much more ardent in their advocac 1 Reaganomics that, willy-nilly, the Ded crats look like critics of the Presiden' The result is, as Billings said, that least on the economic issues, we’re go |: to have party politics” in this aut# Senate elections. And that debate d serve the country well.