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.