Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Arizona Acts on Immigration while Feds Sit

The state of Arizona is on a roll. Last week, they approved a measure that would require US presidential candidates to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president in order to appear on the state’s ballot. Now, due to years of inaction by the feds, they were forced to act on their own by passing an immigration bill. Governor Jan Brewer correctly stated that the new law "represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix". Sister Toldjah has the latest developments.

The usual radicals on the left are predictably up in arms, claiming that illegals are being discriminated against by being forced to follow the law. They further claim that, being asked to show an id if they are acting suspicious is degrading and a violation of their “civil rights”. I guess being in the country illegally is now a guaranteed civil right. We’re hearing accusations of apartheid, Nazism etc, but if I understand the bill correctly, it borrows most of its language from existing federal laws. I find nothing in the Arizona state law that was not already in place before. The net difference appears to be that, state agencies are now forced to do the job the feds refuse to do. Mr Obama and the feds are calling for all this new immigration “reform”, but we could save a lot of taxpayer dollars by just enforcing what is already in the existing laws.

So, it becomes obvious that our federal government doesn’t want the existing immigration laws enforced, and we can’t lay the blame exclusively on the democrats either. Both parties have talked about immigration issues for decades, but neither has produced any action. Perhaps, Cal Thomas best explains the situation:

Let's get something straight. The failure to protect America's southern border has been a bipartisan effort. Democrats want more illegal immigrants in the country because they are a potential source of votes they hope will contribute to a permanent Democratic majority. Republicans and their donors want more illegal immigrants in America because they are a source of cheap labor. Once you understand this, you can ignore much of the talk about "human rights."

If a state, or nation, has laws it will not enforce for political reasons, it mocks both the law and politics, to say nothing of the cultural order… According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as of 2007, there are about 475,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona straining an already overburdened economy. Taxpaying citizens must underwrite the cost of schooling for their children, as well as visits to emergency rooms. In California, several hospitals have had to close because they could no longer afford to give free care to non-citizens. Gangs in Arizona operate under the command of drug lords in Mexico. This and other criminal activity threaten the peace and security of Arizonans and potentially all American citizens. Is this something that must be endured for the sake of "human rights groups" and "immigration rights groups", or is it long past time to slow the flow?

The Arizona legislature and Governor Brewer have correctly chosen to slow the flow. They realize a state and a nation unwilling to protect their borders cannot hope to preserve qualities that have made this country what it is, but won't be for much longer if we permit this illegal invasion to continue.

While lawmakers in other states, such as Texas and Alabama, have called for similar state laws, the liberal state of California is going all-out to oppose the bill. The mayor of San Francisco has banned city employees from traveling to Arizona, and the city attorney called for a discontinuation of any business transactions. Now, California Senate President Darrell Steinberg is joining the call for the state to take a stand and sent a letter to Gov Schwarzenegger, saying the law amounts to racial profiling and urged the governor to cancel the state's contracts with Arizona. Here's a portion of Steinberg's letter:
The Arizona law is as unconscionable as it is unconstitutional, and the state of California should not be using taxpayer dollars to support such a policy. [Taxpayer dollars should support our own amnesty programs instead.] For that reason, I respectfully request that you provide me with information about all existing and proposed contracts between the state of California and any businesses or governments in Arizona.
Mr Schwarzenegger has not yet replied to Steinberg, but passed the responsibility back to the federal government. "I urge the federal government to get their act together," the governor said in a news conference. His spokesman, Aaron McLear, said Schwarzenegger does not support the Arizona law, but they need to review the impact a boycott would have on California's "budget and job creation-effort”.

There’s also that pesky problem of finding another state to accept their IOUs.

That said, if we survive Mr Obama’s “De-development of America”, we’re planning an Arizona vacation this year. Hope to see you there.

No comments:

Post a Comment

We welcome your insightful opinions, but please keep them suitable for family viewing. If you are not logged in, you may post with just your name or nickname by selecting "Name/URL" and leaving the URL field blank. Thank you for your input.