Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature deserve major kudos and more for enacting a border enforcement law; doing the feds job for them, and getting criticized for doing so.
When Governor Jan Brewer signed into law HB 1070 last week it was an act of tremendous courage, considering the expected firestorm of criticism that erupted afterward. It was also something that should have been done years ago. As a citizen of Texas, a state that prides itself on its patriotism and support for the rule of law I can only say that many Texans are probably ashamed that Arizona got there first. Former Houston City Council member and radio personality Michael Berry struck a similar attitude when on his Wednesday, April 28th show by parodying a hit song of some years ago "My Sharona" and suggesting therein that Texas needs to follow suit. Sure enough, at least one state congresswoman has purportedly decided to do so and plans on introducing a bill mirroring the Arizona law. There are reports that several other; non-border states will do so as well.
The controversy that has resulted, if anyone takes the time to read the bill, becomes quite obviously contrived. Supposed legal scholar Barack Obama opines that it will cause people to be stopped while taking their children out for ice cream is a laugh. But then, he is only willing to see laws enforced when it suits his purposes. This law, plainly doesn't do what he said because it conveys upon Arizona law enforcement the duty to enforce the law that the federal agencies refuse to, which raises an interesting fact. The usual national talks shows airing since the law took effect put several critics of the law in the air. When questioned they invariably stated that they stood for the rule of law, and that the border should be enforced. However when faced with possibility of Arizona law officers doing so they refused to see it as reasonable. Clearly there was a problem. Most likely, they were lying when they said that they stood for the rule of law and their problem with Arizona's action was that it created a significant probability that the border would be enforced in that state.
The illegal alien problem really begins with what was probably Ronald Reagan's greatest mistake; the grant of amnesty to illegals back in the 1980's, with the implication that it would never happen again. Instead of cutting off the flow it opened a floodgate of illegal entrants who continue to come, not only seeking opportunities to work, but to extend the reach of Mexican drug gangs and more recently, it has been reported that Chinese and Arabs have been coming through Mexico as well. This increases the security threat immeasurably, considering that the Arabs may well be connected with Islamic terror organizations. We cannot afford to take chances with this.
A large part of the problem with people entering illegally could well be solved if the government at all levels decided to deny social welfare benefits to such people and refused to acknowledge "anchor babies" as citizens. The qualifications for citizenship are quite clear. It is a two-pronged test comprising 1) birth in the United States and 2) being subject to its jurisdiction. When someone enters a nation without going through the necessary steps at the border, having their passport stamped, or showing a worker visa, they are deliberately avoiding the jurisdictional requirements. They are refusing to acknowledge the laws of the United States, and, as such, should be denied all privileges that they would receive if they entered legally. This includes the right to have their children recognized as citizens. After all, their primary purpose in entering is to achieve a status they could not achieve legally. It would be the same as allowing a bank robber to keep whatever he purchased with the money he stole. Regardless of how you look at it, it simply isn't fair and it isn't just. And aren't fairness and justice icons of liberal politics?
So what lies behind the criticism of Arizona's decision to enforce existing federal law in the same manner that federal agents should be doing? Why would government officials support criminal acts? The answer can only be that they stand to benefit from that criminal activity. As some people have opined, perhaps correctly, the goal is to create a vast number of illegal voters, who would assure that they continue to be elected by overriding the votes of citizens. There are other possibilities, but none of them fit the rule of law and the proper governance of society. Meanwhile, we see that approximately 70 percent of Arizona voters support the law and Governor Brewer's popularity took a sixteen-point rise following her signature on the Bill. Clearly, some people don't get it. Which goes back to the popular reaction at the time that the "health care" takeover Bill was signed. Various officials of the federal government have clearly decided to govern against the will of the people. This runs counter to the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence, and brings their legitimacy into question. Also, their failure to safeguard the national borders, particularly during a time of war, amounts to dereliction of duty at the least, and treason at the worst.
When the national government refuses to enforce its own laws, and fails to carry out its primary duty, which is safeguarding the national security including the maintenance of secure borders, it can be construed as a declaration that they have taken sides against the people they have sworn to protect. This, once again, brings the legitimacy of this regime into question. Meanwhile, more states must join with Arizona in taking the side of their citizens and of the American People. It may be the only way to bring the national government back into line and an important step to restoring the republic to what it was supposed to be.
Mr. Laib raises interesting points. However the said fact is that Arizona’s justification is based on the erroneous claims of lack of federal action. Aside from the irony of conservatives angered over lack of federal action the claim is fundamentally false. The federal government has acted-Arizonians are just unhappy that their point of view did not carry the day in the national debate. Sadly this does not justify Arizona’s response. There are many regional issues of great importance that do not get resolved to one state or another’s satisfaction. Should eastern states take unilateral action over Midwestern smoke stack emissions? The potential for Balkanization is endless. At the end of the day Arzona’s sitting senior senator, with his party in the White House, and in charge of both legislative houses could not get the law some apparently desire. Too bad. Grow up.
doubtingthomas,
“…The federal government has acted-Arizonians are just unhappy that their point of view did not carry the day in the national debate” Maybe I was asleep and missed it: First; when was this ‘national debate’ held? I don’t remember having a national debate on securing the borders. The left constantly excoriates anyone the least bit interested in enforcing the existing federal law insisting that anyone targeting these poor people is doing so out of racism. That is demonstrably false. This is not a race issue it is a criminal issue.
Exactly what is it the current administration has done to meet its Constitutional duty to protect American citizens? Was it the decision of the administration to scrap the construction of the virtual fence along the border? Or was it the December 10th 2009 announcement by Janet Napolitano that the Obama administration was planning to push for comprehensive (read amnesty) immigration reform legislation in 2010.
I’d be extremely interested in exactly what, if anything, this administration has done that can be construed as protecting the American citizens that live along the US/Mexican border. Name it.
And while we’re on the subject of immigration let’s cover a few facts regarding immigration law in another country; let’s say Mexico shall we?
• The government will bar foreigners if they upset the equilibrium of the national demographics.
• If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome.
• Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.”
• They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories.
• Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment.
• Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment;
• Evading deportation is a serious crime
• Re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment.
• Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations
• The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations.
• Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.
• A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.
All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There’s been no public clamor for “comprehensive immigration reform” in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.
Any US citizen entering Mexico legally or illegally is subject to all these provisions. Arizona’s law is nothing more than sauce for the goose as far as I’m concerned.
I will patiently await your treatise on the plethora of activities the Obama administration has carried out on behalf of American citizens and property owners regarding securing the border and protecting their lives and property.
Same sorry argument. If you missed the debate on immigration during the Bush administration then take your place at the Childrens table or Flat Earth Society Table or wherever you feel comfortable. The House and Senate debated the Bush McCain offering -and found it wanting. Ironically the credit for defeating Republican ideas on immigration goes to (drum roll please) to the House Republicans. Let’s see-a bill presented by a senior Republican Senator, endorsed by the sitting Republican President, to a House and Senate controlled by Republicans and it FAILS. No national debate-give me a break. Too bad there are adults in the room now but the failure of immigration reform starts with Republican President Reagan(as the article clearly demonstrates) and ends with yaahoo backwater republican Congressman who apparently feel greater hostage to their intellectually challenged districts than they do to serving their country. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Here’s right from the text:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
So, here’s the problem: What is “lawful contact”? Is it where one is already being questioned by the police on an unrelated manner, and only then can immigration status be considered? If so, and that this law is simply allowing the police to enforce the existing immigration and traffic laws, then why is this particular law needed? This could addressed by simple internal memo to the various law enforcement agencies.
If, however, “lawful contact” means questioning anyone on the reasonable suspicion that one could be an illegal alien, then its without any teeth unless — God forbid — someone is ASSUMED to be illegal and must therefore prove citizenship. If so, then such permission, regardless of recourse to civil suits, etc., is dangerous and despotic. If not, then the law is poorly written.
Here’s what I would propose (beyond the mere builing of a fence):
1) Elimination of income tax, replacing it with a sales tax. One disincentive to becoming a citizen is that, by so doing, the government has you on record and would thus be able to tax your income. Moreover, for every “official” employee, an employee has to pay a matching FICA tax. By eliminating this intrusion into one’s personal information, and instead relying on commerce between two consenting parties, regardless of their legal status, one possibly major disincentive to citizenship would be addressed
2) ALL government documents, especially those which relate to voting or entitlements, should be in ENGLISH ONLY. (Whether businesses want to be multilingual or not should be their choice). If illegal aliens do not want to be legally part of the nation, they’ll at least need to be linguistically part of our nation
Thomas: Knock off the Dem vs Rep stuff, I won’t defend either one on immigration. But the AZ govt has grown up, (before you even told them to), it’s called taking matters into your own hands when those with the responsibility to do a job just sit on theirs. AZ is well on its way to becoming part of the drug-infested, violent, out of control life style of Mexico. Do you care, should you care? I don’t know where you live, but when the domestic tranquility of your home and community are being destroyed, then you’d better stand up for yourself, because, tragically, our US govt–Dem & Rep have trashed their responsibilities under the Constitution.
Delee: Sorry, can’t quite follow your post, except that, yes, I do agree–English only.
Excuse me BH-party affiliations were mentioned only d/t the memory challenged prior post. Your defensive reactions sounds like republican apologia(the extensive democrats deficiencies are better prodded elsewhere). Try responding to the substance of the discussion-the Arizonian argument is inherently defective. One can neither be intellectual or conservative and think the Balkenization this type of behavior leads to is in the national interest. The “thinkers” that led to the Arizona executive and legislative branches incredibly poor judgment is classic “march of folly” material.
Doubting,
Answer Mr. Wavering’s points. One or two will do. And leave off the snarky imperiousness.
Gee whiz how about the meandering stop and some basic facts be recognized. to wit this thread started in response to a particular argument made in a specific article. Responses that deny recent history and meander away from the central point which is the defectiveness of Arizona’s argument are useless. Meandering thru sales tax, English only documents, and blah blah blah only marginalizes conservative thought. I’ll be more blunt: Arizona’s argument is only this year’s model of “the south will rise again” and other bogus nullification arguments. This is the march of folly.
Bettyhere,
Sorry, my posts are a bit, um, long-winded. I was trying to describe and answer a major concern that many have with this law, mainly that one could be approached by law enforcement and ask to see proof of citizenship, and that the main address of that relates to the idea of “lawful contact”.
Regarding the “Income Tax” solution, I should admit that after I sent the post, I realized that there some assumptions that perhaps are not always true, such as the notion that ANY information that the government has immediately enables it to tax individuals. This is not necessarily the case, however, with, for example, the Census. It could better be said that, for instance, many would prefer to “live off the grid” to avoid, or at least reduce, government intrusion into one’s personal life, and that the result (if not the very reason) of much of that intrusion is usually in the form of taxation. But that that stament should catagorically imply that once one becomes a citizen, Washington has the keys to that person’s bank account is a bit of a stretch.
Tom, I feel like your responses are from Gestell or his clone. Still harping on Repubs & conservatives, cleverly turning a phrase but never addressing the specifics of the issue. If your house was being broken into (AZ) and the police (Fed Govt) were unwilling to come when you called for help, just what would you do? Maybe write another thesis about the south rising again & folly marches? Huh? Throw more snarky darts at your imaginary foes? It’s impossible to respond to your screwy ramblings.
Doubtingthomas,
“If you missed the debate on immigration during the Bush administration then take your place at the Childrens table or Flat Earth Society Table or wherever you feel comfortable.”
I didn’t ‘miss’ the debate on immigration reform. If you check my previous post, I said I couldn’t remember there being a debate on border security: Without which any debate on immigration reform is futile. Might I suggest a remedial reading class. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, or, in its full name, the Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1348) was a bill discussed in the 110th United States Congress that would have provided legal status and a path to citizenship for the approximately 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007
“At the end of the day Arzona’s sitting senior senator, with his party in the White House, and in charge of both legislative houses could not get the law some apparently desire.”
The ‘discussion’ regarding Immigration Reform was held in the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
In order to destroy all of the debate points in your first post, I don’t have to go any farther than Wikipedia? I’m beginning to wonder which cereal box you clipped your GED off of?
I still contend that there was never a national debate on border security, and you’ve neglected to address this. It is conventional wisdom that the reason Immigration Reform failed in 1986 was because the federal government deliberately neglected the border security provisions included in The Immigration and Reform Act of 1986. As for why immigration reform failed in 2007; progressives blocked the measure with their newly found majorities.
I don’t know what you’re used to at other ‘comment’ sites; probably your first attempt at something other the totally agreeable territory of Huffington Post or Daily Kos: But here, we deal with fact, not fantasy. Ya’ll better find your ‘A’ game and quickly, or you’ll gain a reputation as just another easily dismissed, bomb throwing progressive. The type we eat here for breakfast daily.
If you desire a further education into the real situation in Arizona, educate yourself by reading another essay posted at IC on the same subject. I understand the author seldom pulls his punches when he writes opinion pieces. http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/04/29/the-arizona-immigration-law/
Good luck in the remedial reading class.
doubtingthomas puts forth the contention that Arizona’s law is “defective” and “Balkanizing” without really explaining why, except to say that enforcing existing federal immigration law was already discussed in 2007 and “our side” lost, and then refuses to address any counter arguments that fail to acknowledge his opinion that the law is defective. This could be a textbook example of circular logic and addressing it any further would be a waste of intellectual energy.
It’s worth noting that in addition to the 1986 “immigration reform” act that amnestied around 3 million illegal immigrants and tightened border and workplace enforcement (at least on paper), there was also the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 under the extreme right wing ideologue Bill Clinton which also significantly tightened admissibility into the United States of illegal aliens convicted of crimes and stepped up enforcement, including a mandate for a still-non-existent entry and exit tracking system for immigrants (a point which is significant when one considers that 40% of illegal immigrants in the United States enter legally and then overstay their visa or work permit). This debate has been ongoing since long before doubtingthomas woke up in 2007 and, at least on paper, border security advocates have “won” in the legislative arena. In addition, the as-yet-un-repealed 10th Amendment to the United States constitution gives states the authority to –get this— write their own laws and enforce them using their own police. So regardless of who “won” or “lost” the definitive “debate” that took place in 2007 regarding illegal immigration, the proponents of Arizona’s new state law won the debate in Arizona, which is all the really matters in the end. Too bad. Grow up.
thomas,
“Arizona’s justification is based on the erroneous claims of lack of federal action.”
I appreciate that not everyone is a legal scholar, but for whatever reason you seem to think this is central to this case. In reality, it is nothing more than reasoning for taking up consideration of a law, a law that ended up passing.
If you are hanging your hopes of the law being overturned on what inspired Arizona to pass this law – any law – you might want to look at the substance of the law, instead.
As for fears of “Balkenization,” when states opt to take care of their problems, a lot depends on the nature of the problem and how they take care of them. An ominous warning from you notwithstanding, Arizona requiring proof of citizenship during a traffic stop somehow threatening the integrity of the United States by the rise of a new south and Civil War Part II is a story even a really good fiction writer would have trouble developing.
This new law is no different than Arizona requiring proof of citizenship when people apply for federal services or benefit. It also appears to be just as constitutional as the law that has withstood court challenges since it was passed under Proposition 200 six years ago.
As for whether laws that help identify illegal immigrants are in the national interest, many would point out that they are, or can be. Prop 200 requiring proof of citizenship when applying for federal benefits in Arizona, for example, ensures illegals are not soaking the federal government for the benefits and services paid for by American tax payers.
That law also requires voters to prove citizenship in Arizona, which helps ensures the integrity of U.S. elections. No one (and I’d venture even you) wants their vote for president canceled by a vote cast by an illegal immigrant in Arizona.
Proving citizenship is not a tremendous burden. It really is nothing at all compared to the work and time legal immigrants put in doing things the proper and lawful way.
What is a Green Card, after all, if not something the federal government requires immigrants to carry with them at all times? What really is the act of showing it along with one’s driver license when pulled over for speeding?
Apparently its the end of the United States in your mind.
If it ends up Arizona forms groups of Nazi storm troopers go house to house in Arizona asking for “papers,” I’ll be glad to join you in your outrage.
My son has to produce ID to buy beer. Is this a burdensome, invasive process?
Hats off to those of you who answered Tom with the facts. It’s interesting to me that the illegals demonstrating never ask for amnesty or citizenship–they seem to want to keep things the way that they are. It’s pandering politicians who talk about that. Reagan give them amnesty and I think most did not choose citizenship, they just kept living in the shadows, nothing changed. (Maybe someone knows the stats.) Why become citizens? They don’t want to speak English because it’s the language of the foreign invaders. They’ll have to pay income taxes, serve on juries, have their wages reduced when employers pay for them into the system instead of ‘under the table.’ They now pay less for college than out-of-state Americans, they get free health care–why buy insurance? They’ll have to denounce their home country citizenship, really, is there an upside for them to be Americans?
I have to produce ID to get the senior discount at the movies. Oh, the harrassment of it all! I’m going out to demonstrate, just as soon as I finish my nap.
Bettyhere,
It’s usually fairly easy to run off a progressive bomb thrower such as doubtingthomas. The overwhelming majority of people of the progressive persuasion base discussion on emotion as opposed to fact. They discover IC and immediately decide to put all those ‘supposedly’ intellectual conservative in their proper place. The trick is to find a core principle and force them to refute or defend that debate point dispassionately. They seldom, if ever, have the ability to rise to the occasion. We’ll not hear from him for a month or so; then he’ll return with another liberal screed on some point he feels just too passionate about to ignore. He’ll be dispatched just as easily then as he was this time.
As I said earlier; hang around her long enough and you’ll collect your share of accolades and insults. We debate issues raised by the commentary and have little regard for emotional argument.
Regarding the topic at hand: I don’t have any statistics that would tell us how many illegals actually took advantage of the Reagan Amnesty program in 1986. However; my best guess is that most probably did. It’s a numbers game. The overwhelming majority of these immigrants would not suffer any further as citizens. Their income would probably rise a little, but not enough to actually force them to contribute to the operation of the country. Remember 47% of the workforce doesn’t pay federal income tax as it is. So I don’t think citizenship would drive them off the entitlement train. If anything it would probably more firmly establish their right to social services. Don’t forget that as citizens they would be able to stand as witness for legal immigration of extended family members as well.
You are absolutely correct in your observation that they have no interest in assimilation. This is what makes the bloc so appealing to the progressives. Anything that further splinters the hated American Culture is of interest. The big challenge for the progressives is how to ensure the Hispanics stay on the ‘proper’ plantation; theirs.
This is the primary reason that a conversation cannot be held regarding any ‘path to citizenship’ for these people without first addressing the porous nature of the border. Almost a quarter-century ago we gave a path to citizenship to an estimated 3 million, but neglected to address border security. Here we are now preparing to commit the same series of errors although now we’re talking about an estimated population of between 10 and 13 million people. The question is; will we allow the same mistake to occur; and saddle a future generation with the same discussion in 2035? Because if 3 went to 13, the 2035 estimate could top 50 million.
Bill, thank you for responding personally. I sat on my father’s knee & listened to FDR’s Fireside Chats. Many a family holiday was enlivened with political wrangling. I married into a liberal Demo family, ne’er a fact will change their views. The Tom’s I’ll encounter here do not trouble me, they can be flicked away. I can choose not to engage them when they respond to my positions with a barrage of gibberish out of left field (so to speak).
I believe I read years ago that most illegals did not choose citizenship with Reagan. As I said earlier, I can’t see any upside for them, but maybe you’re right. I have not followed the marches today, but I’ve yet to see a sign that says, ‘give me citizenship.’
It was forgone that I’d register as a Dem, and I am still a registered Dem, altho my in-laws sneeringly call be a ‘Republican.’ If I were to change, it’d be to an Independent. The few political quarrels I’d had in recent years have ended with someone saying ‘for the sake of family unity, etc.’ I am OK with that, but they are thick. A niece once told me that SHE votes for the good of the country! Well, whoopee for her. Liberals are so noble, altrustic, self-sacrificing, caring, fine citizens–and they never let you forget. One could ‘frow up.’
I come for a little different place, but I’ll hang out here from time to time. Tom, Gestell and whoever will just have to learn to live with that.
P.S. If Tom wants to see the classic ‘march of folly’ saga he’s so enchanted with, he should spend the next few weeks reading the so-called health care bill. Somebody outta read it, dontcha think! The country said ‘don’t do it, don’t do it, don’t do it’ and they did it anyway. Liberals are folly on steroids.
For those who haven’t seen it yet, and who question the constitutionality of HB1070, I suggest checking out the following URL:
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202457530844&rss=newswire
KK: The provision of the law that many have focused on is the one makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry registration documents on his person. They fail to mention that an individual is only guilty if he is in violation of 8 USC sec 1304(a) or 8 USC 1306(e). Those provisions have been around since 1940, making it a crime to fail to register or carry certain documents. The state statue literally refers to those federal statutes. A person can only be guilty under the state statute if he is guilty under the federal statute. ——-
In the 40′s/50′s when you were confused about something, it was common to jokingly say, “Where does an Alien go to register?” Simply meaning that as soon as one registered and became part of the system, they’d understand what was happening. I think they registered at the Post Office. Anyway, haven’t heard that for decades. Does anyone register these days and why would they bother?
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Anthony Scott, IC Politics. IC Politics said: Enforcing the Border in Arizona: Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature deserve major kudos and more for … http://bit.ly/c6WGnW [...]