Archived Story

Immigration law necessary

Published 7:49am Monday, August 2, 2010

The new Arizona immigration law is admittedly extreme, immediately necessary, and ultimately constitutional.

The most common objection I hear is the charge of racism, and the next is that immigration is a federal responsibility. I think neither objection is valid, and Arizona should be allowed to implement its new law.

When I opine the law is constitutional, I simply assert that it appears so to me. The lawyers and politicians can do no more than give their individual opinions. We alike read the constitution through the filters of our political philosophies. Only the Supreme Court can make a final determination, and this is forthcoming.

The law is extreme indeed. None of the Arizona legislators have ever claimed it to be usual, normal, or routine. When introduced, it was exhaustively debated in its chambers as well as throughout the state. Added to this was sought after as well as unrequested advice and even pressure from all directions. Now is added the attack of no less than the president and his justice department. But Arizona has always known what is was doing, and they know precisely why.

No other state has ever attempted to enact such a heavy handed law on immigration. However, eleven states are actively considering such a law. A state shouldn’t need to make the effort or spend its money on federal law. But they do need to do this.

They need to do this, because the federal government — through several administrations of both parties — has just not done its job. It has failed to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants. It has failed to hunt for them after successful entry.

Most inexcusable of all, the feds have failed to pick up illegal immigrants of whom notified by local police. This has happened not just in all the southern border states, but states throughout the country. Local prosecutors have notified ICE, “We are releasing a person held for a crime we have decided not to prosecute, but we have established as fact the individual is in this country illegally. Please take custody as we release her.” Police have told the feds, “A convicted felon, who is also an illegal alien, is about to complete his sentence; we wish to turn him over to you for deportation.” Federal officials have failed to follow through in the vast majority of the cases.

Yes, immigration is a federal responsibility, but the federal government is irresponsible. Yet, Arizona isn’t proposing to take this over. All it seeks to do is to concentrate on identifying and locating those who have broken federal law by entering this country illegally. Beyond this, the state is simply saying it needs to take care of its legal residents and not be burdened by illegals.

The number of illegal aliens in Arizona alone has more than quadrupled since 1996 and is now well over half a million. In one ten-month period, federal officials arrested almost this number again attempting to enter Arizona alone illegally. Nationally, the number of illegals has more than doubled. Think what it means to have over eleven million illegal aliens in this country.

If you listen more carefully than they want you to, the charges of racism are not racism as a fact but that “it could lead to.” Of course, it could. Every law can be abused. I find nothing in the Arizona law that encourages or is even susceptible to abuse.

If every illegal alien in Arizona was found to be Mexican and if the vast majority of illegal aliens throughout the country are Mexican, I fail to see it unreasonable that Mexicans should receive particular attention.

Are immigrants scared? Of course, but it isn’t the law that scares them but the law’s opponents with their manufactured horror stories. The only  legal aliens who have reason to be scared are those who otherwise break the law by harboring those who are not legal.

Arizona’s law is necessarily extreme because it necessarily deals with an extreme problem. It responsibly protects the state and responsibly assists the federal government with its responsibility.


Sign in to Comment | Need help commenting? Click here

  • Pingback: Obama: Patchwork immigration policy unacceptable – The Associated Press « Contacto Latino News()

  • mycodename

    Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
    Section 8 – Powers of Congress

    relevant parts

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    The Congress has the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization which is the process of granting citizenship to an alien.

    Any power not explicitly granted to the Federal government by the Constitution remains with the States or the People. The Federal government cannot lawfully confer powers upon itself that aren’t accorded it by the Constitution, though it would appear from observation that it often believes that it can.

    Obama is given no power over naturalization under the Constitution though their is speculation he may try to grant amnesty by some sort of Executive decree.

    The Justice Department sued Arizona on the premise that S.B. 1070 was likely to violate civil rights of some. The Justice Department is under the President and the President is under whoever bought him the office.

    So, Obama’s job, as he see’s it, is to deliver what could be as many as 38 million illegal aliens to those wishing to employ them at a non-living wage while simultaneously driving the wage rate even lower for the lowest paid U.S. Citizens. Obama thinks this is OK because he’s a Democrat and, after all, everybody knows just how much the Democrats love poor people. They also supported the African slavers in their fight to own slaves, though the party has changed names since that time. Not that I like Republicans any better, mind you. I despise both major parties, as did most Founding Fathers, who likened the political parties to tyrants in that both were a serious hazard to the new government. For all practical purposes, the political parties represent no citizen very well on any issue. They will be the death of this Republic, if Obama doesn’t beat them to the punch.

    Report comment

    • formeraustinian

      codename – one problem with your analogy – The Justice Dept is NOT under the Executive branch (not under Obama. Three branches – Executive, Congressional & Judicial. Try again…

      Report comment

      • NotfromHere

        Justice dept is a part of the executive branch…you might want to check your facts on that.

        Report comment

  • mycodename

    Debates in Congress concerning the Rule of Naturalization
    February 3rd, 1790

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576

    The document at the link above will likely give some a better understanding of the meaning of the Rule of Naturalization and it’s scope.

    Report comment

  • Mr D

    Why does this article list 7 comments but only show 2?

    Report comment

  • NotfromHere

    The writer above, and the Arizona law, fails to extend his analysis to the actual problem – illegal immigration. The focus of both is what to do when people are in the country illegaly. Given that the wage rate disparity from one side of the border to the other is so great there will naturally be a desire for people from one side to get to the other. So you are left with 3 options – prevent people from coming across, make it illegal for people to come across and then try and catch them, make it legal for them to come across. The first is largely impossible and cost prohibitive, the second is stupid, largely impossible and cost prohibitive and the third seems to scare people because it is simple, effective and economically beneficial.

    Report comment

  • Pingback: Drug Addiction | Questions over why sex offender allowed to keep teaching()

Editor's Picks