The arguments against the law stretch the definition of ridiculous. With a straight – and usually feverishly red – face, we hear spokespeople actually claim that this law discriminates against those who break it. After all, nearly 100% of our country's prison inmates have been convicted of a crime. Coincidence? Clearly our justice system is slanted against criminals!
Most protesters have not read the law or do not understand what it actually says. Some have so distorted the Constitution that they have lost all reasonable perspective on its intent. For example, Constitutional rights were never intended to protect non-US citizens. And if you look real close, there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees Americans the right to privacy, which is the sacred basis claimed for most of the liberal howling today. Sure, the 4th amendment provides protection against unreasonable search and seizure, but when a state has a US Census estimated 500,000 illegal alien inhabitants, that statistic becomes a very serious backdrop for determining what is ‘unreasonable’.
Sidebar: It strikes me as incredibly unfair that our presidential primary system, for both parties, chooses Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina as a proxy for the rest of the US in determining who the best candidate for president would be. This may have made sense 100 years ago, but where does illegal immigration rank in the top 50 problems in any of those states? By the time Florida, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California have their presidential primaries the candidates have been chosen and immigration has barely been mentioned much less debated as a serious policy initiative. States that allocate a big chunk of their budget dealing with the problem have a much different perspective. Arizonans got tired of dealing with federal government apathy and decided to take their own action! If nothing else, it brings national attention to a problem that has been long overlooked.
Arizona’s Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik wrote an impassioned letter in the Wall Street Journal bemoaning the ‘mistake’ that Arizona made with the law. In a rambling, incoherent string of oxymorons, he described how his officers have been dealing with illegal aliens for years, but now they will be burdened with a task they are not staffed or resourced to complete. This would make sense if any part of the law actually required officers to be on border patrol. But instead, it only requires them to check individuals for proper ID who have already been stopped for reasonable suspicion, which federal law already requires. The Sheriff also warned about the violation of legal citizens’ constitutional rights if his officers had to demand proof of citizenship. He never mentioned how his officers determined that all those illegal aliens they dealt with in the past were actually illegal aliens, or why all of a sudden it will be harder for his officers to identify them. The Sheriff has a valid point that the federal government should be shouldering the responsibility to protect our borders, and they have not been doing it. But he is hard pressed to make sense of the argument that enforcing federal law is out of bounds for his officers.
Our civil liberty zealots want to pretend that this is the first time law enforcement has been required to use ‘reasonable suspicion’, and that they will clearly resort to Gestapo tactics if given the opportunity. Every day, police officers are required to use good judgment to detect ‘suspicious’ behavior or circumstances. Of course, we can find examples of abuse. But these are the exception rather than the rule. We cannot reasonably argue that society would be better served with no law enforcement (although many appear to try). Given our extremely porous border security and the indisputable and timely evidence that our country has enemies bent on producing mass American casualties and destruction, I personally would gladly show my ID if it meant stopping a potential terrorist or criminal from carrying out their mission. Heck, I have to practically strip at the airport to avoid the suspicion of transporting dangerous materials, and I can’t carry a bottle of water with me. I willingly accept this as the price of keeping our nation safe. You don’t hear me screaming about my constitutional rights being violated.
And this is the evidence of the insanity of the outrage. It’s not about keeping America safe; it’s about leveling the playing field. Americans are perceived to be privileged, and non-Americans are underprivileged. Until we all suffer equally, some will argue that the system is unfair. But this is like saying France is biased towards French people, and Germany is biased towards Germans. Someone please point to the nation on earth where blacks or Hispanics have more opportunity for prosperity than in America? All we ask it that everyone pursue their prosperity in a lawful way that is fair to everyone else who follows the law. But instead of listening to a privileged American, see what this Hispanic said about the law on a web post:
“
I am a second generation Hispanic immigrant and I applaud Arizona, finally a State has made the hard choice to hold the Federal government accountable for enforcement of Federal Immigration policy. This law will not be found unconstitutional as it mirrors the Federal law; the only real change is that a citizen can file a lawsuit against anyone who restricts the enforcement of Federal Immigration laws.
A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.
Bottom line is it is time to stop punishing those who abide by the law, and start punishing those who break the law. If you legally come into this country you don’t get free medical and free education, but if you come into this country illegally you do. …this [is] a very simple situation, either you respect the laws of this country or you don’t, if you don’t then don’t come here….”
Having said that, most of us got here because our ancestors had the good sense and ambition to come to America from wherever they were, and took advantage of the opportunities available to them. Let’s face it; it ain’t because we did something to earn it. (Although if you served in the US military, you have a strong enough case.)
But ask yourself this: If you were born in Mexico, and just across the border is the greatest country on earth that will provide the chance to earn a decent wage for a day’s work, get your kids an education and medical care, find refuge from the abject poverty and crime you live in, wouldn’t you consider a run for the border? Especially if you knew there was a good chance you wouldn’t get sent back? I go against the grain here, but we need to have some compassion for those who are legitimately trying to get a better life and work for it. We’ve turned a blind eye to illegal immigration for decades now, so share some responsibility for the problem. More on this in another post, but let’s not mix the message for today.
There is nothing un-American about enforcing American Federal immigration policy. If you disagree with what Arizona has done, you really need to think though your argument. Seventy percent of Arizonans disagree with you.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment