Thursday, July 29, 2010
The Arizona Injunction
OK, I admit that I haven't read Judge Bolton's opinion, but I have read the thoughts of people who a lot more knowledgeable about federal preemption law than I am. I agree with them that it appears that Judge Bolton bent over backward, ignoring the established rules for interpreting statutes, to find a reason to enjoin enforcement of the parts of Arizona's statute that would have the most effect on persons who are in the United States illegally.
I'm thankful that Gov. Brewer will be continuing the fight. The issue needs to be settled as soon as possible.
I'm hopeful that the 9th Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court will find in favor of States' rights to defend themselves when the Feds default on their legal obligation to do so.
I'm concerned that more decisions like Judge Bolton's will give rise to vigilantism that involves a lot more than just watching the border and reporting what appears to be illegal activity to the Border Patrol.
(0) comments
I'm thankful that Gov. Brewer will be continuing the fight. The issue needs to be settled as soon as possible.
I'm hopeful that the 9th Circuit and eventually the Supreme Court will find in favor of States' rights to defend themselves when the Feds default on their legal obligation to do so.
I'm concerned that more decisions like Judge Bolton's will give rise to vigilantism that involves a lot more than just watching the border and reporting what appears to be illegal activity to the Border Patrol.
Labels: Arizona, Border Enforcement, Law Enforcement
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Shameful!
That's the only word I have in reaction to this story.
The President took an oath:
By effectively ceding territory to the Mexican drug lords, I submit that Mr. Obama has violated both clauses of that oath.
Whether Obama affirmatively ordered this or merely allowed it, he is hereby awarded the FI award with white feather.
(0) comments
The President took an oath:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
By effectively ceding territory to the Mexican drug lords, I submit that Mr. Obama has violated both clauses of that oath.
Whether Obama affirmatively ordered this or merely allowed it, he is hereby awarded the FI award with white feather.
Labels: Arizona, Border Enforcement, Drug Problem, Illegal Aliens, Obama
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Scorned In Our Own House
That's the headline/photo caption on the homepage of Fox News Online as I write this. The story is about Mexico's President Felipe Calderon's address to a joint session of Congress in which he scolded the United States and Arizona in particular about the need to pass "comprehensive immigration reform."
I guess that kind of arrogant (and rather ungrateful) behavior is what happens when the President of the United States and his minions go out of their way to apologize for the country's sins, real or imagined, to any and every government on the planet, bowing and scraping as they do so.
I can't find it in my heart to blame Calderon too much, since he's on the brink of losing his country to narcoterrorists and the Mexican economy isn't much better than that of Greece (due in large part, by the way, to stifling economic policies and corruption going back at least a century). He knows that people of Mexican heritage in the US, whether here legally or illegally, send about a billion dollars a year to their relatives in Mexico, and if that cash spigot were to dry up Mexico would be in dire straits, indeed.
The irony is that the bracero program that was in effect from the middle of WWII until the Johnson administration worked pretty well for both countries. It was canceled in 1964, largely due to the efforts of US labor unions, who saw the program as a threat to their efforts to organize domestic agricultural workers. Of course, back then we didn't have the drug problem we have now.
I am among the many who are all in favor of immigration so long as it is done in compliance with the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who are in the country illegally. I think our immigration laws ought to be revised to let more people in from all countries, and to allow guest workers from Mexico and elsewhere, providing they fulfill several requirements that are part of the Mexican immigration law, in particular the following:
I also think the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that "All persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." should be amended to further provide that the mother must be a lawful resident of the United States at the time of such birth, i.e., no "citizenship tourism" allowed and no green card for Mom means no automatic citizenship for Baby. This would solve the "anchor baby" problem. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted the United States had no immigration laws to speak of. We wanted pretty much everyone we could get, in order to settle and develop our vast West. Times have changed.
I realize that many will find these measures harsh, but I firmly believe that a nation that cannot or will not defend its borders will not long remain a nation. Our political leaders of both parties have been "ostriching" on this issue for at least two decades, and we absolutely must get a handle on this problem for both economic and national defense reasons.
(0) comments
I guess that kind of arrogant (and rather ungrateful) behavior is what happens when the President of the United States and his minions go out of their way to apologize for the country's sins, real or imagined, to any and every government on the planet, bowing and scraping as they do so.
I can't find it in my heart to blame Calderon too much, since he's on the brink of losing his country to narcoterrorists and the Mexican economy isn't much better than that of Greece (due in large part, by the way, to stifling economic policies and corruption going back at least a century). He knows that people of Mexican heritage in the US, whether here legally or illegally, send about a billion dollars a year to their relatives in Mexico, and if that cash spigot were to dry up Mexico would be in dire straits, indeed.
The irony is that the bracero program that was in effect from the middle of WWII until the Johnson administration worked pretty well for both countries. It was canceled in 1964, largely due to the efforts of US labor unions, who saw the program as a threat to their efforts to organize domestic agricultural workers. Of course, back then we didn't have the drug problem we have now.
I am among the many who are all in favor of immigration so long as it is done in compliance with the law. I have no sympathy, however, for those who are in the country illegally. I think our immigration laws ought to be revised to let more people in from all countries, and to allow guest workers from Mexico and elsewhere, providing they fulfill several requirements that are part of the Mexican immigration law, in particular the following:
- Foreigners (including lawful resident aliens whether or not pursuing citizenship) will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no government health care, no public education or other government assistance programs. Any foreigners who are or become an economic burden on the United States or any State will be deported.
- Foreigners may have no protests; no demonstrations, no waving of a foreign flag, no political organizing, no bad-mouthing our president or his policies. These will lead to deportation.
- Anyone who enters the United States illegally will be actively hunted and, when caught, sent to jail until your deportation can be arranged.
- Entering the United States illegally after being deported is a felony, requiring imprisonment for not less than two years (no plea bargains).
I also think the clause in the Fourteenth Amendment that provides that "All persons born ... in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...." should be amended to further provide that the mother must be a lawful resident of the United States at the time of such birth, i.e., no "citizenship tourism" allowed and no green card for Mom means no automatic citizenship for Baby. This would solve the "anchor baby" problem. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted the United States had no immigration laws to speak of. We wanted pretty much everyone we could get, in order to settle and develop our vast West. Times have changed.
I realize that many will find these measures harsh, but I firmly believe that a nation that cannot or will not defend its borders will not long remain a nation. Our political leaders of both parties have been "ostriching" on this issue for at least two decades, and we absolutely must get a handle on this problem for both economic and national defense reasons.
Labels: Arizona, Border Enforcement, Constitution, Illegal Aliens, Immigration, Mexico
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Question About Arizona's New Illegal Alien Law
Amidst all the brouhaha and accusations, I've seen nobody addressing the following question:
I will not buy any answer that's based on ICE being federal and the Arizona cops being state. It's pretty clear on the face of it that the federal government has defaulted on its Constitutional obligation* to defend the borders, so it would seem that Arizona has the right to defend itself against invasion by foreign nationals. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)
People have objected to the professor's theory on the grounds that the definition of "invasion" has been settled by Congress and the courts, and it doesn't include gradual and long-term illegal entry by foreigners. However, as a practical matter when citizens are being murdered and other felonies are being committed by drug gang members and just general lowlifes who are in the United States illegally, is the state of Arizona required to sit on its hands and wait for the feds to take action that might never happen?
What about the clause after the invasion clause. Suppose the Arizona Legislature "applied" to the federal government to come in and protect the state of Arizona against domestic violence being perpetrated by the illegals? Back in law school I was taught that the word "shall" connotes a mandatory action. Would the feds do nothing and thus twice violate the same Constitutional section?
Would the intentional failure by a President to defend the border constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would be grounds for impeachment? (Ans.: Not against Obama with the present Congress. - Ed.)
If nothing is done by government the people will take matters into their own hands, and vigilantism would probably be a lot worse for Hispanics, whether here legally or illegally, than anything the Arizona cops (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) would do.
* Art. IV, Section 4 reads in its entirety:
(0) comments
How, exactly, will the procedures and tactics used by Arizona law enforcement officers under the new law to identify and arrest illegal aliens differ from those already used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers?Seems to me the answer to that question is important. If the Arizona cops don't do anything differently in identifying and arresting illegal aliens, why is it OK for the ICE officers but not for the Arizona police officers?
I will not buy any answer that's based on ICE being federal and the Arizona cops being state. It's pretty clear on the face of it that the federal government has defaulted on its Constitutional obligation* to defend the borders, so it would seem that Arizona has the right to defend itself against invasion by foreign nationals. (Thank you, Professor Reynolds.)
People have objected to the professor's theory on the grounds that the definition of "invasion" has been settled by Congress and the courts, and it doesn't include gradual and long-term illegal entry by foreigners. However, as a practical matter when citizens are being murdered and other felonies are being committed by drug gang members and just general lowlifes who are in the United States illegally, is the state of Arizona required to sit on its hands and wait for the feds to take action that might never happen?
What about the clause after the invasion clause. Suppose the Arizona Legislature "applied" to the federal government to come in and protect the state of Arizona against domestic violence being perpetrated by the illegals? Back in law school I was taught that the word "shall" connotes a mandatory action. Would the feds do nothing and thus twice violate the same Constitutional section?
Would the intentional failure by a President to defend the border constitute a "high crime or misdemeanor" that would be grounds for impeachment? (Ans.: Not against Obama with the present Congress. - Ed.)
If nothing is done by government the people will take matters into their own hands, and vigilantism would probably be a lot worse for Hispanics, whether here legally or illegally, than anything the Arizona cops (many of whom are Hispanic themselves) would do.
* Art. IV, Section 4 reads in its entirety:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. (Emphasis added.)
Labels: Arizona, Constitution, defense, Illegal Aliens, Mexico
