Posted by
Patrick Henry on Saturday, April 24, 2010 1:21:41 PM
Yesterday Barack Obama excoriated Arizona for enacting a tough new law making
it a state crime to be in the country illegally. He said it was "misguided" and implied
that it was irresponsible. He's partially right. The issue does hinge on responsibility.
Obama's position is that it is irresponsible for the state to take immigration issues
into its own hands, thereby imperiling the civil rights of immigrants who are legal
residents. Governor Jan Brewer laid the blame squarely on Washington (Bush/Obama/
congress) for failing to protect the borders or enacting a sane, enforceable policy on
immigration. So just who is responsible, and irresponsible?
The ones bearing the costs and peril of illegal immigration are the citizens of the
state of Arizona. Contrary to Steve Lemon's yellow journalistic piece on CNN, polls
show that the tough new law is supported by 70% of Arizonans. Why? Because
they don't know what else to do. If the feds won't protect their border with Mexico,
then they see no alternative but to crack down on their own. They are, in point of
fact, assuming responsibility to protect themselves. They are not blind to the law's
potential for abuse, and Governor Brewer has ordered the design of a special course
to train enforcement officers in the avoidance of racial profiling.
Washington, on the other hand, is doing nothing helpful. Obama's response, instead
of sending troops to the border to enforce current immigration laws, was to issue a
blanket condemnation of the new law without having read it, and promise that the
Justice Department would be looking into its legality. He agreed that Washington has
a responsibility to act, but his answer is issuance of a blanket amnesty that would
only make Arizona's situation worse, would be vastly unpopular with the electorate
and would break the nation fiscally. Protection of America's border is indiputably the
responsibility of government. The constitution says that actions not specifically
permitted to the federal government are reserved to the states. It doesn't say what the
states' redress is when the federal government stubbornly refuses to do its duty. In
this case, absent further legislation on the matter, the clear duty of the government
is to protect American citizens by enforcing current immigration laws, something
neither G.W. Bush nor Obama have had the courage to do.
Howls of protest are already issuing from Latino and civil rights advocates, as well
as from Mexico City's inpotent government, the latter warning that the new law may
worsen cross-border relations. Now there's gall for you: a neighbor nation threatening
a border state for enforcing its own laws. Legal challenges to the law are certain to
be mounted, and the illegal alien sympathizer Obama is sending up smoke signals
that he wants a fight in congress over amnesty.
When some Republicans talked about repealing Obamacare, he smirked that they
should "come on," step up to tell newly insured Americans they were going to lose
their coverage. "That's a fight I look forward to," he bragged. Now the shoe is on the
other foot, as so often happens in the fortunes of politics. The amnesty fight is one
Republicans look forward to. Amnesty is VASTLY unpopular among voters -- more
so than Obamacare ever was. Now, bearing the onus of having voted for a healthcare
reform bill Americans didn't want and fearing consequent loss of their jobs, there is
no way that most Democrats are going to step up and walk the plank for amnesty.
And with a very few exceptions Republicans oppose amnesty in the form that has
been floated by Democrats, i.e., a clear path to citizenship for illegals WITHOUT
ironclad closure of the border.
The best case for impeachment against Bush was not that he lied about Iraq's
WMD capacity and took us to war under false pretenses (if he did). It was his failure
to evenly enforce the law of the land on immigration. The same may be true of Obama.
If someone wants to push the point, a president declining to defend the borders against
armed and dangerous foreign intruders (drug cartels and human traffickers) is, without
a doubt, derelict in his sworn duty.
Democrats' subscribe to the concept that if someone doesn't like a law, just get rid
of it. Some people like to smoke pot, so let's make it legal. Some people want to thumb
their noses at requirements for legal entry into the country, so let's drop them. Their
performance makes the notion that America is a "nation of laws" into a sick joke. We
are apparently a nation of laws only until some loudmouthed, disobedient group gets
tired of obeying them and makes a stink about it.
So, what's going to happen? (1) Activists and/or Obama's Justice Department will
find some court to hold Arizona's law unconstitutional. (2) Amnesty will not pass
because even congressional Democrats have conceded they don't have the support for
it. (3) Arizona and other border states will continue to simmer in the sea of violence
and red ink caused by illegal immigration until the cauldron boils over into a shooting
civil war that DOES cause Washington to send in the army. Who's responsible? It is
this bad joke of a president. Come on, Mr. President, step up and do your duty, for
once!