(please scroll to bottom for update)
We're not huge fans of obligating local law enforcement officials to enforce what is ostensibly federal law but doggone it... who is going to enforce our borders? Why is this such a difficult concept for the pols to grasp, especially since and unlike ObamaCare and cap and trade, the public actually wants vigorous federal government action with respect to securing our southern border.
Amazing. The general public appears to have a keener understanding of the constitution and the powers granted to the federal government by the constitution than those who have taken an oath to uphold it.
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal aliens out of a population of 6.6 million. With San Diego and El Paso stepping up border enforcement, Arizona has become the point (of entry) of least resistance to where the rise in narco-violence has resulted in Phoenix becoming the kidnapping capitol of America.
This isn't rocket science. It's a national security threat.
President Obama has shown unexpected resolve in prosecuting the war on terror abroad so it eludes us as to why that same resolve cannot be applied here. Actually, we do know. The illegal immigration debate has become the ultimate PC carnival where up is down and backwards is forward. Any degree of common sense that you try to apply to the illegal immigration debate is twisted inside out and directed right back at you. Want to enforce the border? You're a racist. Want to crack down on businesses knowingly hiring illegals? You're a bigot. You simply want to enforce the law of the land? You are a dangerous xenophobe and most likely a white supremacist.
Related: Our blog buddy, Harrison, has a very nice post on what constitutes "protest" and "dissent" with our friends on the Left, here.
And for a wrap, we couldn't resist this side by each comparison of the ummm... "mostly peaceful" demonstrations against the illegal immigration bill in Arizona vs. the "angry" Tea Party demonstrations in Washington D.C. last month.
Main Stream Media: when even being there can't tell the true story.
(UPDATE #1): George Will probably leads the league in "Gee, we didn't think of it that way" reasonings. From today's column:
Some critics say Arizona's law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" prevents the government from basing action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Probably 30 percent of Arizona's residents are Hispanics. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers -- the vast majority -- routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.
Arizona's law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.
Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood -- some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans' ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.
America is supposed to be the great experiment in democracy. We can look at the laws different states enact to gage the effectiveness of that law to our own state... or even the country at large. For example, we know that government-managed healthcare in New York is fast becoming a complete train wreck. If you are given to authoritarian statist impulses, you look at that example and say, "Hell, yeah. That's what we need for the entire country".
So, why not give this law a whirl and see if it can work effectively without becoming an instrument for harassment and abuse.
And we wanted to liberate a couple of comments from the comments section as they held particular relevance.
First, Temple of Mut said:
BwD: Will May 15th work for a summit, and what is the name of the tavern?
Ooops. Wrong comment but in the grand scheme of things no less relevant. More on that later.
Here it is. Sarah B. said:
I'm sitting down to read the Arizona bill today. But in general I have yet to see anything in this bill that isn't already federal law. So the hysteria is clearly nothing more than desperation to make the right the boogie man. And I can say from first hand sources that law enforcement will handle this with kid gloves.
Great points. Is busting illegals really going to be a priority for a sheriff on the local beat? And do you think he, knowing the extreme scrutiny he is now under, will exercise anything but the most by-the-book caution in carrying out the letter of this law?