In Arizona we have potential riots brewing over something that is literally illegal – people who have come into the United States without the proper visas and green cards. We have all seen the videos of men, women, and children climbing over border fences, swimming the Rio Grande; and we have seen pictures of all the trash they leave behind as they cross the desert.
One has to wonder why all these people are so up-in-arms about something that is against the law? What is it that draws thousands from California and other border states in hundreds of buses to filter out into Phoenix with cameras to document “harassment” of those who do not have paperwork to back up their claim to live and work in the U.S.?
It seems to me, and this may be quite beyond ridiculous, that those who are here legally would actually want those who are illegal who are stealing their livelihood and their benefits out from under their noses, would actually want them deported back to Mexico. Is that ridiculous? Is that un-American? Do we have the obligation to support these illegal individuals with unemployment?
Do you remember back with Bill Clinton was president and we saw on national television these illegal aliens walking across the border, picking up their unemployment checks and going back to Mexico where the U.S. dollar spent three times as well as here in the U.S.? I was so incensed that my tax dollars were being spent for these illegally working aliens that I called the White House and left a personal message for Bill Clinton. (He never returned my call, by the way.)
So this all culminates in Arizona, the spearhead for the States in this battle for jobs, living spaces, tax dollars (for illegals do not pay income taxes because they are here illegally). They suck up hospital beds, they cause our teachers twice the teaching time, once in English and another time in a different language – for not all illegals are Mexican. They suck up our resources. I have not seen any monetary figures concerning the cost, but FAIR—Federation for Immigration Reform—estimates today’s cost is upwards of $70 Billion which comes from a 1996 Huddle study. National Research Council is currently conducting a study on the costs, but it will not be finished until 2011. FAIR states:
While the cost of outlays for illegal aliens may be shifted by legislation among the levels of government and the private sector, the fact remains that illegal immigration creates an enormous fiscal burden on America and its citizens — a burden that Congress has levied upon us through short-sighted and haphazard immigration policy and succeeding administrations have aggravated by spotty enforcement of the law.
As Christians, we should be kind and courteous to those immigrants with whom we come into contact. That is not what is under discussion. God demands that we treat others as we would be treated. This is how the lost comes to know Jesus, by how we treat others.
What is at stake here is our basic Constitutional rights. This is a play for centralizing power in the Obama administration. Judge Susan Bolton took the Obama playbook to run her plays. We are getting closer and closer to no longer needing our legislators. Congress may as well go home. Judge Bolton completely disregards the actual letter of the law for the sake of legal aliens. She set aside legalities and based her ruling on speculations:
- Legal aliens will be subjected to the “possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance”.
That would mean, of course, that these legal aliens (who are issued a passport which is marked with the duration of their stay, possessed by every visitor from a visa-wavered country like Australia, and those who are issued work visas), would be driving recklessly or robbing convenience stores or selling drugs on the street corner. Because it is within the course of policing illegal acts that gives police the right to question the sanctity of the visitors’ right to be here. To catch a criminal “Police surveillance” is required. I would like to know how inquisitorial practices would be wrong. Police must ask questions in order to get to the truth of any matter being investigated. Bolton’s wording and reasoning is ludicrous.
Regardless of the frequency of 48 Hours, Dateline, or 20/20 episodes describing all kinds of illegal acts, the majority of the American public do not go around committing criminal acts. It is far less frequent which is why our police can do as good a job as they do without the huge amount of resources available to the Federal Government.
The fact that legal aliens went to all the trouble of coming into our country legally proves that they have a healthy respect for the laws of the land. Of course anyone can have a mind lapse and allow the speed of their vehicle to creep past the speed limit. This is why we are generally given a 10-mile-per-hour grace (except for school zones!). But, even so, when the law is blatantly broken, there are consequences for everyone–legal and illegal.
Bolton also says that too many requests for immigration status would overburden the system. That’s one of those things that make you go, hmmmm. Really? So The policeman who has properly and within the law caught a robber, or a child support vagrant, or chronic traffic violator, the State now no longer has the right to check the immigration status because it just might overburden the system. Of course, since we have an estimated 10 million illegal aliens and the system can only handle approximately 1.5 million status checks then if the federal government was doing what it was supposed to do about illegal aliens the system would be overburdened. Except the feds don’t have enough manpower to do their job. And the Bolton ruling is essentially saying that if the feds refuse to do their job, then the states can’t do it either. That, my friends, has put Big Brother smack in the middle of our bed. Watch out, he’ll grab all the covers and leave us in the cold.
Be First to Comment
Very interesting perspective, Gina. I haven’t heard much about Arizona’s immigration laws aside from the little I’ve seen on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. They, of course, mock the law as essentially racist. I’m Canadian and had no idea what a big problem illegal aliens were in the U.S in terms of a financial burden on the system. Taking it into consideration, though, I would have no problem with the police being allowed to ask for I.D from people they suspect to be illegal aliens. Libertarians criticize this as racist policy, which I suppose it does have the potential to be. The thing is, since the vast majority of the illegal immigrants in Arizona would be Mexican (I think), then the police would be absolutely justified in targeting their I.D checks to people that are or appear to be that demographic. There’s nothing really racist about that. I don’t really understand why people have such a problem with police checking I.Ds anyway. That’s why I had no sympathy for the G20 protesters that were arrested when they refused to show I.D when asked for it. Of course, I won’t claim to be fully informed on the immigration issue as I most certainly am not, but thank you for giving me the other side of the issue.
Amit, thank you for the comment! I appreciate them and the insight from our northern neighbor, Canada 🙂