printIf democracy means anything, it is the right of localities to a measure of autonomy over how and with whom they live their lives. How wrong were the residents of Arizona to imagine that they would be granted that luxury. Polls show Arizonians do not want the crime and lawlessness associated with hordes of illegal immigrants streaming into their state. Her constituents support “Gov. Jan Brewer signing of a bill that requires police to question people about their immigration status – including asking for identification – if they suspect someone is in the country illegally.”
The murder last month of Arizona Rancher Robert Krentz—he had raised cattle in the area of Cochise County for decades—by one peaceable, illegal invader shook that community.
“The state senator who wrote the law,” a political embarrassment, according to the New York Times, is Russell Pearce.
Another overreacting, overreaching law-enforcement activist, Russell Pearce’s motives are suspect, hints the NYT, because “his son, a Maricopa County sheriff’s deputy, was shot and wounded in 2004 by an illegal immigrant and Mr. Pearce, a former sheriff’s deputy, was shot and wounded while arresting gang members 20 years ago.”
Only the Times would construe the sobering effects of experience as a bias. What will we do when the Pearce kind of patriot; tough old-timers, die out?
What won’t die out any time soon are the powerhouse advocates for illegals immigrants converging on the Grand Canyon State. They won’t be dying out as long as they can use the political machine to bilk the politically powerless (you and me) for the benefit of their clientele. sadly, Arizona will be tied up in the courts by the proxies for the powerful (open-border advocates).
The Arizona law, SB1070, resembles the law the federal branch of government has chosen to flout. SB1070 is a species of negative law that takes back from the federales the right to accept or repel invaders. By default, the Bush/Obama-run federal government had decreed that the states ought not be permitted to repel invaders and must assume the costs in blood and treasure of the invasion. The central government did so by way of ignoring laws only it was permitted to enforce.
Arizona has repossessed its sovereign right to determine if it wants unfettered immigration with Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
State sovereignty? Naturally, our illiberal president would take the most severe tone with such notions, supplemented by stern actions to curtail this show of independence from his outlying territories.
Earlier Friday, President Obama called the Arizona bill “misguided” and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it’s legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level — or leave the door open to “irresponsibility by others.”
“That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe,” Obama said.
Update I (April 25): David Smith (see Comments Section) points out another instance in which Glenn Beck has gone wrong in exhorting a sitting-duck pacifism. Via WikiAnswer:
“… taken from a letter Jefferson wrote to William Smith in 1787 in reference to an uprising in Massachusetts after the American Revolution. A more full quote:
“Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s [sic] motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. And what country can preserve its liberties, if it’s [sic] rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Jefferson is referring, specifically, to the Shays’ Rebellion. If you look at the context of the quote, it appears that Jefferson actually believed the men who took arms were essentially wrong about the facts, but he still considered them patriotic for making their voices heard. Jefferson felt it was important that the government be kept in check, even if those keeping them in check were not necessarily in the right. It wasn’t being in the “right” that kept the people free, but rather the fact that they had a voice and used it.
Update II (April 26): “You run into civil-rights issues whenever you try to enforce any law,” says Tucker Carlson. “That’s just the nature of enforcing laws.” Too true. And, “This Bill asks law enforcement officials to enforce the law. If by so doing you undermine basic notions of fairness, as the president alleged, let’s just give up on enforcing any law. It’s an absurd thing to say.”
Update III: The god-awful Chris Matthews, who makes no pretense at objectivity any longer, pummeled a mild-mannered John Huppenthal, a senator from Arizona. The Republican state senator explained that since the get-tough-on-illegals policies were implemented the murder rate in Arizona went from 250 in 2006 to 125 (the following year?). Half.
But what’s a hundred or so lives among liberals?
Matthews then went from bombastic to farcical. After being told that his guest has documented an association between illegality and crime, he demanded to know how did stopping a person because you think he is here illegally reduce crime. Patiently, Huppenthal explained that given the causal connection just mentioned, deporting a person caught in the act tends to do the trick.
Poor Huppenthal, clearly a good fellow working to make his community more tolerable, was then insulted and called. … a racist.
Is there anything more repulsive than a liberal man?
Update IV (April 27): Pat Buchanan, patriot, from “Whose Country Is This?”:
“…Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go.
Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.
Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government – Bush and Obama both – issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.
What are we doing to our own people?
Whose country is this, anyway?
America today has an establishment that, because it does not like the immigration laws, countenances and condones wholesale violation of those laws.
Nevertheless, under those laws, the U.S. government is obligated to deport illegal aliens and punish businesses that knowingly hire them.
This is not an option. It is an obligation.
Can anyone say Barack Obama is meeting that obligation?”
Update V (April 27): BROTHER BUSH. Jeb “Bush … opposes the Arizona immigration bill, too.” WaPo: “Right after his not-so-secretly preferred U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio comes out against Arizona’s new immigration reform law [and for amnesty, or as it’s called in political locution: comprehensive immigration reform], Jeb Bush lends his name to an under-the-radar conservative campaign for federal immigration reform this year.”
One of our readers prefers that I remain mum about the Republican treason lobby. Sorry. Truth will out. With my help.
Update VI: AZ State Senator Frank Antenori fighting for his community. “What about my constituents,” he asks. He was responding to the CNN Woman’s idiotic question: “There are a lot of people who are very angry, very upset [a life threatening condition, clearly] that if they drive into Arizona [read, enter it illegally], they will be pulled over. How do you convince them not to be worried?” Apparently, laws in defense of life and private property must be tailored to suit the trespassers.
Antenori: “What about my constituents whose homes are ransacked? What about the ranchers who’re shot at while patrolling their fence lines; whose cattle are being slaughtered; there’s millions of dollars of economic damages… what about them? What about their civil right?
I have one correction to Sen. Antenori (a veteran): the rights he is trying to protect are not civil rights; they are the right to life, liberty and property. In defense of Suzanne Malveaux, she let it rest there, rather than give more time to the opponents, or try and humiliate the man, as is the habit of the hacks at MSNBC. [Look at how this dogmatic dodo insists on getting her opinion in.]
I admire Arizona’s courage, although I don’t know if this bill will amount to anything. From my understanding, there are enough legal immigrants from Latin America residing in Arizona, that the state may be theirs anyway, give or take a couple of generations.
Still, I find this admirable.
In the movie ‘Death Wish’ a character made the statement; “A Conservative is a Liberal that’s been mugged.” Russell Pearce sounds like he might understand that saying. New York and Washington DC are approximately 25 hundred miles from the Arizona/Mexico border so it is doubtful that they can relate, though the movie was set in New York, I think. How the president can say a copy of Federal Law in a states hand is ‘misguided’, sorry I forgot, he said the Supreme Court made an error in overturning the senator from Arizona’s campaign reform bill/law in his state of the union message. Maybe he is above the law.
It appears that the supporters of unlimited trespass via our Southern border are upset because the police MIGHT abuse the law. Of course, any law MIGHT be abused and one can certainly point out when and if that happens. So far, it has not happened. The bigger issue is why doesn’t the federal government build a proper barrier?
It is certainly more sensible to keep trespassers out rather than go searching to see who in this country came in illegally. 99% of the draconian nonsense of national biometric identity cards (and I have personal encounters with the Keystone Kops Gestapo on that issue already) would be avoided if we could put up a double-layered wall with a decent network of passive and active sensors (acoustic, visible, infrared, and seismic) and an empowered border patrol. What I don’t want is some TSA-type goon hassling me about showing my papers and having my saliva tested if I go to Taco Bell.
Anyway, in the absence of the Federal Government enforcing its own borders, the Arizona law makes the most sense.
I have lived my whole life in Ca…. But Az is lookin pretty good
We Stand With Arizona, and Against Illegal Immigration
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stand-with-arizona-and-against-illegal-immigration.html
When the citizenry is continually abused by its own government, a point may be reached when things get violent. After all, we don’t have a Second Amendment primarily so we can hunt. I keep hearing Glenn Beck beg our citizens not to pick guns – and I think he is correct in saying that the powers-that-be are just waiting for such an eventuality – but I have to believe that at some point there will be blood shed when folks are pushed past the point of endurance, their people killed, their home, their country taken from them right in front of their faces. I hope I am wrong.
Where does Sarah Palin stand on this? We need to know, given that she’s apparently been “anointed” as our new “conservative heroine.” Does she stand for protecting borders and private property rights? Palin needs to step up to the plate, and make her opinions known on this issue.
Even way back in the 1950’s when I was a kid, I was always amazed at the numbers of loud voices,from New York, Washington DC, Hollywood etc, who set themselves up as self appointed judges of people in far away states. Evil Mississippi and Alabama come to mind. I’m amazed that Arizona politicians actually had the cajones to say “enough is enough” in the face of the elitist, leftist firestorm that is sure to come. Obama is going to continue his long range sucking up to La Raza and any other America hating, minority group that has two votes and a donation. I think it’s time we started giving Obama the respect and cooperation he deserves. None.
Well, Sistah Sarah is supporting mentor McCain over J. D. Hayworth – but then that could be out of loyalty to the one who annointed her into the limelight.
The recent passage of SB 1070 was not “misguided” as labeled by our president, but was a carefully constructed and twice legally vetted legislation that the overwhelming majority of LEGAL Arizona residents support! An online poll (today) by FOX news had even more startling results: 94% are in favor of it!
We in Arizona are indeed on the front lines of illegal immigration. It costs our state over $1 Billion dollars annually to pay for the illegal immigrants. We are the number one city for kidnapping and it is entirely related to illegal immigrants.
The effete eastern politicians seem to have forgotten that illegal immigrants, regardless of the country of origin, have broken our laws and invaded our country-and they complain about us wanting to stop it! Give me a break! If you stand for the illegals, you do not stand for the rule of law. The rule of law is what has helped to make our country great. We need to get back to the basics in politics.
We simply had enough. We know how to fix the problem and now our police officers have had their “political handcuffs” removed. Scream all you want-if you are here illegally you will be arrested and deported. End of story!
Just read on Drudge that the San Francisco city attorney is calling for a San Francisco boycott of Arizona. It seems there is a silver lining behind every cloud.
If you do breach the peace you can be sued by the debtor. Darrell Timers
Folks, AZ is now going to force DC into tackling immigration. However, I am worried that Congress’ action will be similar to their action in response to the minutemen in 2007 in which they attempted to reclassify illegals as legal and hence, problem solved.
As this issue proceeds, please don’t get taken in by the false choice between legal and illegal immigration. I’ve been hearing conservatives on radio who are defending the AZ law by saying they support legal immigration. It seems you can’t talk about this issue without first establishing your bona fides by declaring your support for legal immigration.
That’s not the response I want to hear. The real issue here is MASS immigration.
The future demographic time bomb is only going to happen if we continue to take in 1 to 2 million, legal and illegal combined, per year for the next 40 years. We need to return to a level of 200,000 total immigrants per year, period. Of course this 200K should include the high IQ achievers who can actually add value.
Besides my desire not to become a third world nation, I don’t like the current trend which will make our population increase from today’s 300 million to over 400 million by 2050. Just think, today we have 100 Senators and 435 Representatives who do a lousy job representing us. When we hit 400 million, we’ll still have the same 535 members of Congress. If that is not watering down your voice in government, what is?
I could go on and on about the increase use of water resources, infrastructure, etc. that will be required with this extra 100 million. But most of you realize this.
So please remember, the real issue here is stopping MASS immigration.
[As your host has been insisting since … 2003, and as her regular readers know. Few on this space pay attention to “conservative” pundits. Immigration Archives are HERE.]
Thanks for the link to your 2003 article. Your quote below is right on the money.
By focusing exclusively on the illegal immigration no-brainer, however, most media scribes and immigration watchdogs are providing a useful diversion from the crux of the immigration problem. And playing into the hands of an administration that wants us to forget that legal immigration is the real catastrophe.
Up until now I was a fan of Marco Rubio. He said all the right things about all the right subjects. However, anyone with a medium amount of good sense can’t possibly support “comprehensive immigration reform” as it is meant by our political leaders. I am always skeptical of “litmus tests” to support or not support candidates but along with being pro-abortion, or anti second amendment rights, actual support of immigration reform is a litmus test that can’t be ignored. To be on the wrong side of these issues is not only dangerous to the country but indicative of an individual who cannot be trusted to support America when the chips are down.
And, if you haven’t noticed, the chips are down now. I notice the howls of indignation coming from the leaders of the Mexican government about the new Arizona law. I am waiting to hear some of our Republican leaders stand up for the USA and tell the Mexicans where to get off. I suspect I’ll be waiting for a long time. To hell with the Americans. We can’t possibly take a chance on irritating the Mexicans. The Mexican president will be in Washington next month. I’m sure Obama won’t miss this golden opportunity to apologize for America and then assume his favorite position when talking to some third world leader.
What the country at large is now witnessing is what Californians witnessed firsthand sixteen years ago with Proposition 187. I distinctly remember being in junior high and hearing and seeing the protests and mass school “ditch” days with hundreds of mexican students walking out of classes and joining the La Raza organizers waiting for them on street corners. This is old news to myself and others, and for those of us living in the bankrupt and ungovernable republic of califas we are a warning and a grave harbinger of things to come.
I do not blame the people who cross over the border as much the Americans who send out the completely MIXED SIGNALS. It is like putting a saucer of cream and a plate of tuna on your front porch and then screaming at the stray cats who show up!
We have had idiotic court decisions: (a) allowing dual citizenship, (b) insisting on the RIGHT of trespassers to free medical care, (c) insisting on the RIGHT of trespassers to free education, (d) the RIGHT of trespassers to collect “welfare” from taxpaying citizens. We have had legislatures and politicians and Presidents who (a) give preferential “in-state” tuition to non-citizen trespassers over citizens, (b) refuse to build a wall to enforce the law, (c) do nothing to appeal and/or repeal idiotic court decisions, and (d) denounce those advocate enforcing the law.