Arizona, Immigration, and Politics

For all of the outrage over Arizona’s passage of their new immigration law, you’d think doors were being kicked in in the middle of the night. On a popular TV program yesterday, the host asked an audience of about 50 legal immigrants if they knew of anyone who actually had their door kicked in. One man raised his hand. He said his sister had been robbed twice by criminal illegals.

In all fairness, it is probably true that the majority of illegal immigrants do not commit crimes after crossing our border illegally. There is a distinction between those illegal immigrants, and those who kidnap, rob, and rape. But the fact remains that anyone who crosses our border without authorization, or deliberately over-stays their visa, is by definition in our country illegally.

Perhaps some of the confusion in terminology stems from the use of the word “illegal” , which is an adjective describing legal status, as a noun, referring to an individual.  Either way, the individual is here illegally, thus breaking the law.

The oxy-moron of the “law-abiding illegal immigrant” is being used widely by the amnesty crowd. Here, Columnist Jeanne Cummings of Politico uses the term twice in her column “Democrat’s shift right frustrates Hispanic activists”

“Worse still, immigrant advocates charge, in their zeal to demonstrate toughness, DHS and its enforcement partners have dragged many law-abiding illegal immigrants and legitimate businesses into the system, shattering Obama’s promises of more humane treatment.” “In a recent meeting with community advocates, Obama appeared surprised to learn that federal immigration officials were still conducting midmorning raids in Hispanic communities that resulted in long detentions of law-abiding illegal immigrants, according to participants.”

Read more:

The obvious intent is to garner sympathy for the poor  “law-abiding illegal immigrants”.  Again, the fact remains that are here illegally, and by Federal law, should be deported.

The security of the country, including it’s borders, is the primary responsibility of the Federal Government. Pure and simple.

Unfortunately, the current administration sees the estimated 12-20 million immigrants currently in the country illegally, as a huge base of new Democrat voters, if it can manage to get them amnesty and immediate access to all sorts of taxpayer funded subsidies. Why, a voting bloc of that size might well be enough to counter the Tea Party movement. The president and his supporters are clearly putting politics ahead of the security of the nation.

That is not to say that previous presidents have done such a great job securing the southern border. There is no doubt that it is a very tricky political issue. However, we should learn from our mistakes. The amnesty granted to the illegal immigrants already here in the 80s under President Reagan did nothing to stop illegal immigration.

President Obama, following his advisor’s motto of never letting a crisis go to waste, is trying to use the angry backlash against the Arizona law to push for  “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation.  Consider all of the unintended consequences of the “comprehensive health care reform”  that are coming to light almost daily, and ask yourself if you are comfortable with “comprehensive” anything from the Democrats, and particularly this Congress?

The definition of the word “comprehensive”, when used by Democrats, means thousands of pages of convoluted legal gibberish that a half dozen lawyers, given a month to read, would not be able to agree on what it means. It means hundreds, if not thousands, of pork goodies and rewards to supporters hidden away in that gibberish. And it means that it will not only be expensive, and put us deeper in debt, it will likely to be waaaaaay more expensive than they tell you it will be.

What is needed, is for the Federal Government to enforce current immigration laws and secure the border. Janet Napolitano is an incompetent political appointee and cheerleader for Obama.  The government thinks nothing of setting up another multi-trillion dollar entitlement, so don’t tell me a few billion spent to finish the fence and quadruple the border patrol and ICE is not financially feasible.

Arizona passed their new law to protect their citizens. It wasn’t done out of racism, nor out of hate. It was done out of necessity, because the Obama administration refuses uphold their primary duty for political reasons.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Arizona, Immigration, and Politics”

  1. Rick Minyard Says:

    Your rush to blame everything on Obama fails to take certain things into account. One being REALITY. In the article you cite even:

    -The Obama administration’s enforcement efforts in 2009 led to the deportation of 387,790 illegal immigrants — a 5 percent jump over the Bush administration’s record in 2008.
    -Under the Southwest Border Initiative, the Obama administration has doubled agents assigned to the Border Enforcement Security Task Forces, tripled the number of intelligence analysts along the southwest border, sent in new canine teams. And the 700-mile-long border fence is almost finished.

    What? More illegals being deported now than under the previous Republican? Can’t be! That would mean that Fox News is wrong about something?

    Considering the fact that not a single Republican is signing on to support the initiative, how can you say that Obama and his supporters are putting politics ahead of the security of the nation? You’re reading from the play book. Prediction: When the law fails to pass constitutional muster, you’ll blame the “Liberal court”.

    Conservatives used to claim to champion limited government and the constitution, which is why I used to call myself “conservative”. Now, they simply act like liberals. You are what you despise, yet you can’t even recognize it.

  2. samadams25 Says:

    OK Rick, let’s take it point by point.

    First, I didn’t blame Obama for the entirety of illegal immigration. I noted that previous presidents have done a poor job of controlling the border as well. In fact, I even mentioned Reagan’s folly of amnesty in the 80s.

    Secondly, a 5% increase in deportations compared to Bush’s pitiful record on this is nothing to crow about. Obama has used a slightly bigger band-aid on a gaping wound than Bush did. Figures showing a decrease in illegal immigration in 2009 can indeed be attributed to the fence (what actually has been built), increased border patrol personnel, AND the plummet of job availability. We still have MILLIONS of illegal immigrants, many living in poverty and sapping the safety net for legal residents. He is pushing amnesty to gain political support, plain and simple, and touting a lower illegal immigration rate is the same as saying that at least not as many people applied for unemployment this week as last week. The truth is, it’s not bleeding as bad as it was, but it’s still bleeding. I stand by my assertion that the Obama administration is pursuing amnesty for illegal immigrants for political gain.

    Thirdly, you have NEVER heard me say that Fox News is always correct.

    Fourthly, not a single Republican is signing on to “the initiative” because: A. Democrats talk a good game of bi-partisanship, but play “my way or the highway” and B. we now know what Dems mean when they say “comprehensive”.

    Fifthly, If the law is struck down by Judges on strict Constitutional grounds, and not “activist” Judges who subscribe to the notion that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document”, then I will have no problem with it. The process will have done it’s job of bringing attention to the fact that the Federal Government has utterly failed in it’s responsibility to control our southern border for decades. However, it is a fact that decisions of the 9th Federal District Court of Appeals are struck down by the US Supreme Court more often than not.

    And lastly, the American political scene is no longer a chocolate-vanilla-strawberry world. There are Progressive Republicans pretending to be conservative, Progressive Democrats pretending to be moderate, and Anarchists pretending to be Tea Partiers, just to name a few. In my opinion, the closest to the Neapolitan ice cream analogy is this: those who believe that government is the problem, those who believe that government is the solution, and those who believe that a government that is limited as specifically outlined in the Constitution is necessary, and a good thing. Perhaps a “Goldielocks” party….

    Give me credit, Rick. I have not personally insulted you, questioned your patriotism, or maligned you in any way. Your comments are welcome. I believe in civil debate on issues. It is obvious that we disagree on the role of government, but I would defend your right to say your piece as vigorously as I would someone who agrees with me. I am adamant about my rights, but they are your rights as well. Please feel free to comment anytime, Sir.

  3. Rick Minyard Says:

    I believe the constitution spells out the role of government very nicely. Article 1 Section 8 specifically tasks the Federal Government with matters of naturalization (immigration). It is the role of the Federal Government to secure and police our borders. The fact that, for decades, they have failed to do so does not mean that we allow – rather force – local governments and police to also tackle that role. We instead need to channel our energies towards forcing the cowards on Capital Hill to do their jobs.

    By your response, I am assuming that you’re in the camp that believes that government should be limited as outlined in the Constitution. I would agree. I would also point out that the Arizona law is not consistent with that.

  4. Rick Minyard Says:

    At the risk of having facts get in the way of a lively debate:

  5. samadams25 Says:

    @Rick –
    Yes, I do indeed believe that the government should be limited to the power granted it under the Constitution. I also believe that the PRIMARY duty of the federal government is to provide security, including our borders. I fully agree with you that the cowards in Washington have failed miserably in this duty. There are immigration laws currently on the books, so enforcement falls to the administration, regardless of whether they like the current laws or not. Perhaps the Arizona law is NOT consistent with the Constitution, I do not claim to be a constitutional scholar. I do, however, understand their desperation in the face of this administration’s refusal to do it’s sworn duty and enforce current law. Whether this law is found to be constitutional or not, it has successfully brought attention to the problem, and hopefully enough pressure will be brought to bear on the administration to do it’s job, rather than play this for political gain.

  6. Rick Minyard Says:

    Couple of observations with your last post:
    -I wouldn’t expect a freedom-loving conservative and self-described patriot to have such a cavalier attitude towards the Constitution. (“Perhaps the law is NOT consistent with the Constitution…”). The whole debate should begin and end with that premise, no matter the issue.
    -We agree on much of this. I’ve spelled it out in detail in my blog here:
    -Here, and in your other posts consistently want to portray Obama as the ultimate devil. Above, you hold only the administration responsible for enforcement…no, you hold only the CURRENT administration responsible. (No mention of the previous administration who deported fewer illegals, staffed the border troops at half the current levels) or Congress, who does, after all, have just a little to do with what goes on up there.

    Sam, maybe I’m playing editor here, but I have to point out that your legitimacy as a commentator is diminished greatly because you play only a single note: Obama is bad. Liberals are bad. Haven’t seen a single mention of the messes that Bush caused, or the mess that Congress (whichever party is in control) seems always to cause. Your criticisms would carry much more weight if you were consistent and not simply hammering from one side.

  7. samadams25 Says:

    Thank you for your observations. I fully admit to being new to writing blogs, and I’m still on the low end of the learning curve. Your constructive criticism is helpful and welcome. Hopefully, I will become better at it with practice and corrections, and become more clear in expressing myself.

    Obviously, I was not successful in making my point by saying “Perhaps the law is NOT consistent with the Constitution…” I did precede that by admitting that I am not a constitutional scholar. My point was two-fold. I am not in a position to judge the constitutionality of the law, and if it is not constitutional, then I have faith in the judicial system to resolve that issue. I am in complete agreement with you that “The whole debate should begin and end with that premise, no matter the issue.”.

    In this issue, I was trying to express my understanding of Arizona’s desperation at the federal government’s total abdication of it’s responsibility. Hopefully, their action will force it to do it’s primary job, rather than to just use it as as a political wedge.

    As for the ultimate devil, in my opinion, that would be the progressive movement as a whole, with Obama as it’s current face. Prior to this administration, the progressives (in BOTH parties) have insidiously been creeping their tendrils into national policy for decades. With this administration, however, stealth-mode is over. This administration has put the pedal to the metal in trying to drive our country to the left as fast and hard as it can while it has a majority in congress.

    I give no free pass to the previous administration or congress. The GOP got tossed out on their collective ass in 2006 and 2008 for straying from basic principles. But now, I am reacting to what we are dealing with today, the radical lurch to the left by the current government – executive and legislative. It is a bad thing for us all in my opinion.

  8. Rick Minyard Says:

    Thanks for being a good sport Sam. I enjoy our interaction. Feel free to comment on my posts as well. If nothing else, this activity will keep us off the streets!

  9. samadams25 Says:

    Thank you, Rick, for your thoughtful constructive criticism. I think that we agree more than we disagree. I do appreciate the civil tone of your disagreements. It proves that gentlemen can indeed disagree without coming to blows, or worse. There may be hope for us yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: