By Harris Sherline
While the flow of misinformation about Arizonas Senate Bill 1070 has circulated throughout the media commentators and politicos of every stripe have weighed in on the issue including the presidents of Mexico and the U.S:
- The law discriminates against people from Mexico
- Its unconstitutional
- Its unfair (presumably to the illegal immigrants)
- It cant be enforced without violating the civil rights of the people who are stopped and asked for documentation to show that they are legally in the country
- Its racist.
Here we go again thousands of people marching in the streets protesting immigration laws.
Attempting to deal with the problem of illegal immigrants has now made Arizona the poster child for the self-righteous moralizing of much of the rest of the country.
The bill is only 17 pages long and is not the tangle of legalese that we have come to expect from legislators. However it appears that most of those who are so vocal about criticizing the law also have not bothered to read the bill.
Sophia Tareen commented that ...activists families students and even politicians marched practiced civil disobedience and came out about their citizenship status in the name of rights for immigrants including the estimated 12 million living illegally in the U.S.
My question is: Just what rights do illegal immigrants have or should they have?
They are not U.S. citizens and they are not here legally. So why are they marching for their rights?
The problem is they represent a potential voting block for the Democrats who are encouraging them to take to the streets and demonstrate. We went through this a while back and I remember seeing thousands of people in the streets of Los Angeles and elsewhere around the country demanding not asking or requesting but demanding their rights.
I was offended by it then and I am offended now and I am not alone. There have been reports that roughly 70 of Arizonans agree.
As for the Arizona legislature they havent done anything more than codify U.S. immigration laws that already exist. However perhaps the most important issue in the Arizona situation is one we are not hearing about and that is the question of what constitutes a nation.
Is it the people or a common culture or perhaps ethnic uniformity as the Chinese or Japanese or a common religion as Christian or Muslim or is it based some natural resource such as oil?
A country that cannot establish and protect its borders risks its sovereignty.
Mexico is a prime example of the sort of draconian immigration laws for which its president Calderon is aggressively criticizing in Arizona. Following are just some examples:
Being in Mexico illegally can land you in jail for up to two years as can alien marriage fraud.
Law enforcement officials at every level are required to cooperate to enforce Mexicos immigration laws.
Every Mexican citizen is required to carry an ID card. Without it they are subject to arrest as an illegal alien.
Political speech by foreigners is prohibited and those who are not Mexican citizens are not allowed to participate in the political affairs of the country.
Mexico is noted for its abusive treatment of illegal aliens from Central America who are caught crossing Mexicos southern border.
Since most of the school children in Arizona are now Hispanic its clear that they will dominate the states society in the future. However Europes experience clearly demonstrates that mass immigration does not work to the advantage of the nation that accepts them.
For example in Germany three times as many of the Turks are welfare dependent and on average they retire at age 50. The situation with the immigrants in France is similar.
Another overlooked consequence of the uncontrolled immigration in Arizona is the impact it has on the carbon footprint of the state in addition to the demands that the increased population places on government. Arizona has been forced to expand government to service greater numbers of residents.
In short the massive and uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants in Arizona is breaking the state financially.
The torrent of negative commentary and threats of litigation that Arizonas actions have generated has failed to take into account that the state has already successfully defended its immigration laws on three previous occasions. In 2005 the Arizona began requiring proof of citizenship for voting and restricted benefits to illegal aliens in 2006 they defeated a challenge to its human smuggling law and in 2008 the state made it a crime to knowingly employ an illegal immigrant.
Regardless of what the pundits and naysayers may assert Arizonas latest foray into immigration legislation will prevail again.
Theyve already been there and done that.
