The World Apology Tour Continues

No world apology tour would be complete until the Obama administration apologized to China for perceived human rights abuses right here at home. Assistant Secretary of State and left wing screwball, Michael Posner, spoke candidly about his meetings with Chinese officials. The meeting included Posner’s suggestion that Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law represents a disturbing trend within the United States and an illustration on how America must address its own human and civil rights issues. Posner also spoke about the U.S. treatment of Muslims implying that our post-9-11 policies amount to a procedural mistreatment of Muslims and that those policies are themselves, a human rights concern.

Arizona Senators Jon Kyle and John McCain drafted an open letter to Posner demanding an apology saying that "To compare in any way the lawful and democratic act of the government of the state of Arizona with the arbitrary abuses of the unelected Chinese Communist Party is inappropriate and offensive." Just the idea that we would apologize to China for exercising our right as a sovereign nation to secure our borders is ludicrous. Our laws are based on due process and Constitutional practices that protect human rights while China secures its own borders with iron bars and lead bullets. Add to that that China is one of the world’s worst violators of human rights even if we can’t come right out and say it. After all, you can’t anger your banker, now can you?

Of course, the Obama administration only apologizes for America and not to America so Kyle and McCain will undoubtedly have a long wait. The State Department immediately defended Posner's comments. Spokesman P.J. Crowley disputed the notion Posner was apologizing to China when he was actually "standing up" for America by demonstrating how debate works in a "civil society." Crowley did, however, support the Obama's administrations concern of the Arizona law, stating, "There is, as many have said, real concerns about -- that this Arizona law will inevitably devolve into racial profiling. That would be a fundamental challenge to human rights around the world.” Of course, when Crowley was questioned as to whether or not he had actually read the Arizona statute, Crowley had to admit he had not.

Crowley is in good company. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke forcefully about his concerns regarding the Arizona law and how the Justice Department was considering filing suit to block its implementation. Curiously, as he was being questioned about his concerns by Arizona Senator, John McCain, Holder sheepishly admitted that he had not actually read the bill and that his concerns were based on what he had seen about the law on television. Well, isn’t that refreshing! CNN and MSNBC are now the legal research arm of the United States Justice Department. We are going to save a fortune in tax payer dollars now that we can eliminate all those high-priced attorneys and legal aides in Holder’s Justice Department. Apparently, all we have to do now is install a bank of televisions in Holder’s office. In fact, why stop there? Why not let Judge Judy adulate Federal cases and close the Justice Department altogether.

Department of Homeland Security chief and former Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, was also questioned by John McCain after she voiced her concerns about Arizona’s illegal immigration law and again, admitted that she had not read the law either but “knows of it”. When a high government official takes a stance on something as delicate as immigration or involving State’s right, I expect that they should have more than a vague idea of what the issue is before they speak out for, or against it.

Arizona has been left to deal with what has become a full-fledged border town drug war. The police are outmanned and out-gunned by Mexican drug runners and American citizens are being accosted while their properties are routinely violated by roving gangs of Mexican nationals. Despite numerous calls for assistance to fight a growing and dangerous wave of illegal border crossings, the Federal government has been deaf to this plea for help prompting Arizona to act unilaterally. Instead of fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to combat an ongoing foreign incursion onto American soil, the Federal government is now in the process of invoking eminent domain to seize five acres of private farm land in Vermont to strengthen the border between the United States and Canada. While border security is a high priority, the Obama administration is, as with everything else they have done, taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Mexican President Calderon joined with Obama this week in denouncing Arizona because of the illegal immigration law which is laughable since Mexican law is far more punitive and unforgiving than anything Arizona is attempting. Mexican law prohibits any form of assistance until a person’s immigration status has been confirmed. According to Mexican law, even Mexican police, medical and emergency services can be withheld until you prove that you are in that country lawfully. Of course, I don’t hear a whimper from the Obama administration about the danger that policy represents to human rights but the administration’s outrage really isn’t about human rights or immigration now is it?

So why has the Obama administration spoke out so harshly against Arizona’s immigration law? The law is taken directly from Federal immigration policy and Arizona lawmakers have actually strengthened the safeguards that protect innocent people from being needlessly harassed. The law requires that the police must have already stopped, detained or arrested someone under suspicion of a crime and the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in the country illegally before they can be questioned about their immigration status. The laws goes even further in providing protection against racial profiling by requiring that the officer’s suspicion must be based on something other than race. The corresponding Federal law offers no such protection against racial profiling.

The reason the administration is so dead set against this law is because it is based on the State’s right to self determination and affirms the Tenth Amendment protection of the sovereignty of the States. To allow the Arizona law to stand would pose serious agenda difficulties for an administration that is attempting to harness the States under the yoke of Federal control. This is only the first real challenge to Obama and his band of radical friends and Socialist advisors. The truth is the Constitutional authority for a State to enact immigration policy within that State’s own borders has already been tested in the Supreme Court, and our highest court recognized the State’s right to craft that policy.

Despite the precedent established by the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has made fighting Arizona’s immigration law a gilt edge priority because it is based on the State’s Tenth Amendment rights. A victory for Arizona in this will set the stage for additional State challenges against the Healthcare Bill, the UN gun control initiative and a national energy policy. This is about power and they have already lied about the intent and scope of the immigration law to broker as much opposition against it as possible. Fortunately, Arizona has the weight of law, the hammer of truth and the power of public support behind her as she enters the arena. This is still the United States and we still live under the rule of law. Obama may think that the Federal government has the authority to impose its will simply because they are the giant in this battle but they have obviously forgotten the story of David and Goliath. Well, Arizona is ready with the sling of truth and stone of the Constitution.

Paul

Arizona's New Immigration Law

Arizona recently passed, and signed into law, “strict new” immigration legislation which has brought the State under fire and thrust it into the national spotlight this week. The truth behind this legislation is that it is hardly new and considerably less strict that the opponents would have you believe. Open border advocates are incensed that Arizona would have the nerve to pass a law that basically says that something that is illegal is, well, illegal. The armies of the left are shouting accusations that Arizona has adopted Nazi tactics and will be asking people walking down the street for their “papers”. Cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are calling for boycotts against Arizona as if California still has enough industry left after their experiment with Progressivism to make all that much of a difference to Arizona. In fact, I think that if Arizona continues down the path of Conservatism and adopts some “business smart” tax policies, they could easily capture what business California has managed to hold on to while that State imposes more ridiculous regulations, falls deeper in debt and taxes climb even higher. Hey, in Arizona you can still get a McDonald's Happy Meal with a toy!

The law Arizona passed is nearly an identical copy of existing Federal law but unlike “Big Brother’s” edition, the Arizona law specifically prohibits race as a consideration. Those subjected to scrutiny under this new law must have been stopped by the police for an obvious infraction of existing law or must be displaying suspicious behavior. Once contact with law enforcement has been made, the police must also have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in this country illegally before asking for identification, excluding race as a cause for suspicion. Of course, that is the part of the story that the main stream press and open border proponents have intentionally left out of their description of what Arizona has done.

There will be no swarms of police harassing Latinos on the streets of Phoenix; there will be no door to door searches of private property and there will be no traffic stops to check citizenship. Arguably, there are some police officers that have engaged in behavior that is prohibited under department rules and in some cases, race was clearly the motivation. That is a sad state of affairs wherever it happens and it has happened all over America at one time or another. While the media would have you believe that this is standard procedure for most police departments the truth is that this is not representative of the vast majority of police and the explosion of camera phones and digital video recorders have been very effective at exposing those individuals and removing them from duty.

The safeguards against racial profiling present in the Arizona law will actually serve to spotlight police officers that believe they can act with impunity and abuse the power they have been given. With every civil rights organization focused on finding those abuses, is there any doubt that the slightest infraction will not be met with a torrent of legal challenges and in the prosecution of the offending officer? In fact, Arizona may well turn out to be the best place in the country for lawful immigrants as police abuses in other cities are dismissed as meaningless because of their enlightened laws where immigration status is concerned. Let’s face it, burglars don’t break into a house across the street from a police station; they go where no one is looking and all eyes are on Arizona right now.

The President has called Arizona’s new law “misguided” and that it only illustrates the need for the Federal government to enact comprehensive immigration reform before other States follow suit. Attorney General Eric Holder is exploring the possibility of challenging the law in court and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has said that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. This only displays their lack of understanding of the law that Arizona has passed. Since it is based on existing Federal law, if the Arizona law is unconstitutional and violates civic rights, so does the Federal law. This is little more than political posturing. Lindsey Graham, a Progressive Republican, has long pushed for an amnesty program that would grant legal status to the hoards of people that have already broken American law to be in the United States but we’ve tried amnesty before; haven’t we? The purpose of the last amnesty program was to prevent the hardships that illegal immigrants would face after they had already established a life in this country if they were sought out by new immigration laws and repatriated.

We granted amnesty to those illegal immigrants that had maintained residence in the United States for at least five years with the understanding that we would improve border security and provide for effective enforcement of immigration law in the future. So far, the Federal government failed miserably in its responsibility to secure our borders and that is the reason for Arizona’s new law. Isn’t it funny that one of the things that Congress is clearly responsible for, the defense of the nation, has taken a back seat to healthcare reform, Cap and Trade and the takeover of General Motors; none of which can be found in the Constitution. Clearly, if you want actual examples of misguided legislation, you must look to Washington, not Arizona.

In recent years, Arizona and other Border States have been inundated with a virtual tidal wave of violent criminal activity because of the drug wars in Mexico. In the absence of any meaningful act by the Federal government to prevent this flood of drugs, criminals and yes, innocent Mexican citizens seeking asylum from the brutality of lawless drug gangs in their home land, Arizona was forced into action to preserve law, order and quality of life. Those that are opposed to the law either do not understand its limitations or are located a comfortable distance from the war zone brewing at the Arizona border and just don’t give a damn. The Mexican government is, and always has been, a bad partner in eliminating these problems and has actually encouraged illegal immigration into the United States rather than take the next logical step towards their own legitimacy. When Arizona police have found illegal immigrants, they have never been able to count on the Mexican government to provide accurate information about criminal history and that is what has cast a cloud of suspicion over all illegal immigrants.

Arizona has long been tolerant where immigration is concerned and aside from the questionable activities of the Maricopa Sherriff’s department, has provided a safe and beneficial environment for people seeking a better life. Most of the residents of Arizona go about their lives with out race as a consideration and we have been able to build a pretty decent life here with a level of diversity that most of the country would find baffling. Truth is; we don’t care. What we do care about is crime and how that affects our families. The drug gangs waging war in Mexico are particularly brutal and have no consideration for human life and the Federal government has offered no help against their intrusion into Arizona.

Did it help that Attorney General Eric Holder intruded to make sure that three members of the infamous MS13 (Mara Salvatrucha) gang would not receive the death penalty? The three were in the United States illegally, were arrested in Virginia and charged with murder and conspiracy. As Federal prosecutors were preparing their case, Holder stepped in and instructed them not to seek the death penalty. Holder refused to comment on what prompted his involvement in this case but apparently he believes that Michigan militia men and Arizonans are far more dangerous than your run of the mill, murder for hire foreign drug gangs or international terrorists for that matter.

It is this insane posture assumed by the Federal government that forced Arizona to take unilateral action. If we are to be left to protect ourselves by a disinterested Washington, then they should not be surprised when the people on the front lines actually take action. Los Angeles’s reaction is a little surprising since they have had some of the same issues with their shared border with Mexico. San Francisco had previously announced that they are a “sanctuary city” and would not cooperate with Federal immigration law so who cares what kind of immigration problems San Francisco has. Sanctuary was really only a fun little political ploy but seriously, considering where they are located, who could they possibly be getting flooded with; Oregonians?

Maybe that is where the real racism is in all this? Los Angeles was very quick to denounce Arizona and has called for a boycott of Arizona businesses even though the law was carefully crafted to avoid any possibility of racial profiling. Is it because they believe Arizona’s new law is that outrageous or is there a real fear among Los Angeles politicians that illegal immigrants residing in Arizona may leave the State to avoid deportation and show up in L.A.; posing an additional burden to their local services? Why hasn’t the “sanctuary city” of San Francisco extended their hand to welcome this wave of refugees they have claimed will be driven from Arizona?

Well, to anyone that is in Arizona illegally all you need do is obey the law, respect your neighbors and you have nothing to fear. In fact, I’ll probably see you at the next county fair. If obeying the law is something that is a problem for you, then I would suggest you head to the sanctuary city of San Francisco. They have already said they would not cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement so that is your best chance to avoid capture and deportation.

Paul

Immigration and Amnesty

The Democrats are in power, elections are in the air and the traditional Democratic base has lost interest so that means it’s time to play….Let’s Grant Amnesty! Yes, let’s grant amnesty; the exciting decennial game where millions of people are given a free chance to collect thousands in benefits and social aid. To be eligible to play you must be in the United States illegally, you must have avoided capture for at least five years and you must have worked in a cash only business or with the use of someone else’s Social Security number; extra points are awarded if the Social Security number you are using belongs to someone that is still alive.

Of course I lay this initiative at the feet of Democrats but there are a few Republicans like Lindsay Graham (R-SC) that support this as well as Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who actually co-sponsored an Immigration Reform bill with the now deceased Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) in 2005. The “Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act” or McCain-Kennedy Bill incorporated several provisions to grant amnesty for certain illegal immigrants, provide for guest worker programs and to strengthen border security. The bill was never voted on but similar legislation based on McCain Kennedy was proposed in 2006 by Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) and proposed again in 2007 by Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The 2006 legislation passed the Senate but failed in conference committee and the 2007 bill failed all three attempts to obtain cloture and died without leaving the Senate.

In all three of these bills, there was bi-partisan opposition to one or more of the provisions within the bill. The right argued against the amnesty provision which would have in essence, rewarded people for having entered the country illegally. The left fought the bill’s tight language regarding family unification that limited Visas only to immediate family members of US citizens. They also despised the guest worker program that would have allowed workers temporary work permits for particular industries stating that it would create an entirely new class of workers that were prohibited from access to the benefits enjoyed by so many others. Also, industry opposed the new limits the bill would impose on the employer sponsorship of green card applications and the elimination of priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.

Immigration reform is guaranteed to be a hotbed of controversy. Until 1986, immigration legislation had largely been used to block entry into the United States based on criminal background or to enact quotas on immigration on the basis of nation of origin. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was the first time that legislation was used to grant amnesty to people that had entered the United States illegally provided they had resided in the US continuously since January 1, 1982. It was signed into law by Ronald Reagan mostly because it contained some important reform language designed to dissuade future illegal immigration. Under the 1986 reform bill, it became a crime to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and would require employers to attest to their employee’s immigration status.

The proponents of the 2010 push for immigration reform want to go beyond what has already been done. There is no real desire to secure our borders which is absurd in a post 9/11 America. Not every terrorist is going to board an airplane in Amsterdam; especially if they can simply walk into the country unchallenged through one of our land borders. The current bill proposed by Representative Gutierrez (D-IL) says that it strengthens border protection but then prohibits the use of the United States armed forces, including the National Guard from States adjacent to the US border, to enhance border protection. The bill expands the definition of “family” for the purpose of determining the eligibility of entrance based on family reunification. The bill would hamper the ability to detain those people that are known to be in the United States unlawfully. The bill would also relax the requirements for citizenship, allowing those that were recently considered law breakers to become law makers through the election process.

Proponents of the bill have always claimed that the opposition to immigration legislation was based solely on racial hatred but is that really true? Most of the opposition I’ve heard is centered on several principals. The proponents of immigration reform like to rephrase the argument by calling illegal immigrants “undocumented workers” suggesting that they are a legitimate part of the U.S. workforce. In fact, they have already had to have broken several U.S. and State laws for them to be “undocumented workers” in the first place. They are illegal and no amount of flourish can change that. Opponents also recognize that the reforms suggested under the Gutierrez bill would, in short order, allow these people unlimited access to American social benefit programs that are already severely challenged, adding billions to the burden of tax paying Americans.

I am the first to admit that there are good and bad in every race and nationality but does it really make sense to relax immigration and citizenship standards when we have little or no cooperation in obtaining the criminal records of the applicants? Mexico is now under assault from drug cartels and their gangs of assassins; the same gangs that are responsible for an exponential increase in gang and drug violence in U.S. communities close to the Mexican border and the Mexican government would do anything to see some of these people leave for the United States and out of their hair. These violent tendencies and trends must be considered as an impediment to relaxed immigration policies as long as we do not have a willing partner in identifying the criminals that are seeking legal status in America. That is strictly speaking for the rule of law and self preservation which has nothing to do with hatred or racism.

Speaking of self preservation, there is also the reality of our economic crisis here in the United States. Recent tax and trade policies have allowed many of our manufacturing jobs to leave the U.S. for places around the globe where labor is cheap and government restrictions are few. As Al Gore campaigned for President, his defense of the United States trade policies adopted by the Clinton administration was that America doesn’t want to make underwear and sneakers; America wants to make information systems and new technologies. Really?

Not only did Mr. Gore fail to ask the Americans that were making underwear and sneakers how they felt about their country adopting policies that would ship their jobs to Asia, I find it curious that America’s immigration policies do not reflect that drive towards the future. We are discussing embracing people that entered the nation illegally to perform menial and unskilled labor while we have driven the need for unskilled labor from our shores leaving millions of Americans seeking employment in the few remaining service industries that survived government ignorance. These remaining jobs for our own unskilled labor force are directly challenged by this wave of illegal immigrants who are willing to work longer hours for less pay because it is still a better existence than they had in their country of origin.

Finally, the periodic and regular granting of amnesty for illegal immigrants only encourages further illegal immigration. After all, what is the downside? Many that were caught and deported only return to the U.S. within weeks or months. There is no will in the Federal government to assist the States in stopping this influx and the prevalent train of thought of the current administration actually seeks to inhibit the actions of local law enforcement that try to combat the illegal immigration problem on their own. This is a discussion that always seems to surface whenever Democrats are in control because as these people are amnestied and naturalized, they overwhelmingly vote Democrat because the current Socialist leanings of today’s Democrats more closely reflect their own political ideologies.

Paul