I’m pretty laid back on the issue of immigration. In fact, as a Libertarian (with a capital L) I lean toward open borders, allowing anyone in who can support themselves and live by the laws of the land. But, the last time I checked, I didn’t write the laws nor enforce them, so what I think about what should constitute legal immigration is completely irrelevant.
But, it’s that “laws of the land” that is the crucial bit here: Legal immigration. Legal, by whatever the law of the land happens to be. Anyone who is here illegally falls outside that crucial parameter. Whatever color or nationality they happen to be. I don’t live in a “border state” so I can afford to be magnanimous. Would I feel differently if my state dealt with a large population of illegal immigrants? Probably. Oh, we have our share of illegal immigrants, and it seems that the population grows with every passing year, but they are mostly innocuous and hard working.
Arizona has come under fire from the Left-leaning for its new law (SB 1070)making it a state crime to be in the state if they are in the country illegally. In other words, there are people who have the belief that Arizona does not have the right to protect their citizens and legal residents from those who are, in fact criminals by the very fact that they are in this country illegally.
The hew and cry is that the Arizona law will allow, if not out right require, racial profiling. My response to that is two-fold: there are illegal immigrants in this country of every race… white, black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and Asian. Even an aunt of President Obama is in this country illegally and awaiting a ruling on her deportation hearing (link). Secondly, it’s the Left-leaning that invokes race, even President Obama in his calling upon “… blacks, Latinos, and women.” The Arizona law does not say anything about any particular race.
America is a nation founded on the Rule of Law not the Rule of Men.
Hey! I don’t agree with many of the laws of the land either! Does that mean I get to ignore them? What if it benefits my well being and social status? What if I just feel like ignoring them? What are the lines of division or criteria for laws we are allowed to ignore versus those we are not? And who gets to decide what those lines of division and criteria are?
That’s the difference between the Rule of Law and the Rule of Men. The Rule of Law governs all equally. The Rule of Men allows for special interests and arbitrary decisions.
The Federal government has FAILED to enforce the federal immigration laws. They have, in fact and deed, been arbitrary. And that has cost the state of Arizona and its citizens and legal residents real dollars as they have struggled with all of the inherent costs associated with a large population of people who do not participate in the greater society and its financial support.
As for the calls for boycotts: That is an economic threat and tactic that cuts both ways. On the way home from work this evening I heard on the radio calls for counter-boycotts. Stop eating at Mexican restaurants. Do not visit cities such as San Francisco or L.A. who call for boycotts on Arizona. Why not. We are already in a political “war”, why not an economic one as well?
America is no longer the Land of the Free and Home of the brave. We are a country of “us” and “them.” On many levels and fronts. So, those that support Arizona and its new law are saying to those that don’t “Bring it on.” And just like in a real guns and bullets war: the innocent non-combatants will suffer… collateral damage. Oh well. Too bad. Too bad as long as politicians can score their political points and/or pander to their constituents, but do nothing to solve a very real and costly problem. Costly in dollars. Costly in human lives.