The U.S. Can Kiss the South West Goodbye?

If the response to Arizona's new law on Illegal Immigration Enforcement is an example, the future of the South Western U.S. in in jeopardy of losing its political and social integrity.  We have seen it beginning with threats of economic and political boycott from adjacent States, racial organizations, marching in the streets, disinformation by such persons as Luis Gutierrez (D Ill.), Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, Rick Sanchez of CNN, Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano, Kieth Obermann of MSNBC, Governor of New Mexico Richardson, and President Barack Obama.  The TV media uses propaganda techniques such as  "deck stacking", which deliberately emphasizes the supposed negatives of the legislation and deliberately mis-states the law; claiming that it racially discriminates against Mexicans and others from south of the border.  The law specifically does not racially discriminate, stating that questions about immigration and nativity can only be asked during a stop for other reasons, not as a primary reason for the stop.

This begs the question, what will take place if "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" takes place.  What happens if 12 to 20 million aliens are made legal and citizens?  Not only does this tip the political balance but it potentially places that many and their offspring in the streets demonstrating against another effort to enforce a year 2020 "Comprehensive Immigration Reform".  Where is the end of it?  As time goes on it gets harder to put the genie back in the bottle.  As it is it is almost impossible to enforce Immigration.  Employers are still hiring illegals, no one can be questioned on the streets, no fences are being built, enforcement officers are few in numbers related to the area to be covered, States are discouraged from immigration enforcement, sanctuary cities exist, and E-verify is not being implemented fully.  Immigration is broke for sure.  Not because the laws are bad but because there is little resolve to enforce the existing laws.  The fault lies with those in power and no new laws will fix that.  The only answer will be after more killings take place, or when Al-Qaeda sends someone over the border to attack us. 

Some questions I would like to hear asked are:  What about immigration is broken?  How do you intend to enforce interior enforcement in order to catch post "reform" illegal aliens?  How do you intend to enforce illegal hirers of aliens?  What penalties?  Who will enforce the laws--States, federal officers?   How much will all the paper work cost and who will do all the background checks etc.? 

Immigration: "If It Walks Like a Duck, Quacks Like a Duck,...."

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck--right?  Proponents of "comprehensive immigration reform" for the most part look Hispanic i.e.; are olive complected, dark haired, brown eyed, often speak with an accent, as though they were speaking a secondary language, with Spanish being their primary language.  Oh, I am guilty of racially profiling!  We all racially profile people; its almost impossible not to do--most of us would pick out an Englishman by his talk and ruddy complexion, or a Sikh by his turbin and swarthy complection.  What is racial profiling anyhow?

During WWII GIs picked out German infiltrators by asking questions most Americans would know, like who won Baseball's World Series. Hardly racially profiling.  Police use similar tools in determining who is who--like "whats your social security number, where were you born and when?  What schools did you attend and where are they located?"  "Do you have a valid drivers license?"  If the answers are bogus it is natural to follow up with asking for citizenship papers.  Of course the questions follow a stop for some infraction, such as speeding, broken or malfunctioning tail light, public disturbance, or outright crime.  It is nothing new, police use simple infractions to get you for not wearing a seat belt, or check you for insurance, or drinking while driving. Is stopping and checking fair.  Barack Obama faulted the new Arizona law as being unfair. 

Where is the unfairness?  The unfairness seems to lie with the illegal aliens; for they have been taking advantage of American's hospitality.  Pregnant aliens cross the border to have their children in U.S. hospitals free of charge, at the same time obtaining U.S. citizenship for their children.  The aliens demand special treatment regarding immigration; amnesty, citizenship before others, jobs, sanctuary, free medical treatment, social security, allowed to break laws, such as false papers, identity, and the list goes on.  I would say 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country is more than fair.   

Immigration: The Face of Enforcement

The new law in Arizona regarding enforcement of immigration illustrates what is necessary in bringing some control on what has been criminal neglect of the issue by the Federal government.  When you consider that there are at least 12 million, possibly 20 million, illegal aliens living in the U.S., as if  they were American citizens, some effort must be made to enforce immigration laws and possibly make new ones.  Looking the other way when aliens cross over borders; looking the other way when farmers and contractors hire illegal aliens; looking the other way when 20 illegal aliens bunk up in a small house, looking the other way when religious groups aid and abet illegal immigrants; looking the other way when illegal aliens commit crimes and are not deported, all these thing will not solve the illegal immigration problem. 

No, enforcement means dealing with reality--enforcement will mean illegal aliens will have to go back home, one way or another.  They are citizens of Mexico or elsewhere, which means they are not entitled by law or entitled morally to stay in the U.S.. Enforcement means some hardship for those who entered and lived in the U.S. illegally--thats what illegal means.  They are subject to enforcement.  So far no one has presented a means by which enforcement can be done painlessly and conveniently.

Immigration: Profiling

The case for profiling is unpopular, but when you look at the crowds that are advocating "comprehensive immigration reform" what do you see?  Hoards of brown skinned, Spanish speaking individuals.  Yes you will find a white-skinned minority amongst the crowd, but their numbers are few.  The link between illegal immigrants and racial appearance would seem to be obvious and logical.  When the majority of illegals entering the U.S. are coming from south of the border and are brown-skinned, Spanish speaking some profiling is the logical and sensible thing to do. 

If check points can be set up to check for drunken drivers and licenses, why not for citizenship status?  If you have legal status there is little inconvenience in "proving" citizenship status.  In fact showing citizenship would seem to be a patriotic duty.

The next question would seem obvious--if you don't profile how do you check for citizenship?  Those of Hispanic origin do not come up with solutions--other than making it legal to be illegal--a recourse which seems undesirable for many reasons.  Allowing 12 to 20 million illegal aliens to become citizens with the stroke of the pen is not the answer, for that would make a mockery of our immigration rules and put a burden on our economy.  Some proponents of amnesty point to taxes being payed by illegal aliens, but that just makes the point that to do so means they are stealing someones identity in order to hold a job.  If not they are being paid under the table and that is another "crime" being committed.  In fact the argument that illegal aliens are "poor law abiding persons" is untrue, for being here is illegal, living here is illegal, working here is illegal, accessing medical services for free is illegal, accessing our social security system is illegal, their children often join ethnic gangs, and the list goes on.   

So some profiling would seem desirable. 

The Second Amendment

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The paragraph consists of two clauses, related in concept, to be sure.  The first clause pertains to citizens able to form lawful militias; the second clause pertains to citizens having the right to possess and carry arms.

Those opposed to the Second amendment lump the two clauses together in order to restrict the citizen's right to own hand guns and rifles.  Their argument being that the Second Amendment only allows for forming a National Guard or a State sponsored militia.

Since the Amendments were written to restrict the State's powers the argument that the Second Amendment empowers the State to form a state militia doesn't make much sense.  However, when you read The Declaration of Independence the reason for the Second Amendment becomes clear;  the People have the right to form a non-State militia in order to throw off a despotic or tyrannical government gone awry.

I am not proposing forming militias to go against our present government; we have plenty of resources legally to protest any abuses made by our government or others.  Voting is probably the strongest power available to us--provided the public is well informed.  Unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation being propagated.