Immigration: State's Right or Not??



While I am certainly against the new law in Arizona, I can also see how it stems from intense frustration at our federal government's lack of political will in stemming the tide of illegal immigrants. Those with agendas deliberately confuse "illegal immigrants" with "all immigrants" even though the two are entirely different.

It is not racist to not want illegal immigrants; it is simply law abiding. Upper class people and corporate interests don't care, because they are not directly hit-- their own jobs are not threatened in the least by cheap labor -- and moreover, they are benefited by the same cheap labor--cheap nannies, cheap maids, cheap farmers, etc etc. Corporations LOVES a pool of cheap labor--and illegal immigrants, desperate to find a job, with no power to protest at all, are perfect fodder.

This falls under the same poison that has been spreading throughout our country--patriotism and the laws of the people are irrelevant. Only money for the top few--that is all that matters. They will do anything--break any law, destroy any life, rip apart any social fabric--anything so that they can make more money.

Meanwhile everyone  is putting this on Arizona instead of  the lap of the real culprits? Washington knew of this problem and has watched it grow for more than 20 years.

People have voted their reps and their Presidents in because they promised to do something about the problem.

Many think this is a new issue caused by  Gov. Jan Brewer or that she must be a republican, not actually factual assumptions.

In 2006 then AZ.  Gov. Janet Napolitano shocked her fellow democrats when she called for National Guard troops at the border and received them later in the year by former President Bush. (more info here)  In 2007  former AZ Gov. Janet Napolitano warned her party leaders that they must do something about immigration or that it might harm them in the then mid-term elections. As you can see this is not a new issue for AZ. governors and for good reasons according to polls of AZ citizens, 68% in favor of Senate Bill 1070.

Arizona has been hit very hard with drug mules, human trafficking and  the drug lords' war in Mexico and the violence has been spreading over the border to AZ for years. Why many weren't surprised what she said at the signing of the bill, "Washington has had long enough to do something. Now WE need to protect ourselves".

This law is a result of the frustration and rage that Arizona builds on, however repulsively. Until our government address that frustration and rage by actually implementing our laws against illegal immigrants (ILLEGAL, not LEGAL), such laws will continue. You have to go for the root cause, not the symptom.

Admittedly this discussion would have been far more insightful if the individuals actually discussed the legal merits and shortcomings of the law. In this debate, no one seems to be addressing whether this law will survive under federal legal precedent.

 I will try to address some of the legalities of this bill as it relates to the impact it might have  on a federal level.  One argument of the federal government is  no state law can interfere with federal laws and their abilities to enforce said  laws.

This is a very weak argument at best since in 2002 DOJ sent out a memo stating that federal law does not preempt the states from making arrests for civil and criminal violations of federal immigration law. (click here if you wish to read more about the DOJ memo)

The suit filed by  Attorney General Eric Holder on Behalf of President Obama states three specific, “causes of action”, which the Department of Justice claims are unconstitutional.



The “first cause of action” alleges a “violation” of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The “second cause of action” alleges a “violation” of the “Preemption clause” of the Constitution.

The “third cause of action” alleges a “violation” of the “Commerce clause” of the Constitution.


Those ”causes of action” can be read here on pages 23 & 24.


The ACLU claims that the AZ law would allow unconstitutional racial profiling by police, this claim  has more merit as racial profiling means not only profiling by  individual's race but also one's ethnicity.

Yet even this claim falls short of being  proven, for the ACLU to prove it's claim that the AZ immigration bill would allow racial profiling by AZ law enforcement, ACLU would have to show how AZ lawmakers only intend to target groups of people due to their race or ethnicity. Since illegal immigration is not limited to only one race or ethnicity the ACLU have their work cut out for them.
*note*  Obama Administration and Attorney General Holder’s DOJ did not allege “racial discrimination” or “racial profiling” in the lawsuit.


The solution doesn't lay with States vs: President or even class action lawsuits by organizations such as the ACLU. The real solution can be found in the improvement of the Mexican economy and a more equitable distribution of its wealth so that its citizens don't become so desperate they feel compelled to risk their lives and those of their families to travel to another country to seek a decent way of life. Mexico is a country we seem to be desperate to emulate, where the rich become the super rich and the rest of the population struggles just to survive.






Just My Thoughts

Comments