Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is saying enforcing laws, like…oh…what’s within the Arizona Immigration Law text, will stretch federal resources.
Odd. Napolitano didn’t have a problem with resources last year. She had plenty. Oodles and oodles of resources. So many resources, in fact, Homeland Security issued a “Rightwing Extremism” report for law enforcement to spend their energy keeping a sharp eye on veterans returning from war as possible threats. Their resources were so bountiful that they admitted having “no specific information” prompting this report or eluding to any threats or actual acts of violence. But they wanted energy and time spent on it anyway.
Law enforcement, those preciously stretched resources, were expected to monitor and investigate citizens who didn’t embrace a “New World Order,” i.e. people who supported the Constitution, as well as anyone who owned a firearm legally, anyone who worried about an economic collapse, and anyone who embraced the sanctity of life. You know, like the Pope, Billy Graham, James Dobson, or Mother Teresa, if she were still alive. People like that, since they are all pro-life.
Now, however, with 70% of Arizona’s likely voters supporting the Arizona Immigration Law, Napolitano has no idea where they’ll come up with the resources to actually enforce an existing law. She wants them busy investigating nuns and Baptist preachers, don’t forget.
The Mexican Ministry doesn’t appear to appreciate Arizona expecting it’s residents to actually be legal citizens either, apparent in a warning to Mexicans in Arizona to “act carefully and respect the local laws.”
Shouldn’t that already be happening?
The Mexican Ministry, upset by Arizona protecting their citizens and property, said there is now an “adverse political environment for migrant communities…”
It’s a real bummer when you have to follow the law. Sure. Legal citizens should be forced to follow laws, not illegal ones. That can really bring an illegal down. And with 460,000 illegal residents in Arizona, that’s a lot of bummed out people.
But then murdered police officers, ranchers, and kidnappings all tied to Mexican drug cartels, that’s a bummer, too. And that doesn’t take into consideration the economic burden, the cost of schooling and medical and social welfare of illegals, or the loss of jobs when Arizona residents (both natural-born citizens and legal immigrants) need them most.
Arizona expected the federal government to do their job and protect the welfare of its citizens, the federal government’s core purpose and responsibility. They haven’t. So Arizona decided they couldn’t wait any longer, and 70% of the population are thrilled.
“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” said Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation.”
She’s not sweating threats of economic boycotts, either, even when they come from the states own US Congressman, like Democrat Raul Grijalva. That should make him very popular among the 70% of likely Arizona voters who support the immigration bill.
The actual Arizona Immigration Law text can be read here.









April 27th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Current (and many past Administrations) are responsible for the mess on the U.S. borders.
It’s like someone(s) in the U.S. federal government *want* the problems to occur and get worse. Either that, or each of the current and past administrations (five or six total) have been completely incompetent in regards to securing the border. I highly suspect the former.
There needs to be some massive FOIA requests to get information on why the U.S. federal government is not and has not been enforcing its already-on-the-books immigration laws. I’d bet money that such request will uncover long term and very pervasive corruption at the highest levels of government.
April 27th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Funny how the news media jumped on this Arizona immigration law story but completely IGNORED the following: John McCain and the Republicans seem to be leading the charge toward a police state:
S.3081 – Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010 proposed by Senators Lieberman and McCain “…removes the right to trial for American Citizens and gives government the AUTHORITY to detain Americans INDEFINITELY for SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITY…”
WHAT?
The really IMPORTANT thing about this Act is just WHO defines SUSPECTED ACTIVITY? I’m sure the CRIMINALS and CONS who oversaw the recent economic meltdown (or what I like to call greatest looting of a nation’s wealth and resources in the history of mankind) FEEL THREATENED by the ACTIVITY involved with calls for JUSTICE.
Republicans know DEMANDS for ethics, responsibility and accountability are going to come down HARD on them. Especially McCain/Lieberman who’ve been covering up Banking/Financial/Wall St SCANDALS since the 80’s. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what comes next…
Like wealthy Aristocrats have been saying all through history: “We can hire half the POOR PEOPLE to get rid of the rest, especially the boat-rockers”. So LAW ENFORCEMENT will be protecting those who ravaged and expatriated most of our nation’s wealth and resources from punishment for their crimes… It’s like these GOP elitists are telling Americans to “EAT CAKE”.
If Republicans take back Congress there’s definitely going to be some kind of revolution not long after. The Concerned Citizens of America have seen the light…
I’m going to make sure future generation know about dolts who vote Republican Party so THEY don‘t make the mistakes.
Republicans/Conservatives have PROVEN THEMSELVES to be the worst kind of human beings. And suckers too, these so-called great Americans allowed themselves to be LIED TO over and over. Paranoia, misinformation, fear mongering, racism, hypocrisy and hysteria on a level not seen since the McCarthy Era.
Conservative wackos are NOT well-informed or smart enough to recognize the CON… these right-wing reactionaries got PLAYED FOR FOOLS, bigtime! Bush/Cheney, NEED I SAY MORE? SO WHY SHOULD ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN TRUST THEM NOW?
consciousmc.blogspot.com
QUOTE OF THE DAY:
“THE Devil knew not what he did when he made man politic…”
Shakespeare
April 27th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Special Political Operative Says:
“QUOTE OF THE DAY:
“THE Devil knew not what he did when he made man politic…”
Funny, did Shakespeare only apply that to Republicans ?
The laws Lieberman and McCain were trying to enact are in direct response to American citizens such as Hasan and the American/muslim cleric he collaborate with. You yourself knowthat damn well as you spelled it out yourself..” for SUSPECTED TERRORIST ACTIVITY…”
Dont try to pretend that every illegal who gets stopped will be charged with terrorism
“I’m going to make sure future generation know about dolts who vote Republican Party so THEY don‘t make the mistakes. ”
Yeah, things are going real well with this administrations immigration and border policies, make sure in the future you toss that one in your little lesson along with what was the root of this financial mess that began with the dems in the 80s inplementing the CRA via Fannie & Freddie.
“fear mongering, racism, hypocrisy and hysteria on a level not seen since the McCarthy Era.”
I dont know man. Al Queda sure as hell seems to be a lot more tangible and existential a threat than global warming. Which is most hysteria I’ve ever seen brought on the backs of the lefts fear mongering. Yeah, you’re a bunch of swell guys. Telling our kids that in 20 years he earth wil be flooded and that global warming will have the effects that of a nuclear holocaust.
You really ought to study some history before you go assuming someone is always wrong or stupid just because of their affiliations or ideals and take good look at what happens to one party states, which sounds much like what you’re advocating for.
April 27th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Actually the Feds do have leverage as they can just cut off their Federal grants for various Policing programs, training, equipment, and grants. Its actually a huge amount of money. The Feds could simply write an administrative rule and put it in the federal register for review that would block funding state police programs if they adopted “certain profiling or immigration policies” ad hoc. You wouldn’t even need congress to do anything. If you dont want a police state, simple, just defund it.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:30 am
5 years ago I had a chance to relocate to Phoenix. I flew (not walked) there, and picked up both a Spanish and English newspaper to scout the area. I was impressed to read reports the same events with totally opposed points of view. I was convinced then (by this and other factors) that Arizona was just a witch brew about to become as toxic as their real estate market, and chose a different state to live. I’m so glad I did!
And yes, AZ people had no other choice but to approve this law, because their school scores are down (immigrants struggle with English), medical services are maxed out, and car insurance is way too expensive (illegals are know for fleeing when they are involved in an accident). If Obama is so against this law, he would change the rules that make the state lose money based on school performance. I expect some other states to approve similar laws, as long as the economy remains in a slump and unemployment stays high.
April 28th, 2010 at 4:46 am
SPO,
Why the right cannot see how the fanatic fringe element has usurped the moderate conservative and any hope of Republican rebirth is beyond me.
Why can’t they see what’s in front of their faces? The end of republicanism. I won’t shed any tears for them.
Republican gains in November are pie in the sky at this rate.
April 28th, 2010 at 5:16 am
Here’s Steve Chapman with some actual sanity on the issue:
http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/22/how-immigration-crackdowns-bac
Please read it, it’s not too long and makes several great points.
Immigrants are good for our country, people. Any conservative should recognize that immigrants play a vital role in a competitive free market; like Chapman points out, this is a self-selected group of people intent on working hard to make life better for their families. These are the very values upon which conservatism is supposed to stand.
You want to strictly enforce immigration law? Fine. But first you had better make it orders of magnitude easier for people to legally enter and reside in this country and participate in the economy. When it’s easier for good people to enter illegally than to follow the proper channels, there is a major problem. And widespread illegal immigration of good people is the easily predictable result.
April 28th, 2010 at 8:30 am
Three words for you Lefties: THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
Well done, Arizona! If my family recovers from Obama’s economy in time for a vacation this year, we’re coming to visit your fine state. We hear the Grand Canyon is nice.
April 28th, 2010 at 8:57 am
Three words for you Lefties: THE 10TH AMENDMENT.
How about THE 4TH AMENDMENT and THE 14TH AMENDMENT?
Or all of the totally valid objections to the law that have nothing to do with constitutionality.
Take your pick.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:13 am
Geez Rhay.
What about American citizens who are being killed, kidnapped and murdered ?
It seems like were somehow obligted to accomodate to immigration above our security concerns ?
“Fine. But first you had better make it orders of magnitude easier for people to legally enter and reside in this country and participate in the economy.”
Or else what ?
Were under no obligation to accomodate people with citizenship just because they want it. Its earned. Why should we bring in more immigrants when right now were having a hard enough time taking care of our own legal citizens ?
Has it ever crossed anyones mind that this is Mexicos problem and not really ours ?
April 28th, 2010 at 9:15 am
should say;
‘What about American citizens who are being killed, kidnapped and “robbed” ?
April 28th, 2010 at 9:24 am
‘What about American citizens who are being killed, kidnapped and “robbed” ?
Arizona happens to have experienced record decreases in crime over the last decade. Please, someone point out the proof of all this violent crime caused by illegal immigration. Like I said, please take a look at the Chapman article I linked above — the link between immigration and crime is a total myth.
Were under no obligation to accomodate people with citizenship just because they want it.
I’m not talking about an obligation, I’m talking about common freaking sense. Our byzantine and extremely drawn-out immigration process makes illegal immigration the only viable option. Making it easier for people to legally work and live here is the only way to substantially reduce the number of illegal entrants.
It’s not about obligation, it’s about choosing the best of all possible policy options.
April 28th, 2010 at 9:49 am
@Rhayader the Apologist
“I’m not talking about an obligation, I’m talking about common freaking sense. Our byzantine and extremely drawn-out immigration process makes illegal immigration the only viable option.”
I couldn’t care less how byzantine or drawn out our process is. It’s our process and prospective immigrants are obligated to follow it. Have you ever taken a gander at Mexico’s immigration policies Rhay?
April 28th, 2010 at 10:17 am
@Rhayader the Apologist
That one still hasn’t been explained to me. For whom am I apologizing?
I couldn’t care less how byzantine or drawn out our process is. It’s our process and prospective immigrants are obligated to follow it.
Are you guys really imbeciles, or do you just act like it when the topic of immigration comes up? “It is what it is, who cares if it’s the best policy for the country?” That reasoning could be used to justify any law ever passed by any governing body. That doesn’t make all of those laws effective, or fair, or even legal.
Go ahead and hate immigrants; you all seem to want to do so, and I really couldn’t care less. But if you think our current immigration policy is the best choice for America, you’re smoking some better sh*t than I’ve ever gotten my hands on.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:19 am
rhay, you talk about ” common freaking sense”.
Common freaking sense would dictate that no matter what the crime stats are you have functional borders and adhere to the first commitment of any state or the fed which is to protect its citizens even if its just one.
So what if theres no increase ? Isnt enough enough ? Right now they’re above the national average and past the 1/2 way mark in comparison to the nation.
http://www.bestplaces.net/city/Phoenix-Arizona.aspx#
I’m tired of this bleeding heart sht that were somehow obligated to fend for these illegals.
Also, more along the lines of common freaking sense its about national security. If smugglers can get tons of drugs across he border whats to stop a dirty bomb or some threat of the kind coming thru these supposede borders ?
Would you just let anyone walk into your house, raid your fridge ?
Probably not.
This is my fckng house and if I so choose to invite you in you will abide by my rules of entry and residence until you’ve earned theright to dictate any entitlements on your part.
Thats common freaking sense.
And if you try to sneak or break in… I’ll blow your fckng head off because I have a family in here to watch whos safety is my first priority.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:47 am
You still haven’t read the Chapman article have you? The immigrants we’re talking about pose no threats to national security.
Besides which, that was exactly the concern I addressed when I said that we need to make legal immigration easier. When you try to keep out everything, it becomes impossible to keep out anything. Giving people a legitimate means to enter our country makes it much easier to focus our interdiction efforts on truly dangerous threats instead of well-meaning people sneaking in looking for work. So yeah, I’m fine with keeping people from “sneaking in” to our “house” — I just think the best way to do that is to give them a non-sneaky way to come over.
April 28th, 2010 at 10:53 am
“Go ahead and hate immigrants”
You can do better than that Rhay.
As for the Fourteenth Amendment, it was passed for the sole purpose of guaranteeing citizenship to the newly freed slaves. Of course, it was later purposely misinterpreted by the lefties to include anchor babies.
Similar to what you guys do with the First Amendment!!!
April 28th, 2010 at 11:18 am
As for the Fourteenth Amendment, it was passed for the sole purpose of guaranteeing citizenship to the newly freed slaves.
I’m pretty sure you’re referring to the Thirteenth Amendment actually. The Fourteenth Amendment includes the “equal protection clause”, which says that the rights guaranteed to individuals by the constitution — for instance, the right preventing unreasonable search & seizure, or the right to freedom of speech — cannot be denied by any state government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
When we allow police to stop, detain, and inspect the “papers” of anybody in the state, we’re abridging the fourth amendment rights of the citizens who are stopped and searched without probable cause. I’m not talking about violating the rights of illegal immigrants, I’m talking about violating the constitutional rights of legal citizens in Arizona.
(For what it’s worth, there is very likely a violation of the 5th amendment right to due process as well with this law.)
April 28th, 2010 at 11:30 am
No Rhay, I’m talking about the Fourteenth.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:33 am
From Wikipedia:
“The Fourteenth Amendment provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had excluded slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights.”
The interpretation was later perverted to include anchor babies.
April 28th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Hey Rhayadar. I just posted another blog on the Arizona Immigration Law that explains exactly what it does and does not allow. It might help clear up some of your misgivings. Just fyi!
April 28th, 2010 at 11:51 am
I dont need to read your link rhay, its irrelevant in the face of the recent robberies, home invasions and murders In Arizona I’ve seen on the news in the last couple months.
I know for a fact that most of these illegals are decent folks. I lived in S.D and L.A. for almost 15 years. I worked with many legal and illegals.
But thats not the the point.
Common freaking sense means you secure your borders.
Period.
You make it sound as if theres a minimal amount of damage to our country and its people that we should tolerate.
“The immigrants we’re talking about pose no threats to national security.”
No. Thats the ones”you’re” talking about.
Trust me, I feel exactly the same way about our northern borders also which are another freaking joke.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
The interpretation was later perverted to include anchor babies.
Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. I think the fourteenth provides much more solid opposition to this law through the due process clause, like I explained above.
Hey Rhayadar. I just posted another blog on the Arizona Immigration Law that explains exactly what it does and does not allow. It might help clear up some of your misgivings. Just fyi!
Cool, got a link? Unless it somehow prevents police from unconstitutionally detaining citizens, I’m not sure how they could get around the objections I’ve outlined.
I dont need to read your link rhay, its irrelevant in the face of the recent robberies, home invasions and murders In Arizona I’ve seen on the news in the last couple months.
OK, so your recollection of your anecdotal, selective collection of news stories is your reference material here. Sorta what I thought. No, you don’t “need” to read the article if for some reason you object to spending a few minutes reading. I don’t see how it could hurt, but hey that’s your call.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Nevermind about the link Tara, I found it.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
@Rhayadar
Link? Me? I’m rich with them. Rich, I tell you. Rick like a girl with lots of links.
Here ya go:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6131