Borderline Security

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on Arizona’s right to check the citizenship status of people has left many Americans confused.  The state law in question, S.B. 1070, included state criminal penalties for immigration violations, particularly working in the country illegally, and allowing state and local police officials to arrest suspected illegal immigrants, was largely struck down.  Yet even Conservative publications like The Washington Times and the National Review, in their respective editorials, say that all is not lost and that the ruling leaves the door open for further review and challenges.

The justices did rule that the statute had not been enforced in any discriminatory way but that it did conflict with the federal government’s constitutional superiority in such matters.  Obama basically negated the government’s authority by granting amnesty to all illegal aliens.

The Washington Times notes, “The Supreme Court ruled that the state of Arizona checking the citizenship status of people detained or arrested for other offenses is not racial profiling. The Court, however, refused to address the core issue: What can states do to protect their borders when the federal government refuses to enforce the law?

“The ID check provision of S.B. 1070, the Arizona immigration statute had drawn the most heat in the public debate. The law’s supporters were branded as racists, and liberal politicians exploited the controversy to pander for money and votes. While the justices noted the legal mandate could be applied in a discriminatory way, there was no evidence this had taken place, and that the law on its face was deemed constitutional.  Justice Anton Scalia noted in concurrence that Arizona’s measure, ‘merely tells state officials that they are authorized to do something that they were, by the [federal] government’s concession, already authorized to do.’

“Arizona and other states are fighting the Obama doctrine of cherry-picking which legal requirements the chief executive will enforce. This was the basis of the policy announced June 15 that the government would give large numbers of illegal immigrants de-facto amnesty by suspending deportation proceedings against them and allowing them to work in the country legally. The Department of Homeland Security added fuel to the fire Monday by announcing it was suspending agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws. These and other actions call into question President Obama’s commitment to his sworn executive duty under Article 2, Section 3, Clause 4 of the Constitution to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Justice Scalia provided the dissenting opinion, noting that the states, as sovereign bodies, have a right to various forms of self-defense to prevent, “in the words of James Madison, ‘the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other states.’”   He said this case dealt with “the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.”  He stated, “neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports” the notion that Arizona cannot detain and remove people present in state illegally.

However, according to the National Review, “all eight justices (Elena Kagan recused herself) upheld Arizona’s requirement that police officers determine the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest if a ‘reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States.’  This was the provision relentlessly attacked by President Obama, who has now made it abundantly clear that strong immigration enforcement is not the top item on his agenda.

“The Court threw out three other provisions of SB 1070, including one that made it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek work in Arizona. But taken in perspective, these aren’t critical to the effectiveness of Arizona’s law.  Last year, in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, another big loss for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s requirement that employers use the E-Verify system before hiring new employees — and affirmed the state’s authority to yank the business license of any employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens. Mandatory E-Verify will be much more effective in preventing illegal employment than Arizona’s threatened misdemeanor charge.

Scalia noted, Arizona has “moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” Arizona’s laws do “not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively.”  Scalia concluded, “If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State.”

The WT went on to note, “There is a reason we have 50 states instead of one, and the states are not mere administrative subdivisions of the federal government. Each has its own powers and its own interests, a fact that is of particularly acute interest when the federal government is failing to meet one of its fundamental responsibilities, which is precisely what is happening with illegal immigration.

“Today’s decision, coupled with Whiting, ensures that states now have the tools they need not only to identify illegal aliens and prosecute those who smuggle and transport them but also to make it difficult for them to find employment.  It also certifies that the states are to remain in a deeply subordinate role on immigration, which is unfortunate: If the Obama administration were half so energetic in enforcing federal law as it is in undermining state laws, Arizona’s efforts would be superfluous. But that is not so, and on the issue of immigration the states remain dependent upon a federal government that is not to be depended on.

Birthers who believe Obama was born in Kenya (making him an illegal alien), given his “track record” in leaping over the Constitution as if it was a set of hurdles in a track race, have some justification for their suspicions, given his performance as president.

It’s worth noting his ban on the use of the phrase “War on Terror.”  In the context of Article I, Section 10, Paragraph 3, [“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,….engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”], banning the phrase War of Terror deprives Arizona of its essential right to defend itself, since Obama has declared that the state is in no danger, and not engaged in a “War” on Terror, or Drugs, or Gun-Smuggling.

Obama must find Article IV, Section 4, rather helpful in his cause and probably hindered the Supreme Court from issuing a proper ruling more in defense of Arizona and every other state with illegal immigration problems (which is every state that has an airport).  “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”  This Article inconveniently establishes the sovereignty of each state, but lays upon the government the responsibility of protecting them, except in the case of dire emergency, which Obama has deemed as non-existent, even as he protects an attorney general who allowed thousands of weapons to cross the Mexican border in a war he says isn’t happening.

James Madison never quite envisioned a federal government that would prove so derelict in its duty, although they must have known how dangerous an all-powerful federal government could prove, which is why they designed the Constitution to expressly limit its powers.

Illegal immigration is not only a mess and a threat not only to the sovereignty of the state of Arizona but the United States itself.  Politicians issue platitudes about reforming immigration laws, but offer no real solutions that would threaten their standing with the now-sizeable Hispanic population, itself a result of the chain-immigration laws enacted in the 1960s.

Anyone who’s cleaned out a disorganized closet knows it’s a matter of organization.  The first step is recognizing that you have a mess on your hands.  The second is admitting that some articles have to go.  Tossing out the criminal element is the easy part.  Then you work on those who came here with no documentation.  They have to go, whether politicians find it convenient or not.  Off to the recycle bin with them, back to Mexico or wherever they came from.  Sure, it’s a nuisance but the closet has to be cleaned out and set back in order.  Finally, you work on those who’ve overstayed their Visas.  Once they’re settled – in or out, separating the real marriages from the Green Card marriages and so forth – then you can work on the legal applications.

Once those who’ve applied legally are admitted (or not), then those at the back of the line may get a chance.  If the quota isn’t already filled.  What Obama has done is to unleash upon us an invasion, much like what happened in Bosnia, with so-called “ethnic Albanians” (read illegal Muslims) crossing the border, and ultimately fracturing what was Yugoslavia, an intact country.

Obama promised all along that granting amnesty to illegal aliens was part of his transformation program.  This amnesty, along with the Supreme Court ruling, clearly violates Constitutional mandates to protect the United States from invasion and sets the country up for social, economic and political anarchy.  These “workers’” wages will be too low to pay their share of taxes, driving what businesses are left overseas.  Too many companies have already set up shop in Central American countries (the Tea Party tea shirt I bought last night at the State Fair at the Meadowlands was made in Nicaragua) where the wages are low.

With an election coming up, one can just imagine the fraud that will take place.  Obama’s move greatly appeased his Hispanic constituents, according to polls.  Not being a Constitutional expert, I cannot tell whether this ruling and Obama’s fiat will allow these new “citizens” access to the November elections.  I fear it is so.  I wish some legal expert would address this question.

It’s very disconcerting to think that thousands of illegal aliens with no interest in freedom, only freebies, will have the deciding vote in our country’s future.