The concept of “legal” (and it’s opponent, “illegal”) are created by and defined by our U.S. Constitution. The very nation is defined by the expanded concept of “the rule of law”: that which is an infringement or violation of the rule of law represents an illegality, or, illegal act, illegal behavior. If you’re violating who and what our nation is defined as — by the rule of law — you’re violating who the nation is, you are, essentially on a grand scope, violating our nation.
Arizona is one state among many who is sovereign: it can and does operate it’s state legislature by way of a state constitution (as all states do) and is subservient, of sorts, only to the nation’s federal constitution — as our (federal) Constitution also defines but on specific terms (where, how, what, regarding which, etc.).
So states have rights. The U.S. Constitution is clear about that point and it enumerates what rights those states have, what hte federal government can and can’t do as to interjecting or intervening in state sovereignity.
Arizona as a state has rights to self-govern (to exercise as a sovereign state within the union of states). They, like all states, are also impinged upon by humans representing a federal realm when costs of federal obligations go unpaid by the federal agencies commanding the liabilities: the federal declares legislation by Congress, obligates the states to pay for those liabilities, and may or might not offer or promise some financial support for those liabilities.
And, Arizona as a border state (shares their state border with the nation, borders another country, in Arizona’s case, that country is Mexico from whence it’s proven statistically the majority of illegal aliens as also drug and other mafia crime originates). As a border state, it bears the burden of the crimes associated with the nation’s border security. This, of course, is not a lightweight nor minor responsibility. Nor is it without costs to the border states, and Arizona has up to now born the brunt of the liabilities due to it’s particular situation in border-sharing geography with Mexico.
In the case of health care, for one primary example of this imbalance — states being obligated by the federal government to provide services within the states, which the states must fund even if they object to either condition (the services and/or the state funding of those services) — states are overwhelmed financially and resourcefully when the demands required of them by the federal outweigh a state’s (or all states’) abilities to fund or contend with those liabilities.
Education and social welfare programs are other areas which the federal government requires states provide which the states then are also required to fund, even to “irregular” clientele such as illegal aliens in many cases (hospital-medical care, school lunch programs, state tuition rates, even non-cost educations that US citizens must pay for for themselves AND illegal aliens, Medicaid, transportation programs for the elderly, illegal aliens or not, housing subsidies and rents, etc.).
When, if the federal government does not extend federal funding (which is, also, nothing more than citizens nationwide paying the bills) for disproportionate, unreasonable demands required by federal legislation of state governments, then the states have little recourse except to appeal the requirements until legally able to curtail providing them by additional legislation or flounder financially if the federal does not step in and pay for it’s federally-demanded services.
Like all “collective funding” schemes, however, eventually the overall taxpayers run short and the federal then passes on the body of liabilities directly to states — funding, assistance originates within state coffers, not with any assistance (or little of it) from the nation overall.
Yet the legislated requirements remain in place: states either follow the federal laws or they violate them and are penalized, even when their coffers are empty. This is what has happened nationwide in the last decades in direct proportion with the burgeoning illegal alien population in the U.S.: locales are overburdened by federal requirements to provide services paid for by citizens for those who are here illegally, and, the federal government has stopped doing what is necessary in many cases to enforce the federal law: if you’re here illegally, you get deported.
Federal legislation requires a person “have permission” or be “legally” in our nation or else suffer Constitutionally defined penalties (fines, imprisonment, deportation, depending on the crimes involved).
Arizona’s State Bill (now passed), SB1070, echoes if not mirrors the federal laws as to illegal activity regarding immigration. No race, no ethnicity, no gender, no national origin is mentioned in either or both conditions — the issue is illegal behavior, not what race, ethnicity, gender or national origin anyone has or may be associated with (in any regard). It’s about behavior: you’re either in the U.S. legally or you aren’t.
Arizona SB1070 allows state and local law enforcement to “enforce the law”, to do their jobs. It doesn’t extend to them some sort of “race/ethnicity/gender/national origin police” capacity, it simply allows them to take into consideration — while in the course of them doing their jobs otherwise — what a person’s immigration situation is: legal or not.
The Left and a few Progressives among the Right are overheated and lying about Arizona SB1070. They’re claiming “race-this,” “ethnicity-that” and claiming asking anyone in the state of Arizona to establish their legality of presence there (or not) is somehow “targeting (name your race or ethnicity or even gender here)”.
I don’t follow that leap of nonsense. If a person in Arizona is stopped while driving erratically on a public road or stopped while bashing someone over the head in a grocery store or stopped while leaving a business without paying for the merchandise they’re carrying or…any other observed irregularity, and there is REASONABLE SUSPICION by law enforcement that immigration status might be an issue — could be drink on the breath, could be inability to communicate in English, could be clothing with foreign-manufacture tags, whatever it might be that fosters suspicion about immigration status, left up to the individual law enforcement officer as all things are in situations such as these — then an individual may be asked about immigration status.
The Left is working feverishly to defame Arizona as a state and now Arizona’s SB1070 based upon utter lies, fantasy projections, fears and whatever else seems to work on the emotional realm so many Leftwingers function on for just such hyperbolic, agitating purposes: race, gender, ethnicity, the way someone combs their hair, whether they have hair or don’t, what they weigh, what clothes they “can afford” and wear, whatever on an emotional level some Leftwing operative can manufacture to agitate others, they use and use for those purposes: emotional agitation when the issue works against fostering increased Leftwing socio-political goals.
And the Left really needs race, ethnicity, gender and even national origin to further it’s socio-political goals. That’s their basis of operations, to agitate people into submitting votes, money and other supports to the Left based upon individual characteristics that really aren’t or can’t often be modified, that are often not (at all) problems to many others but which the Left persists in demanding be problems.
If you’re poor, or, whatever your race or ethnicity is, and/or weigh more than most or not as much as most, whatever — green eyes, brown eyes, short, tall, a Polish surname, an African surname, whatever — then the Left will pony up “spokespersons” to complain how it is you are (and others “like you” are) “being targeted” or “denied” or “harassed” because of all those blue-eyed people (or green-eyed, or..) or the tall ones if you’re short, or the rich ones if you’re poor, or, or, or…
It’s about blaming by the Left their political opposition based upon immutable characteristics that the Left exploits when the Left’s political goals are, perhaps or likely, thwarted.
Illegal immigration destroys our rule of law. It, therefore, destroys our nation: who we are by definition of our Constitution, how we function, what’s legitimate or what isn’t. It also harms citizens — not just in overwrought areas such as Arizona but nationwide — by way of undue financial liabiliites, inceased crime, depleted or depleting resources, so many infractions to our way of life (who we are as a nation) as to represent a foreign invasion.
I used to cringe when I’d read others complain that illegal aliens were “foreign invaders” but I stopped doing so long ago after reading ongoing crime statistics that define the illegal alien population in the U.S. and those who cover for them. If not “foreign” and “invading,” then what? They’re from other nations, in the U.S. without our legal permission, so invading surely they are. Especially those who swear they “aren’t leaving” when identified.
If law enforcement fails on a federal level to do it’s job — and it’s failed on the issue of illegal immigration — then states remain to either contend with the crimes or not. Same can be said of many other federal mandates also not enforced by federal agencies and their employees, but the issue in Arizona is entirely related to illegal immigration, illegal aliens using the state of Arizona to both proliferate more illegalities or the geography as a pathway to other areas in the U.S.
It’s wrong to allege that Arizona’s SB1070 is “not Constitutional” (Progressives, racists among Democrats and a few RINOs on the Right have done so). Arizona’s SB1070 mirrors the federal law, it literally quotes the U.S. Constitution:
The argument by the hyperbolic, excited and emotionally-agitating Left (including some Progressives on the Right) is that a state cannot pass a law that trumps federal statute.
However, in this case, the Arizona law merely enforces federal law. That means it’s not unconstitutional — it’s just politically inconvenient to the Leftwing.
Arizona SB1070 stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin (nor does it mention gender) when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.
Since the Arizona Constitution expressly denies law enforcement doing their jobs (enforcing laws) based upon race, color or national origin (or gender), then, they are not “permitted” to enforce immigration on such, either.
The complaints from the Left and other Progressives are entirely invented: manufactured based upon “agitation terms” that they expect people will go nuts about, even if not true (and they aren’t), just because immigration enforcement poses a socio-political problem for Leftwing, Progressive political goals: woe, that Constitution, oak tree, you’re in my way.
Constitutional Challenges to Arizona Immigration Law on Their Way
— from the Wall Street Journal
Kris W. Kobach, the law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law who helped write the Arizona law, among others around the country, the key issue is “concurrent enforcement” — that is, whether the state law parallels federal law without conflict.
Because the Arizona statute draws directly on federal statutes concerning documentation and other issues, “the Arizona law is perfect concurrent enforcement,” Professor Kobach said.
From Pajamas Media, this post by Victor Davis Hanson, “How Could They Do That in Arizona!
The Arizona Hysteria – Racist! Nativist! Profiler! Xenophobe!” in which he identifies the crux of the issue:
…As I understand the opposition to the recent Arizona law, it boils down to something like the following: the federal government’s past decision not to enforce its own law should always trump the state’s right to honor it. That raises interesting questions: Does the state contravene federal authority by exercising it? If the federal government does not protect the borders of a state, does the state have a right to do it itself? The federal government has seemed in the past to be saying that if one circumvented a federal law, and was known to have circumvented federal law with recognized impunity, then there was no longer a law to be enforced.
READ THE LEGISLATION, SB1070: nothing in it about “race” or “ethnicity” or “nation of origin” (or gender or even age).
Impacts Of Illegal Immigration: Crime
— Responsible citizens are mostly already well aware of these wretched, hideous crime statistics, as also the crimes themselves; irresponsible Leftwingers and other Progressives want the rest of us to ‘understand’ the crimes and, apparently, allow them to continue.
The Left has not suggested anything else other than appeasing and encouraging: “amnesty” by any process of “earned citizenship” and “open borders” and/or “comprehensive immigration reform” represents allowing these crimes to continue if not encourages more to occur.
A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
— By Byron York from Washington Examiner
Karl Rove Speaks Out Against Arizona Immigration Law
— A predictable subterfuge article from CBS about the insipidly disappointing statements by Karl Rove. Perhaps he’s trying to salvage the ghastly disfunctional plans called “Compassionate Conservativism” or otherwise, Progressives on the Right, Left and in-between.
A Law Arizona Can Live With
— By George Will in the Washington Post, where, despite their Leftwing content and readers, a higher majority vote in support of the Arizona legislation than don’t on the WAPO Poll accompanying this article.
Note that more than 70% of Arizona voters support their state’s SB1070, while the simpering, falling nut, Nancy Pelosi (with her sanctuary city district), disparages it (what else is new, not much in her regard), as do her hapless racial agitating followers.