Arizona Senate Bill 1070

[Stu]

1 May 2010

The Constitution and Bill of Rights assign the federal government the responsible to secure our borders and establish immigration policy. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the “Power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defence (sic) and general welfare of the United States” and to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

The apoplectic response of President Obama and other liberals to Arizona's passage of strict laws governing illegal aliens simply demonstrates that the federal government hasn't done its job.

Words mean things therefore we need to establish a baseline of terms.

1. Alien - any person who is not a citizen of the country in which he or she lives.

2. Immigrant - a person who migrates to another country legally, usually for permanent residence.

3. Naturalization - to confer upon an alien the rights and privileges of a citizen.

4. Citizen - a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection.

5. Illegal - forbidden by law or statute; contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc

Given the above, the term "illegal immigrant" is an oxymoron. The correct term is “illegal alien”, emphasis on illegal.

An immigrant therefore is by definition an alien who arrives legally in the US and adheres to a naturalization process that results in legal standing as a US citizen. They must then also learn how to balance sustaining their cultural heritage and assimilating as English speaking, writing and reading Americans.

Arizona Senate Bill 1070 is just 17-pages. A precis follows. It will not result in a “Show me your papers!” police state and does not turn law enforcement officials into ICE agents.

Short title; Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

Goals:
1. Attrition (of the illegal invasion) through (lawful) enforcement
2. Discourage and deter the 1) unlawful entry and presence of aliens, and 2) the economic activity of persons unlawfully present

Process:
1. Lawful contact and reasonable suspicion result in a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status as verified with the federal government.
2. Illegal aliens convicted of a state or federal crime are transferred immediately to ICE.
3. Prohibits the exchange or archiving of immigration data.
4. Provides for judicial (civil) and financial redress for violations.
5. Defines trespassing, smuggling, unlawful transport and employment, employer verification procedures, and impounding of vehicles.

So what is it exactly that liberals and the spineless find so shocking?

To go a step further, the XIV Amendment gives federal jurisdiction to "all persons born or naturalized in the Unites States". That does not include those born to an illegal alien regardless of how much some “feel” for the mother and baby. Unfortunately, our country has allowed that to become the norm and therefore reversing course will be difficult. It’s still the right thing to do.

Liberals of course are demonizing Arizona SB 1070 supporters as racists who are unfair, mean spirited, support profiling, carry guns, cling to religion, blah blah blah. This response is typical; shout louder and dispense chaff when in the minority and unable to dominate in the arena of logic, ideas, and policy.

SB 1070 is a start-point for discriminating immigration reform, in the right sense of the word, so what’s the problem?


Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

10 May 2010

Last weekend, Byron York noted in the Washington Examiner that Arizona SB 1070 was carefully drafted to prevent a preemption challenge. We should especially note two components.

First, it aligns with federal law. 8 USC 1373 requires the Immigration and Naturalization Service to respond to all inquiries by federal, state and local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the requesting agency for any purpose authorized by law. This and other INS functions were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 per 6 USC 542 section 1502.

Second, it requires state and local law enforcement officials to rely on the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement to verify a person’s immigration status and to transfer to ICE any illegal aliens who have been convicted of a crime or assessed a fine.

Therein lies President Obama’s conundrum. He knows he can’t count on federal law to overturn Arizona. Instead, his best hope is to crank up the political noise, demonize opponents, leverage the legacy media, energize the uninformed, and rely on feelings to sway public policy. So far, that isn't working.

Lost in the shuffle is the fact that Texas let Arizona lead the charge. Now that just ain't right!

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Stu]

5 August 2010

Neil Bortz made a great point yesterday about unintended consequences and it bears repeating. An expanded paraphrase follows.

Federalist #62 through #66 reveal that our founders intended for Congress to represent both the citizens of our republic as well as the state governments. The House was designed as a forum for the people and the Senate for the states. This construct allowed for the people’s voice to be heard directly through elections and indirectly through selections made the state legislatures, themselves elected.

The XVII Amendment (1913) disrupted this balance and caused Senators to “go political”. In other words, they too now had to campaign and seek direct election. All 535 congressional seats were put in play and subjected to the fickle and ephemeral passions of the population.

The reasons behind this change made sense, at the time. During the period 1860 to 1903, some states had failed to fill senate seats due to accusations, protests and political maneuvering. Popular support for direct elections had therefore been rising because these vacancies were constraining Congress’ ability to act in a timely manner. The tide crested in 1905 after William Randolph Hurst purchased Cosmopolitan magazine and began a series of articles that lambasted Congress for its foot-dragging and excoriated senators as “pawns of industrialists and financiers”. Despite sustained congressional resistance, the states continued to apply pressure, including the direct election of senators, and the XVII Amendment was finally ratified.

Imagine the impact on the current immigration debate if this amendment didn’t exist. Senators from border states would arguably be more inclined to resist the pressure applied by the media and vocal activists and choose the informed and long-term right instead of the uninformed and sugar-fix wrong. They would also be able to pressure on the federal government to secure the borders before addressing “comprehensive immigration reform”.

Several Senators are pushing for revision (not repeal) of the XIV Amendment (1868) as a way to halt the use of “anchor babies” by illegal aliens to gain a citizenship foothold. Others continue to encourage repeal of the XVI Amendment (1913) and an overhaul of the taxation system.

It is time for limited Constitutional reform, specifically the amendments listed above. As in the early 1900s, that can result from pressure applied by the states through the Congress, mainly the Senate.

To counter the invasion of illegal aliens and federal inaction, Arizona got the ball rolling with SB 1070 and Virginia and others are following suit. The Tea Party is also gaining traction. We can help by encouraging Texas state leaders to join the fight and help other states overcome federal resistance and threats. The state of our union may very well hinge on it.


Stu McLennan
Harker Heights