ARIZONA, THE FEDS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

.
On Thursday, August 12th, my friend Lee of ‘Tossing It Out’ posted a blog bit entitled “What Does Immigration Reform Look Like?”

This being one of the country’s hottest topics these days, a number of Lee’s “Followers” posted comments on his blog installment and nearly all of those who responded appeared to support Arizona’s passing of SB 1070, a new state law addressing the illegal alien problem.

One person, however, who would otherwise appear to be generally of a more politically conservative mind-set, answered with the following:

Ugh. First, I am opposed to the Arizona law. Not because of any of the absurdities touted by the left, but because it goes against the Constitution. The federal government has been slacking on following through with one of things they're actually supposed to be doing (i.e. empowered to do) and passing all sorts of stuff they specifically are not empowered to do by the Supreme Law of the Land. Judge Napolitano did an awesome bit about the issue with the Arizona law and specifically about this point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SuxjzoLyf0

I weighed in later with a couple of comments in response to the above. Here is my slightly edited reply:

I watched the Judge Napolitano YouTube video provided by Kimberly, and I will simply say that it's not the first time I've disagreed with Napolitano, although I do sometimes find him right on the money.

And I will add, however, that I agreed with him entirely when he makes the statement about Arizona seceding. Things have gone too far in this country for it to be saved now, and any state that wishes to live free of Federal Totalitarianism would need to secede from the Union. Perhaps that would result in violent revolution, as it did once before. But then again, maybe not, because to fight the rebels, Uncle Sam would be required to bring the troops home from the foreign countries... where so much oil is.

...The most important point - the one that Judge Napolitano didn't make (because somehow this always gets left out by the talking heads in the mainstream media every time they give us their so-called "expert" analysis of an American problem) - is that the big picture is not nearly so much about cheap labor for the Right and extra votes for the Left, as it is about creating a "New World Order". A New World Order in which national sovereignty and shared culture are scrapped by the Elites and replaced with One-World Government, in which we all live as one big, happy family under the thumb of Global Socialism in our Brave New World. But Americans would rather not know anything about that.

The following day, I found time to elaborate:

LEE ~
I was pressed for time yesterday when I posted my comment here and therefore wasn't able to fully articulate my opposition to Judge Napolitano's view expressed in the video link provided by Kimberly (above).

There are several things I could add here, but I will restrict myself to two points:

1) As Sig accurately states, the Arizona SB 1070 law merely makes it obligatory for Arizona lawmen to ascertain the legal citizenship standing of a suspect when in the course of an otherwise normal law enforcement stop and the citizenship is questionable.

Enforcing SB 1070 will undoubtedly result in more illegal aliens being turned over to Federal immigration agencies. What the American people really ought to be asking themselves is: "Why in the world is the Federal Government so opposed to state law enforcement officers upholding Federal immigration law? Why does Uncle Sam so strongly want illegal aliens to go unapprehended that Uncle Sam would actually file a lawsuit against a state that merely seeks to assist our good Uncle in doing his job?" THAT is something every American (especially those with conservative values) ought to be asking!

2) In that video, Judge Napolitano makes the claim that SB 1070 should be overturned by the courts, and then when asked what action Arizona has available to it if the Feds refuse to secure their border and stop illegal immigration, Napolitano says they can threaten to secede from the Union.

Well, that's easy for him to say, knowing damn good and well that it isn't going to happen. Seceding from the Union is a far more extreme action than is merely attempting to assist Federal immigration agencies with the passage of SB 1070. If Arizona is running into THIS much opposition from the government over something as simple as SB 1070, what might the state expect if it were to go as far as attempting secession?

But here's one of the biggest factors that Napolitano (no more a real conservative than is Glenn Beck) conveniently left out of his Constitutional assessment:

The U.S. Constitution is a legally binding contract between the Federal government and the individual States. Article IV, Section 4 of that contract states that the Federal Government is required to "guarantee to every State in this Union, a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion..."

One of the meanings of "a Republican Form of Government" is popular rule (i.e., political decisions have to be made by a majority - in some cases, a plurality - of voting citizens.

Well, there is plenty of evidence that some elections have been polluted and affected by the voting of illegal aliens. In fact, I personally know one former Congressman who almost certainly lost his seat in the House due to the registering and voting of illegal aliens in his California district. A mass of illegal aliens will affect the maintaining of a Republican Form of Government.

And if the number of illegals crossing into our country and taking up residence here does not constitute an "invasion" then I don't know the meaning of the word. An invasion does not necessarily have to be "armed" (although some of the actions of the Mexican drug cartels on our side of the border DOES fit the defintion of "armed invasion").

Well, it should be clear to everyone with their eyes open that the Federal Government has not upheld its part of the contract (the U.S. Constitution) with the states. And what happens when one party does not honor its part of a legal contract? The contract becomes null and void. You don't require the second party to adhere strictly to the contract after the first party has broken its part of the agreement.

So, for Judge Napolitano to maintain that Arizona is acting un-Constitutionally in its passing of SB 1070 is the height of disingenuousness.

But then, of course, if Napolitano were a "real" Constitutional conservative, he wouldn't be regularly appearing on mainstream political programs. One can be sure that the so-called "experts" presented by the mainstream media to argue a point from either the Democrat OR Republican angle are never going to be genuine threats to the status quo and will tell the people selective truths but never THE WHOLE TRUTH.

Well, a couple of days ago, my buddy The Great L.C. of the blog ‘Back In The USSR’ loaned me his most recent copy of The New American magazine. Included in this issue was an article titled “Arizona: An Allegory … And The Reality”. I was pleased to find that the author, Joe Wolverton, views this issue almost identically to the way that I do. Here is an excerpt from his article:

ARIZONA: AN ALLEGORY … AND THE REALITY
Written by Joe Wolverton, II
Monday, August 2, 2010

Mr. and Mrs. Smith were thrilled when they purchased their new home in a very desirable neighborhood in an equally desirable state. Their subdivision was gated and governed by a homeowners’ association charter that promised peaceful enjoyment of their property for as long as they lived there. The couple could not have been happier, and for years they faithfully and joyfully paid dues to the association that guaranteed their continuing serenity and security.

One of the clauses in the homeowners’ association charter places the responsibility for maintaining the fence that surrounds the coveted community within the exclusive jurisdiction of the association, relieving individual property owners of that duty. The association hired the security that made sure visitors had permission to enter the gated haven, and it made necessary repairs to the barrier that ran behind the properties along the border with the outside world.

Several years passed and Mr. and Mrs. Smith noticed that the wall around their idyllic enclave was falling into disrepair and that unwelcomed intruders were frequently exploiting those gaps and trespassing onto their property. The Smiths were a good, patient, and law-abiding family, and they made appropriate appeals to the homeowners’ association to remedy the increasingly distressing situation along the fence.

To the dismay of the Smiths (and their neighbors), the association disregarded their pleas and the fence continued to deteriorate, the number of trespassers increased, while the number of security guards remained static and was proving insufficient to the threat. Again, the Smiths recurred to the association to do something, to live up to the covenants in the association charter and protect the home-owners from the near constant encroachment by unwelcomed intruders.

Still, nothing. Despite the occasional change in association leadership, the lassitude persisted and the situation in the once peaceful paradise grew more and more alarming.

The audacity of the invaders increased in inverse proportion to the level of response from the association. Word spread among those living near the affluent community that the homes and property inside the gates were easy pickings and that no matter how often or egregious the trespass, there would be no repercussions from the association.

Burglary, arson, assault, rape, and even murder were now nearly commonplace inside the gates of the Smiths’ neighborhood. What was once a dream come true had become a living nightmare of crime, fear, and violence. Gangs climbed freely and unchecked over the scree of the crumbled border, and the security force was outnumbered and outgunned. Try as hard as they might, the lack of resources from the association leadership rendered their noble efforts useless against the attack from outside.

Fed up with the years of association disdain, disregard, and violation of the charter that once promised them so much peace and protection, Mr. and Mrs. Smith in desperation decided to repair the fence themselves. While they didn’t have the money or the material to protect their entire neighborhood, they figured they could at least rid their homestead of the interlopers.

From that day forward, every time the Smiths encountered a trespasser on their property, they promptly detained him and escorted him back across the wall. They were careful to only question those already involved in some other legal tangle, so as to avoid incriminating anybody that might be a legitimate and invited guest of one or another of their many neighbors in the community.

The association was furious. It lashed out at the Smiths and warned them that if they didn’t cease and desist the detention of trespassers the association would have no choice but to seek a legal injunction against the Smiths for violation of the covenants of the homeowners’ association charter.

The charter, willingly signed by Mr. and Mrs. Smith when they purchased their home, assigned to the association the primary right of controlling the border of the community and the prosecution of any accused of unlawful entry into the subdivision. The association charged the Smiths with usurping that right and assuming powers that were specifically granted to the association.

Remarkably, the Smiths agreed with the central premise of the association’s argument: the association should have protected the Smiths and their neighbors; the charter did grant the association the power to monitor and manage the flow of visitors into the gated community; and the Smiths and others should have been able to rely on the association for the uninterrupted enjoyment of the rights, privileges, and safety that once made their neighborhood the envy of millions.

The Smiths agreed with all of those assertions. Willingly and happily the Smiths would have acceded to the association’s exercise of that lawful obligation. The association failed to fulfill that obligation, however. Despite years of fervent pleas for relief, the association neglected the fence and turned a blind eye to the influx of criminals and encroachers that devalued the Smiths' property and tacitly encouraged hordes of others to flow through the holes in the fence, knowing that the association would be unlikely to punish anyone lucky enough to make it into the lush land of milk and honey lying just beyond the unguarded gates.

Reluctantly, the Smiths (and some of their similarly frustrated neighbors) stepped in to fill the void caused by the association’s lamentable lack of compliance with the obligation placed on them by the charter. It was the mutual rights and obligations set out in the charter that made the neighborhood such an attractive location. When the association decided that its only responsibility was the collection of dues and the prodigal spending thereof, without the concomitant constraint of the protection of the homeowners, then the Smiths knew it was time to act in their own self-defense. Mr. and Mrs. Smith solemnly believed that their right to protect themselves and their property from invasion was theirs regardless of clauses in the charter or lawsuits filed by the association. Thus, with courage and dismay, they decided to assert that right no matter the cost or the consequence.

Nice allegory, Mr. Wolverton! Nice allegory. We both get an "A" on this test.

And there ya go, Mr. and Mrs. America. That’s the proper context in which to view this controversial illegal immigration issue and Arizona’s attempt to address it.

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
[D-FensDogg of the ‘Loyal American Underground’]

YE OLDE COMMENT POLICY: All comments, pro and con, are welcome. However, ad hominem attacks and disrespectful epithets will not be tolerated (read: "posted"). After all, this isn’t Amazon.com, so I don’t have to put up with that kind of bovine excrement.
.