I have been told that I am not a libertarian because I support the new immigration law from Arizona. I have been told that I am one step away from putting on a red armband with a swastika because I want to see the police of Arizona have the freedom to ask for proof of citizenship. I’ve been told that I’m giving up essential liberty for the illusion of security.

Well, I’m not the kind of person who just takes barbed attacks like that. I don’t keep quiet about things, I speak my mind, and I don’t care who has their feelings hurt. Thus, I shall defend myself regarding these things.

1) What is the situation?

There is a war in Mexico between the government and the drug cartels which are supplying many of the illegal narcotics used by Americans. The gangs have been fighting against the government. And winning. The number of murders/deaths, the destruction of property, the lack of law and order, these are not trivial things.

With more than 2,000 people killed since the new year, 2010 is shaping up to overtake the record 6,500 drug-related murders last year, which exceeded the toll of more than 5,000 in 2008. The killings have happened despite an offensive against the cartels involving tens of thousands of soldiers and federal police launched in December 2006 by the president, Felipe Calderón.

2) How is the drug war in Mexico affecting the US population?

As the war rages, the drug cartels are smuggling drugs, guns, and slaves into, and out of, the US to help finance their struggle. This is causing all kinds of problems for the legal, American citizens living in the border states.

“We’ve been inundated with criminal activity. It’s just — it’s been outrageous,” Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer told Fox News.

“Crime is off the chart in this state,” added Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, president of the Arizona Association of Sheriffs.

…

But there are other crimes, many of which are drug-related. Furthermore, illegal immigrants and smuggling organizations have been linked to some specific violent crimes in Arizona. Local officials frequently cite the rash of kidnappings in their state in defending the new law. The Department of Justice’s latest National Drug Threat Assessment says there were 267 kidnappings in Phoenix last year and 299 in 2008. The report said the victims usually have a connection to immigrant smuggling groups or drug traffickers.

The report also showed that assaults against U.S. law enforcement on the southwestern border are on the rise. The report found that the number of attacks on Border Patrol agents increased 46 percent to 1,097 incidents in fiscal 2008. The report said the assaults were mostly related to immigrant smuggling.

But as you read the crime statistics, you fail to get the true depth and scope of what the border residents face. Allow me to show you some eyewitness testimony from the people who are dealing with these problems in their day-to-day life:

We need every citizen to spend a day at John and Pat King’s Anvil Ranch in southern Arizona. The experience would create an overnight revolution in America’s view of this domestic crisis.

The Kings live every day with barking dogs, vandalism, guns at their bedside, trash on their land, and most tragically, human remains. The bodies of seven illegals were found on the 50,000-acre Anvil last year.

“Can you imagine dying of heat prostration out there?” says Pat King, a 62-year-old former nurse. “It has got to be the most awful thing. I wish the two countries would get together and stop this. In this whole 50-mile area, there is no law. It’s a frontier.”

…

“You have to understand, we’re under siege here,” she says. “Every day my son and husband check water and fences and redo the damage they’ve done. Not to get on with our work, but to undo the damage. Every. Day.”

…

But this nightmare comes right to the Kings’ doorstep. Imagine living under permanent stakeout. The Kings do. They removed mesquite trees from around their house because illegals would hide underneath them and wait for the house to empty.

For nine years, the family has been unable to leave home unless someone stays to guard against burglars. They celebrate Christmas in shifts. On Christmas Eve, Pat’s son and daughter-in-law go to Tucson to visit family, and when they return John and Pat go on Christmas morning.

Micaela can no longer do chores unless accompanied by her father or a brother, and taking her 4-year-old daughter out on horseback is forbidden. “We can’t go anywhere without an escort,” Micaela says.

 Don’t you know that family just loves paying taxes to a Federal government which refuses to even try and keep them and their property safe? I understand that the government cannot stop crime, that it cannot 100% promise that you’ll be safe inside of our borders, but to not even make an attempt at taking care of your own citizens because you might lose some votes? That’s damned criminal.

To argue using social contract theory:

Society exists for one reason. That reason is to increase the likelihood that each member of the society will survive. If we had better survival rates as loin-clothed hunter-gatherers than we did as members of a community and society, we’d have never evolved society in the first place. Coming together like this is NOT meant to be a suicide pact, a thought which is backed up by US Supreme Court case law in Terminiello v. Chicago:

“The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.” — Justice Robert H. Jackson

Notice how the testimony provided by the King family matches the statement from Justice Jackson?

Ms. King says “In this whole 50-mile area, there is no law. It’s a frontier.”

Justice Jackson states: “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either.”

Starting to see the point, yet?  And we haven’t even touched on the costs to the State of Arizona which come with providing welfare, education, and medical care to these illegal immigrants.  In a time when State budgets are falling apart, illegal aliens are costing the US about $20.2 billion dollars per year.

Watch the video, and then pay extra special attention to the part about the lack of freedom if you must constantly defend yourself against armed mobs looking to kill and steal… The government exists to provide law and order. There is no other reason for the existence of the organization of people under a government if it is not that.

Where there is no law, no order, then there is no government. What, exactly, are the Kings paying taxes for???

3) So what has happened?

The State of Arizona, like the King family, has been requesting Federal aid in dealing with this problem for years. Gov. Brewer has written for aid numerous times, and when Ms. Napolitano was governor, she did too.  But now that Ms. Napolitano is working for the Democrats in DC, well… The border is beneath her concern.

In response to the lack of response from the Federal Government, that State of Arizona decided to pass its own law.

S.B.1070 was the name of the law when under debate, but most people are calling it “Arizona’s Immigration Law.” The text clearly states the purpose of the law:

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

Notice the words “cooperative enforcement of Federal Immigration laws”?

They’re pretty important. The next several paragraphs detail that the law is simply taking FEDERAL LAW and turning it into State law for the purpose of seeing it enforced.

A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY MAY SECURELY TRANSPORT AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES AND WHO IS IN THE AGENCY’S CUSTODY TO A FEDERAL FACILITY IN THIS STATE OR TO ANY OTHER POINT OF TRANSFER INTO FEDERAL CUSTODY THAT IS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

This is telling us that if the illegal alien is caught in violation of State crimes, the State is to turn them over to FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT.

The Federal Government has refused to take the initiative here, and the State is merely forcing its hand, sending all of the people who have VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW to the Federal government after they have completed the requirements imposed upon them by violation of State law.

In essence, the law states that when an illegal alien has violated State law, they must pay the consequences of that violation and that they will then be turned over to the Federal Government, who will deal with their violation of Federal immigration laws.

This demand by the State of Arizona that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT enforce its OWN LAWS has sparked a fair amount of outrage…

4) The outrage.

The outrage on the part of critics has had one central claim:

Critics claim the law is unconstitutional and fear it will lead to racial profiling…

The majority of arguments that I have seen base their claims of unconstitutionality on the 4th Amendment.

The 4th Amendment, for those of you who don’t have the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights memorized, states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5) Examination of the Arizona Immigration Law in relation to the 4th Amendment.

Ok, so people are claiming that the Arizona law violates the 4th Amendment by empowering the State and local police to make “unreasonable search and seizures”.

Let’s examine that thought through a parable.

Let’s say that a cop saw someone driving erratically. They swerved all over the road, they hit a couple of mailboxes, and they side-swiped another vehicle.

The cop pulls them over. When he approaches the vehicle, and the driver rolls down the window, the smell of alcohol washes over the officer.

Is the cop violating the 4th amendment if he asks the driver if he has been drinking?

Nope. He’s expected to ask that question. No, he’s required to ask that question.

He has no idea if the driver has been drinking. He has no idea if the driver is drunk. But he is authorized to investigate the possibility. He is authorized to detain the driver, to check his papers (driver’s licence), to have the driver step out of the vehicle and prove his sobriety through road side sobriety tests. If the driver fails, he is taken to jail.

All of this because the driver looked like a drunk driver before the cop pulled him over… The cop didn’t know for sure that the driver was drunk. He pulled him over under reasonable suspicion of the fact, combined with the erratic driving.

If the cop let the drunk driver go and he caused a traffic accident that resulted in the death of an innocent child, shouldn’t the cop be held responsible for his inaction? Shouldn’t the cop be held responsible for failing to uphold the existing law?

Now, let’s say that the driver was driving erratically 30 miles north of the border, and the cop pulled him over. The cop goes up to the window, and the driver speaks no English. He doesn’t have any ID. Is it beyond reason to think that this person might be an illegal alien?

That’s the text of the 4th Amendment, people. It provides against unreasonable search and seizure. The situation, as I have outlined it, certainly provides enough reasonable suspicion for me to support the cop asking the driver about his citizenship.

And if the cop fails to ask about his citizenship, allows the suspected illegal alien to go, and the illegal alien winds up committing a rape, a murder, or a kidnapping, shouldn’t the cop also be blamed for failing to remove the potential hazard? Being an illegal is a crime just the same as being guilty of DUI is a crime. In Arizona, criminals guilty of both offenses have been the cause of death, heartache, and the destruction of private property.

Why should the person who is guilty of the DUI face questions and legal actions that are being called “unconstitutional” if they are applied to illegal aliens who are here in violation of federal law?

5) The DUTY of the Federal Government.

The people who are screaming that the 4th Amendment is being violated are ignoring another passage of the US Constitution. Article 4, Sec. 4 of the United States Constitution states:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Now, isn’t it a violation of the US Constitution when the government fails to perform its duty in protecting the States against invasion? What do you call armed drug cartels storming across the border, raping, killing, kidnapping, and destroying property if NOT an invasion? The situation is no different than Taliban forces making raids across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border! The US military is there fighting those raiders…

The Federal Government is directed, the very words are “The United States SHALL guarantee to every State.”  The Federal Government is given zero leeway in this. For the Federal Government to ignore its Constitutional duty to its citizens because politicians in States not affected by the violence on the border want to get votes from naturalized citizens formerly belonging to the State of Mexico is a contractual violation.

Furthermore, the Us Constitution tasks the Federal Government with providing a Republican form of government. When 2/3rds of the citizens of the State approve of this law, how can the Federal Government deny it to them? It’s their wish, their representatives are respecting the will of the People whom they represent!

The US Constitution is a contract between States. The States came together and set up the Federal Government, not the other way around. The Federal Government is contractually obligated to provide for every one of the shalls found in the US Constitution. For them to ignore and refuse to perform their contractual duty to the State of Arizona is a violation of the Constitution on the part of the Federal Government.

Why shouldn’t Arizona, upon failure of the Federal Government to perform its contractual duties in relation to the safety of the citizens of Arizona, and their choice made through a legal, Republican form of government, be allowed to pass whatever law the citizens of that State feel would help to make them safe?  What is the basis for opposing this law on Constitutional grounds when it is the Federal Government, and the 46 States which do not share a border with Mexico, who are the ones failing to uphold their end of the contract?

We can sue people and organizations which violate specific items of a contract like that. But instead we’ve got a President attacking a State, and the people who live there, because they took action when he refused to do his Constitutional duty.

6) Conclusion and solution

The Federal Government has abdicated its responsibility to the citizens of Arizona. Their lives and property being summarily threatened, the citizens have responded by taking matters into their own hands and working to secure themselves absent any Federal aid.

This is not unconstitutional, this is an example of a State government stepping up to provide its citizens with the law and order they are being unconstitutionally denied by the Federal Government tasked with procuring it for them!

I fully support the right of the State of Arizona to keep its citizens safe when the level of government charged with doing so is guilty of such gross negligence. I’m glad that at least one level of government is being responsible, and I applaud them for it.

However, the Federal Government is still tasked with securing the border, protecting American citizens, and punishing law breakers like the illegal aliens. Thus, I propose that the Federal Government should set up a system like that which my ancestors went through when they came to the US.

There needs to be an Ellis Island on the Mexican border. People seeking to work and make a better life for themselves should not be denied the opportunity to do so, but there must be some level of order and organization involved to keep out the criminals who only have damage and destruction as their motivation for coming here.

My ancestors came to this country. They checked in through Ellis Island, they were given new names, then shunted into slums full of squalor, racially singled out, and discriminated against.

The people of New York, Massachusetts, Washington DC, etc, had no problems with that treatment being meted out to legal immigrants from Europe when they were the ones dealing with the waves of immigration, yet now they shit themselves because another state is dealing with a problem similar to their old problem, in a similar manner?

It’s the height of hypocrisy.

Everyone who wants to come here, abide by the law, work, and strive for a better life should be allowed to do so. Those who have no intention of becoming citizens, but only wish to commit crimes and to flaunt the law before jumping back over the border to escape punishment? 

Not so much.

The other thing that the Federal Government MUST recognize is that the American war on drugs is providing the money which fuels the cartels and aliens who are causing so much strife, and then put an end to it. The profit to be made on drugs in this country pays for the travel, entices people to take the risks associated with crossing the border, and has been the largest contributor to this problem.

We have the actions of the Federal Government causing the problem, and then the Federal Government refusing to clean up the mess it has created at the expense of the lives and property of the legal citizens of Arizona.

Damned right I support the People of Arizona! Damned right that I encourage them to keep themselves and their families safe! Damned right I place the blame for all of this squarely at the feet of the Federal Government.

More power to the People of Arizona. I’m with you.

Tweet  Print This Post

Tags: politics & government // 2 Comments »