Google
 
Web Osi Speaks!

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Louisville Courier Journal Editorial: U.S. Vs. Arizona On Anti-Immigration Law. Read My Comments.

U.S. vs. Arizona on anti-immigration law

It is tempting to dismiss the confrontation between Arizona and the U.S. Justice Department over the Grand Canyon State's harsh new anti-immigration law as one piece of a larger political jigsaw puzzle.

Many Republican leaders and candidates support the law and believe that fearful voters in a time of economic stress will reward them at the polls this fall; other GOP strategists, taking a longer view, worry that this anti-immigrant position cements the GOP's image as a white Anglo party and, at a time of momentous demographic change in the country, will make Republicans a permanent minority party in the not-too-distant future. Many Democrats, on the other hand, are resigned to setbacks this year after strong victories in the last two election cycles and are happy to look ahead and help the Republicans paint themselves into a corner.

While the political ramifications are real, however, there are more important elements to the showdown.

Arizona's law, which is supposed to take effect later this month, defines illegal immigration as a state crime, requires police in Arizona to verify immigration status of people stopped in criminal investigations and is justified by state legislators with the argument that the federal government hasn't protected the border. The Justice Department, in a suit filed Tuesday in federal court in Phoenix, alleges that the Arizona measure unconstitutionally supersedes federal authority on immigration, and will divert federal resources from greater needs.

The federal case, outlined by Attorney General Eric Holder, makes solid constitutional sense and likely has a strong chance of succeeding, and it is important that it do so. The Arizona law invites police abuse of Hispanic citizens and legal visitors and risks driving undocumented workers deeper underground.

Even so, a much greater need is for comprehensive immigration reform of the type that failed in Congress in 2007, despite the support of President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain (who now shamefully panders in his own re-election campaign to the nativist vote by embracing Arizona's law). The unsuccessful federal measure would have addressed real needs by strengthening border security, compelling employers to hire only documented workers and providing ways for illegal immigrants who are already here to step out of the shadows and acquire legal status.

Furthermore, the Arizona law is a feel-good gesture that attacks the wrong problem. The threat is not illegal immigration of workers seeking menial jobs; it is the expansion of the Mexican drug wars into the southwestern United States. The drug cartels will not be deterred by Arizona police asking to see travel papers.

The Arizona law is a sideshow. The Justice Department is right to challenge it, but the federal obligation remains to replace it with something much better.

Editor's comment: The Arizona "immigration" law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL as it is BOTH pre-empted by federal law and REPUGNANT to the "SUPREMACY" Clause of our U. S. Constitution.

Having said those words, permit me to say these: the number one (numero uno) responsibility of any legitimate government is to protect the safety of its citizens, and those LAWFULLY within its territorial boundaries, from (internal threats) and external invasion.

Right now, and for many years leading to now, our federal government has FAILED in that task -- and this is WORSE if you live in border states like Arizona and California.

The remedy? Elect ONLY persons who take these threats SERIOUSLY enough to do something about it.

UNFORTUNATELY, most Americans are persuaded by CRAP, and vote accordingly!

Labels:

3 Comments:

Anonymous Chris said...

I really wish you would quit capitalizing words in your opinions because it is annoying and makes you look like an amateur instead of the accomplished and intelligent attorney that you are. :-)

5:50 PM  
Blogger KYJurisDoctor said...

Sorry, Chris. You must have VERTIGO! ;-)

7:42 PM  
Anonymous Chris said...

lol

10:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home