by Jack
The AZ law to help curb illegal immigration and it’s associated risks, i.e., crime, pollution, disease control, healthcare and other burdens placed upon the AZ taxpayers, had 4 provisions and the SC struck down 3 of the 4. Those deleted provisions are:
1. The first provision made it a state crime for immigrants not to carry federal registration papers.
2. The second made it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit work.
3. The third portion of the law struck down allowed state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant, in some cases.
The above provisions are universally accepted standards among virtually all western governments, including our own, but in the United States the SC said only the feds had the right to enforce #1 and #3. #2 was wiped out entirely, which is a clear departure from common practice in other Western Nations and in most of the nations on the planet.
Ironically, the court did allow the main component of the law to stand. That part allows state and local police to check the immigration status of people they’ve stopped or detained if a “reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the country illegally i.e. the person stopped can’t speak English and can’t produce any documentation indicating citizenship, that is reasonable cause.
It is interesting to note that if you as a CA motorist are passing through another state and you get pulled over for a traffic violation, you could be required to pay the fine on the spot because you are a non-resident. Fail to pay and you could face arrest, in some cases. The logic was that since you are from out of state you may skip out on paying your fine. This would be basically the same logic as the provision for #3, but an illegal from another country apparently has more privileges than legal U.S. citizens, or so says the SC.
Now that this AZ law has been undermined, I think its fair that citizens should demand the feds partner up with State law enforcement to enforce immigration law, which the SC says is perfectly legal. The SC has only said the States can’t go it solo, which doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever; I know of no other federal law that State police can’t enforce as long as they turn the offender over to the feds for prosecution.
Next, note the photo above of the two AZ women jumping and cheering over the SC decision. Question: Why are they wearing Mexico’s national colors unless their cheering for a Mexican victory over America? We see a lot of that these days, especially in protest marches and soccer games where divided loyalties become very visible. This calls into question the real motives (and loyalties) of the people waving the Mexican flags or wearing Mexican colors while protesting against the USA. This is a perfectly legitimate and logical observation that loyal Americans (regardless of race, color or national origin) have every right to make and to call into question.
We should all be very protective of any sort of attack on our sovereignty and further, do everything we can to foster unity as patriots…one nation, indivisible…. People flying Mexico’s flags, cheering on illegal immigration or mocking patriotic Americans who seek comprehensive border control are damaging our country. Therefore, we are under no obligation to either respect or cater to those so-called citizens, but our politicians sure do. These folks show more national pride and loyalty to a foreign power than their own country and that’s a mild form of treason, which politicians want to overlook for the sake votes (Meg Whitman).
Think of what would happen to you if you dared to wave the American flag in Mexico and protest their laws. But, here our politicians (and liberals) suck up to the protestors to placate them and show support for them because it’s the politically correct thing to do.
Sometimes we’re just too nice for our own good and people often take advantage of that because they see it as a weakness to be exploited.