Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Federal Government Will Sue Arizona Over Immigration Law

Kris W. Kobach of National Review defends Arizona. The Federal Government is sueing the State of Arizona on the basis their immigration law violates the Constitution. If this lawsuit doesn't show how incompetent the Obama Administration is, nothing will. The Arizona law copies the Federal Law, since the federal law mandates:

Since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens not to keep certain registration documents on their person or not to register with the federal government.
One wonders if Barack Obama knows what a green card is. The law was made with full view the feds would sue under racial profiling, so they made sure there is no racial profiling in the bill.

Andrew McCarthy states in an earlier post:

At the border, the federal government does not need probable cause — or any cause at all — to inquire into a person’s citizenship, immigration status, or purpose for attempting to enter our country. Agents can detain immigrants and citizens alike. They can perform bodily searches. They can go through every inch of a would-be entrant’s belongings, read his mail, and scrutinize the contents of his computer.
If the government can search anyone entering the country, why can't anyone be searched with probable cause?

The fact is James Madison and George Washington, would advocate deportation:

[T]hose who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community; are not the people we are in want of."

-James Madison, to Congress Feb 3, 1790. The Writings of James Madison. 1998 World Book Inc. Western Stnd Publishing Co.
Most hispanics who break our laws to enter our country, add no strength to our communities, since they fail to assimulate to hold onto their own language and culture, and they provide no wealth as they send their money back to their home countries. More than likely, JM would be for deportation.

Washington would have illegals deported as well, as they are not acting decently by breaking our laws, however, he would never have allowed it to get this bad:

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations And Religions; whom we shall wellcome to a participation of all our rights and previleges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.[italics mine]

IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK, New York, December 2, 1783.


betuadollarucant said...

Although it is quite true that the Founding Fathers, in general, supported immigration if for no other reason than the continued expansion of the local and regional market, and the continued production and attraction of wealth, they were also concerned about the survival of their newly formed government.

In any case, it is quite clear that Jefferson and Madison did not see immigration as one of those powers especially enumerated as contained within the Constitution. For proof of this we need look no further than the Kentucky Resolutions, and I quote: "That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens." Etc.

Note also use of the word "protection" here. Jefferson also uses this in the Declaration to justify our split from Britain. And he does so for a specific reason: immigration, or to seek residence in the territory of another, had long been ruled under the universally recognized, international law known to them as the "Right of Protection." To acquire safe residence, safe being the keyword here, required some form of reciprocal agreement with those that occupied, or were native to, that particular territory; the only other option, of course, being a successful invasion. But it was the intent of the Founding Fathers, born entirely of concern for the new government, that some "uniform rule of naturalization," or legislation, be created to ensure that all those that sought and were granted citizenship, "naturalized," I.E., assimilated, or met the standard of the American Way.

Immigration - by its very definition - and naturalization are actually two entirely separate issues. But in any case, these words as contained with the Kentucky Resolution, authored by Jefferson, and the many others that survive, serve to inform us, as the documentary proof, that the power to regulate immigration is a STATES RIGHTS issue and past Supreme Court rulings granting the Feds the power to regulate immigration were, very obviously, in error.

Our Founding Truth said...

I have no doubt the Jeffersonians believed exactly what you referred to, however, from the debates, if I'm not mistaken, the "uniform rule for immigration" appear to have been stream-lined across the states.

If you read my posts on TJ, he isn't the most trustworthy Founding Father. I tend to disagree with him on both issues you bring up. I believe General Hamilton would disagree as well.

We should have a Federal naturalization, and immigration policy. States with their own "naturalization policies" would render too much inconsistancy in uniform policy, and tend to raise problems evidenced to this day.