Customs and Border Protection arrested about 52,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico in 2009. This number included countries known to export terrorism and the numbers from each actually caught, such as Afghanistan 4, Egypt 14, Iran 15, Iraq 16, Nigeria 29, Pakistan 41, Saudi Arabia 1, Somalia 19, Yemen 13, and North Korea 10. So much for national security. These numbers reflect only those caught, and who knows how many succeeded undetected. Border security is national security. If Mexicans can get in illegally, so can everyone else.
This is nothing new to the government. Their own 2005 study A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border, admitted that “aliens were smuggled from the Middle East to staging areas in Central and South America, before being smuggled illegally into the United States” and that “members of Hezbollah have already entered the United States across the Southwest border.” In light of the need for greater border security exhibited by our failure to stop the September 11 attacks, it is difficult to believe that the Federal Government really cares.
With over one million illegal immigrants crossing the border each year (the government document cited above gave the number between 4 and 10 million in 2005 alone) how can anyone argue that this does not constitute an invasion and a threat to our language, economy, culture, and now even our security? A major purpose of the Constitution noted in the Preamble is to “provide for the common defense.” Common Defense is again given as one of the four powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8 wherein eight qualifiers dealing with what was meant by common defense are mentioned–all with a military aspect. The indisputable collective intent is to protect this people. Is intentionally failing to do so treason?
Illegal immigrants from terroristic countries already declared war by destroying the Twin Towers and damaging the Pentagon. Treason is defined in the Constitution as consisting of one of two things: “levying War” and “adhering to their enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” It appears that the Government’s position is intentionally not sealing the border; are they then guilty of giving the enemy “aid and comfort?” Proving intent on the part of the President or Congress might still be difficult, but it is time someone suggested such. We identified Iraq, Afghanistan, and Al-Qaida as responsible and went to war on them as a result. Yet we have done virtually nothing to keep other terrorists from entering the country at will on our very vulnerable under belly.
Without “common defense” one ceases to be a nation. The Federal Government has relinquished its most important function. Instead of being sobered by a state attempting to enforce already existing Federal law to protect its people and border, the Government is attacking its own states and people. The Federal Government reacts as though it is threatened by the national popularity of the Arizona law (now over 60%), and by the list of over a dozen states contemplating doing the same thing. Strangely, the Government sees Arizona as the national threat, not the illegals, who may include those from terroristic countries wishing to blow up our buildings filled with legal American citizens.
Some argue that the border is too big to protect. China successfully kept out barbarians many centuries ago with the Great Wall and they had no razor wire, drones, machine guns, motion detectors, cameras, helicopters and gigantic earth moving equipment as we do. It is the will to do so that does not exist in either party but more especially the Democratic Party. The money we spend in defending other countries’ back yards could build and secure ours many times.
But there seems a deliberate attempt somewhere in government not to protect us. Mr. President, would you please stop fighting your own people and protect us as the U. S. Constitution demands? And please, no more half-hearted efforts like finally giving us 150,000 National Guardsmen when we need 750,000, and new amnesties that only encourage an extension of our current invasion. Please seal our borders, or resign so someone else can.
Dr. Harold Pease is an expert on the United States Constitution. He has dedicated his career to studying the writings of the Founding Fathers and applying that knowledge to current events. He has taught history and political science from this perspective for over 25 years at Taft College.
A country ceases to remain a country when it ceases to protect its borders. The Roman Empire ceased to exist for that very reason, coupled with moral decay.
Two places in the Constitution reference the need to protect our borders: the Preamble identifies as a purpose of the federal government to “provide for the common defense” and Article IV requires that they ”protect each of them (the states) against invasion.” With more than half a million illegals crossing the border a year, this is an invasion, and the federal government is not doing its job. Too many people who are totally ignorant of their governing document want to weigh in on this issue. Fortunately, Arizonians understand. Arizona did not make illegal immigration illegal, the federal government did.
The new bill, “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” is the direct result of the Federal Government not protecting its citizens from invasion. It has nothing to do with race or any other subject. It has to do with enforcing an already existing law. It simply codifies federal law into state law. If the feds won’t protect us, the state government will. Thank you Arizona for protecting our Constitution, and other states should follow.
For a person to be stopped, he or she must already be offending the law. Once stopped, those suspected of being illegal immigrants are asked to provide papers. But the stop itself must be for other reasons. The actual law reads: “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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”
This procedure is similar to that followed when a driver is weaving from one side of the road to another. The stopping officer demands a breathalyzer test and asks to see a drivers license and vehicle registration papers. If something does not feel right the officer may also check the vehicle against those that have been reported stolen or the individual against a wanted list. The Constitutionally ignorant have made a case for the unconstitionality of the law on the basis of the 4th Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Such could be argued for any of the regular aforementioned police activities. But as noted the law prohibits unreasonable searches.
For individuals or cities showing sympathy for those breaking federal law, Arizona would remind them that they are accomplices to a crime and now break state law as well. The bill reads: “No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.” All this could be avoided if the federal government did its Constitutionally mandated function and provided for the common defense by protecting us against invasion.
Under pressure, President Obama has finally agreed to send 1,200 National Guardsmen to the border. However, that is about one seventh of what is needed. The phrase too little too late comes to mind.
All are encouraged to spend their vacation time in the lovely state of Arizona to soften the blow of the boycott against them.
I am thrilled that Nancy Pelosi finally understands the need to politicize the churches. Actually they played a major role in bringing on the American Revolution as they, from the pulpit, encouraged their parishioners to actively advocate liberty. With respect to liberty, the loss of such has proceeded to the point that today you are either a part of the problem or part of the solution. Ministers, this is the Second American Revolution, using words rather than muskets for now. Your people need to be encouraged to stand up for freedom while they still can. In most revolutions Christians are among the first victims.
Now Nancy, illegal immigrants are those whose first act in America is to break the very laws that you helped create, thereby defying what you do. That is why they are called “illegal.” I hope the ministry also points this out to their people. And Nancy, I hope that you never criticize the Christian Coalition or any other group that advocates the restoration of Christian values in our schools such as prayers, or symbols, or express themselves with signs in California that express a conservative viewpoint, such as advocating against gay marriage or abortion. Should you do so, be prepared to be called a first class hypocrite.
So Nancy let us hear what you have to say about the Bible and the Christian ministry in politics so that we can better understand your new position of strong Christian advocacy.
Certain people are angry that the US might protect its own borders, might make it harder for them to sneak into this country and, once here, to stay indefinitely.
Let me see if I correctly understand the thinking behind these protests………..
Let’s say I break into your house. Let’s say that when you discover me in your house, you insist that I leave. But I say, “No! I like it here.
It’s better than my house. I’ve made all the beds and washed the dishes and did the laundry and swept the floors. I’ve done all the things you don’t like to do. I’m hard-working and honest (except for when I broke into your house).
According to the protesters:
You are Required to let me stay in your house
You are Required to feed me
You are Required to add me to your family’s insurance plan
You are Required to Educate my kids
You are Required to Provide other benefits to me & to my family (my husband will do all of your yard work because he is also hard-working and honest, except for that breaking in part).
If you try to call the police or force me out, I will call my friends who will picket your house carrying signs that proclaim my RIGHT to be there.
It’s only fair, after all, because you have a nicer house than I do, and I’m just trying to better myself. I’m a hard-working and honest, person, except for well, you know, I did break into your house
And what a deal it is been for me!!!
I live in your house, contributing only a fraction of the cost of my keep, and there is nothing you can do about it without being accused of cold, uncaring, selfish, prejudiced, and bigoted behavior.
Oh yeah, AND I DEMAND that you learn MY LANGUAGE!!! so you can communicate with me.”
-Anonymous
Illegal immigration costs the California tax-payer five billion dollars annually says the Los Angeles Times. Illegals now make up 8 % of all residents of California.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT9F-dW5mkE
Illegals are now responsible for 53% of violent crime in Maricopa County, Arizona says Lou Dobbs and the county is not guilty of racial profiling.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxwKr4v5HYc
The Obama Administration Favors illegal immigration. This is the fourth time they have blocked E-Verify which could end it.
Last night (Tuesday) on his TV show, Glenn Beck dropped another bombshell — on Thursday, Congress will take up a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Why is our Congress doing this now? Secretly? Quickly? If it hadn’t been for one of Beck’s “Refounders” (a Congressional insider), would we even know about this? Why is this important to you and me?
Well, the word is out, and my local 9-12/Tea party organization sent this out this morning. First thing to hit my mailbox, in fact…
There is a bill to make Puerto Rico a state. Again, they are trying to pull one over on us and on Puerto Ricans, who have consistently said they do not want to become a state. Read below for more information (from Eagle Forum). This was also discussed by Rep Tom Price on a conference call yesterday.
Please consider this:
* The U.S. would transform, overnight, into a bilingual nation. At least half of Puerto Ricans do not speak English, the language of our U.S. Constitution and founding documents. The Washington Times article, “Puerto Rican statehood,” analyzes all the implications of adding a foreign language-speaking state to the Union.
* It would bring immediate demands for massive federal spending. The average income of Puerto Ricans is less than half that of our poorest state, and infrastructure and the environment are far below American standards. Puerto Rico has a population with a median national income of $17,741, nearly a third of that for the U.S.
* Puerto Rico is already a democracy. Despite the bill’s deceptive title, Puerto Rico already has an elected government and exists as a self-governed commonwealth of the U.S.
* Statehood would give Puerto Rico more congressional representation than 25 of our 50 states! It would inevitably give Democrats two additional U.S. Senators and 6 to 8 additional Members of the House.
H.R. 2499 is stealth legislation designed to lead to the admission of Spanish-speaking Puerto Rico as the 51st state, thereby making us a de facto bilingual nation, like Canada. The U.S. Congress should not be forcing Puerto Ricans to vote on statehood, especially since the Puerto Rican people have rejected statehood three times since 1991!
No Member of Congress who describes himself as a limited government, fiscal conservative should be casting a YEA vote for H.R. 2499, as Puerto Rican statehood would cause an immediate increase in federal expenditures, particularly for taxpayer-funded welfare state services.
Sponsored by Puerto Rican delegate Pedro Pierluisi (D), the Puerto Rico Democracy Act (H.R. 2499) – which has reared its ugly head a number of times over the past few congresses but has yet to have any success – would require Puerto Ricans to hold a national referendum to decide if they want Puerto Rico to remain a self-governing U.S. commonwealth, or become the 51st state.
The referendum would be set up as two plebiscites which would effectively deceive Puerto Ricans into voting for statehood. In the first round of votes, the Puerto Rican people would be given the choice between remaining a U.S. territory and “pursuing a different political status.” If the majority votes to maintain the status quo, this bill would require that Puerto Rico vote on this same issue every eight years.
If the majority votes for “different status,” a second round of votes would be held where Puerto Ricans would choose either statehood or independence-the status quo of “U.S. territory” would not even be an option! In other words, the two ballots would be rigged to favor the outcome of statehood, overriding the wishes of Americans and Puerto Ricans who want to maintain the current commonwealth status.
“Misguided and irresponsible” is how Arizona’s new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a “sanctuary city,” an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of “nullification” and “interposition,” anarchy and disunion. Strange.
It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation’s borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government’s refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists “comprehensive” immigration reform.
Arizona’s law makes what is already a federal offense — being in the country illegally — a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona’s right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer’s character and motives, saying she “caved to the radical fringe.” This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a “fringe” of their state?
Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy — judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes — because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things “beyond the reach of majorities.”
But Arizona’s statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are required to try to make “a reasonable attempt” to determine the status of a person “where reasonable suspicion exists” that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of “reasonable” will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights — the Fourth Amendment — proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures.” What “reasonable” means in practice is still being refined by case law — as is that amendment’s stipulation that no warrants shall be issued “but upon probable cause.” There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of “reasonable suspicion.”
Brewer says, “We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of “evenness” as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.
Some critics say Arizona’s law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” prevents the government from basing action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).
Probably 30 percent of Arizona’s residents are Hispanics. Arizona police officers, like officers everywhere, have enough to do without being required to seek arrests by violating settled law with random stops of people who speak Spanish. In the practice of the complex and demanding craft of policing, good officers — the vast majority — routinely make nuanced judgments about when there is probable cause for acting on reasonable suspicions of illegality.
Arizona’s law might give the nation information about whether judicious enforcement discourages illegality. If so, it is a worthwhile experiment in federalism.
Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood — some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans’ ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.
