Comparing Arizona Security to Airport Security

Open border advocates, amnesty promoters, and liberals of all sorts, including our America-slamming President are expressing outrage at Arizona’s new immigration law.  They are complaining that Arizona has decided to be effective in doing the job the Federal Government refuses to do: Enforcing immigration laws.  They charge that the law promotes “racial profiling”.  It doesn’t.  They charge that a state immigration law is not the purview of the states but is the responsibility of the federal government.  The federal government refuse to do its job.  They charge that the a state law that allows asking for evidence of citizenship such as showing a green card is somehow akin to Nazism.  Why are green cards issued if they are not required to be shown?  As an aside, check out how Mexico treats illegal aliens.

Oh, and it just happens that 99% of illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexican, but we should not profile Mexicans.

Let’s now turn to our airport security screening.  Not only do the screeners ask for several forms of identification from EVERYONE passing through the gates, but they subject EVERYONE to wanding, body searches, shoe searches, and carry-on baggage searches.  They are screening EVERYONE.  And somehow that is OK, despite the fact that 99% of all terrorists, and the only ones who have threatened the safety of aircraft in the last 20 years are Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 and 35.  But we shouldn’t profile Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 and 35.

Holy crap!

I’m beginning to see some parallels here.  In both Arizona and in airports, there is a dire concern about the safety of people in both places due to specifically identified groups of people.  In both Arizona and in airports there is a clear profile identified of who is breaking the law and threatens lives.  In Arizona, it is Mexicans who have entered the country illegally.  In airports, it is Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 to 35.  In neither instance is it acceptable to profile for the known characteristics of the people known to be a threat.

In Arizona, they merely want to identify individuals that do not have the legal right to be in their state.   So logically, they may focus on people who look Mexican, subject to demonstrable “probable cause.”   At airports, they are not even focusing on Muslim men from the middle east between the ages of 18 to 35.   They are screening ALL OF US.  Is this the same insanity the open borders and amnesty advocates want in Arizona:  Screen everyone, even though 80% are not Mexican while 99% of the illegals ARE Mexican?

We all carry identification that we have to show someone most every day.  I am asked to show ID when I charge something or if pulled over for an alleged traffic offense, whether I believe I committed an offense or not.  We don’t get offended and outraged when asked to show ID.  Why should we be offended when a state is trying to defend itself from a huge influx of illegal aliens and criminals?

None of this makes sense.  When something doesn’t make sense, there is usually a reason that we are not yet aware of.  Why doesn’t this make sense?  Does the federal government have a different agenda from most Americans?  Most Americans want safe communities.  Most Americans want to curb drug traffic and associated violence.  Most Americans want our laws to be enforced.  Most Americans don’t want to have to pay taxes for services (schools, welfare, hospitalization) for illegal aliens – tax evaders, law breakers and criminals.  Most Americans don’t want illegal aliens taking jobs of legal citizens, especially when we have a 10% unemployment rate.

What does the Federal government want?  What is their agenda? In both the Arizona illegal immigrant scenario and the airport security scenario, the Federal government seeks social justice as they define it.  They define social justice not merely in terms of  equal rights for all US citizens.  In fact, and this sounds bazaar but I believe the track record indicates this is true, they define “social justice” as giving preferential treatment to non-citizens, law breakers, and US haters at the expense of the rights of US citizens.  This sounds so bazaar that there has to be another motive behind it.  I’ve heard some suggest the motive is power – future votes - votes from a burgeoning Mexican population and potentially burgeoning Muslim population in the US.  Beyond this motive, there may be this Pollyannaesque ideal that the so-called “oppressed” and “downtrodden”, whether an illegal Mexican alien or a Sharia-inspired Muslim, should be given the welcome mat and special favors, similar to the civil rights-inspired “affirmative action” the federal government enforced since the 70’s.

The federal governments direction in all this is so out of control.  Affirmative action has outlived the demographics of race and inequality.  And now we see the federal government exercising a “stealth affirmative action” favoring illegal aliens and Muslims.  This federal behavior is promoting an exceedingly hostile “middle America.”  Things are likely to turn ugly.

To paraphrase Obama, who vowed to stand with the Muslim immigrants if the political winds shift in an ugly direction, “I will stand with them – the average middle class Americans should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

More Asinine Directives from Washington

It is not enough that we are directed to read Miranda rights to combatants in wartime scenarios.  Now Washington is directing the emasculation of the power of county sheriffs enforcing immigration laws.  Enforcement of immigration laws is something the Federal government inexplicably refuses to do.  The feds are the ones that should be directed to cease their directives.

DHS strips Arizona sheriff of authority to patrol for illegal immigrants

Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio says he will continue his controversial "crime suppression operations" despite a Department of Homeland Security decision to strip him of authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants based solely on their immigration status, the East Valley Tribune reports.

“It’s all politics,” says Arpaio, sheriff of Maricopa County.

Arpaio will still have the power to check the immigration status of people booked by his officers, but not the authority to conduct street patrols looking for illegal immigrants.

His “crime suppression operations” are saturation patrols in designated areas where deputies would find illegal immigrants by stopping them for traffic infractions and minor violations, the paper says.

The department of Justice and other federal agencies are investigating the sheriff’s office on accusations of racial profiling during the operations, the paper says.

Arpaio said he will be able to still conduct the crime sweeps under state human smuggling laws and an obscure federal law that allows local police to arrest illegal immigrants.

A spokesman for the Phoenix office of ICE declined to comment until after pending agreements with the country are signed.

Huckabee vs. Nation of Laws

For the record, Mike has been one of my top two preferred candidates. He has been growing on me as he has been growing in the polls. (You can guess who my other favorite is.:))

Besides being drawn to a candidate who is conservative, demonstrably moral, a lucid speaker with good presence and a quick wit, I need someone who recognizes the stupidity of flaunting our immigration laws.

Two events occurred today that shook my confidence in Huck:

1) His terrible record on enforcing immigration laws while governor of Arkansas was revealed – see here, and
2) I listened to his interview on the Sean Hannity show this afternoon where he justified the actions of illegal aliens.

This is the way the interview went: Sean was debating Mike on the need to enforce our immigration laws. Mike played the “poor victim” card in defending the actions of aliens entering this country illegally when he said, "...if I needed to feed my family, I'd do the same thing..."

This was a dumb as s--- response on two levels:

1) He is assuming most illegals enter this country because their families back in Mexico are “starving”. More accurately, they sneak into this country to take advantage of our largess and pitiful law enforcement to enhance their standard of living. It is doubtful starvation has anything to do with their reason for being here in most cases.

2) He justifies breaking the law on flimsy grounds. There is nothing wrong with an individual working to enhance his standard of living. But is “enhancing your standard of living” justification for breaking the law? Is “feeding your family” even a basis for law breaking? Can you imagine the anarchy that would prevail if we all practiced what Mike preaches? Don’t we all want to enhance our standard of living. Let’s see, which law is easiest to break without folks doing anything about it? Oh, I forgot. They really won’t do anything about it because they feel sorry for me – they might even think I’m starving when I’m not.

If Huckabee was portrayed as a “conservative” up to this point, his sentiments here sure destroy that myth. His attitude amply demonstrates liberal values:

- Assume people are starving even when they aren’t
- Assume we need to help them, even if there are other ways for them to be self-sufficient
- Just about anything justifies flaunting our laws.

For a plain ‘ol US citizen to justify ignoring our laws is bad enough. But for a Presidential candidate to justify law-breaking at the same time he proposes to lead “a nation of laws” is insane. Anarchy, anyone?

A Great "Immigration Facts and Action" Web Site

I've reviewed the content and sources of the "NumbersUSA" website. It appears well-reasoned, sound, and very pointedly concludes this nation is headed in a very wrong direction.

Please take a few moments to scan the site and learn of the coming changes in this nation's culture, economy, and quality of life. I don't have much to worry about. But my daughters and grandchildren certainly do!

A good summary analysis from this website follows:

"In Congress, there now is a serious debate about whether the nation should even try to enforce its immigration laws. The debate is between "national-community Americans" -- those who continue to believe in the idea of a separate, self-governed nation -- and those who have a "post-American" vision. The post-American vision is for (1) America's workers to be "allowed" to compete directly with every worker in the world who makes the effort to move to this country and for (2) the quality of life of a local community to be determined by global forces rather than by democratic self-determination."

This is a radical and depressing option - one that is 180 degrees opposed to what made this a great nation.