By: Richard H. Frank
We are witnessing a classic struggle between liberal, progressive ideology and the rule of law with regard to Arizona’s enforcement of Federal illegal immigration law by a sovereign state. National polls indicate that the people overwhelmingly support Arizona’s position in passing a law empowering state and local law enforcement to uphold the Federal immigration law not being enforced by Federal authorities. In spite of the evidence and these polls there are 30 states and 141 cities in the country considered as sanctuary locations for illegal immigrants. A comprehensive list of these locations may be found by visiting http://www.ojjpac.org/sanctuary.asp. Obviously the state and local governments for these sanctuary locations are not representative of their legal constituents.
The 1996 Federal “Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act” requires that local governments are to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce the Federal law. Apparently the elected officials in these 30 states and 141 cities consider themselves above the law. Their measures to pass so called “sanctuary policies” are within themselves unconstitutional as opposed to Arizona’s law which upholds the Federal statute.
Instead of fulfilling their responsibility to uphold the law and the Constitution we see politicians, some governors, mayors and congressmen proposing a boycott of Arizona. Certainly these opponents have a right to their opinion and to speak their mind, but they also have a duty to uphold the law. They are complicit in anarchy and just as guilty of breaking the law as those that cross the border illegally. If we are truly a nation of laws, then why are the citizens not invoking their right to recall and/or replace these individuals? The answer lays in the analysis of the liberal, progressive ideology of the states sponsoring the sanctuary movement. Consider the following:
- California has 30 sanctuary cities.
- Colorado has 9 sanctuary cities.
- New Jersey has 9 sanctuary cities.
- New York has 11 sanctuary cities.
- Texas had 13 sanctuary cities.
California, New Jersey and New York are states all on the verge of bankruptcy largely due to their unsustainable appetite for entitlement programs including welfare payments to illegal immigrants. Most other states sponsoring sanctuary policies either have predominately Hispanic populations, or are disproportionately represented by liberal progressives in both political parties. The true underlying problem is liberalism and the unending costs associated with the parasitic welfare programs sucking the life from the economy of these states to the point of extinction. Once bankrupt they will look to the Federal Government and the taxpaying public to bail them out. This is not the change America voted for in the 2008 election.
Those who cry out for “comprehensive immigration reform” are naive and have learned nothing from past efforts to fix the problem without imposing strict control over our borders. The proposal for amnesty and/or a rapid path to citizenship without border control will only compound the problem in the future. As with the “Health Care Reform”, another 2000+ page piece of legislation will just kick the problem down the road for a decade and incur more unintended consequences, before we will be faced with the unending economic costs for failure to enforce our current immigration law.
Dane Webster said “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” “We the People” must guard against the good intentions of the liberal progressives and hold them in check through the chains of the constitution before their good intentions prove to be the destruction of the Republic.
A line from Shakespeare said”beware the ides of March”; it is time that we beware the ides of Greece or we will face the same destiny from the cancer of “liberal progressive” ideology.