IMMIGRATION | Eastern North Carolina Now

"It's a Sad Day When our President Twists our Constitution to Protect Illegal Immigrants Rather than Besieged American Citizens"

    We have a President who is complicit in the flagrant lawlessness by illegal immigrants. Arizona takes the first step to stop him.

    Immigration is a bitterly contested issue in the United States right now. Currently, there are about 10.8 million illegal immigrants living and working in the shadows. It is approximated that at least 1/3 of all Hispanics are here illegally. Up until now, illegal immigrants have lived here with tacit approval by our government and funded by the good and generous people of the United States. But enough is finally enough and Arizona has finally taken the step that over 57% of Americans have been hoping for. They would have liked to see the federal government take such a step, on behalf of all states, but it was obvious that it wasn't going to happen. The government's posture on the immigration issue has cast a dark light on the current administration and is resulting in growing support of individual state action, just as Arizona has boldly done. Support for Arizona continues to grow by at least 5% each month. As Ken Huber commented: "We are unable to close our border with Mexico, yet we have no problem protecting the 38th parallel in Korea."

    The immigration issue isn't a personal issue. It isn't an indictment of the Hispanic people, who for the most part, are lovely, friendly, and exceedingly generous and warm people. But I believe in our laws. I believe that we should seal off our borders and enforce our immigration laws. I believe that safety and security is an absolute necessity and a reasonable expectation of all tax-paying Americans. Furthermore, I believe that American workers deserve the first shot at American jobs.
There are 460,000 illegal immigrants in the state of Arizona. They cost the taxpayers there $2.7 billion. That was the figure from 2009. In 2004, they cost the taxpayers $1.3 billion. In five years, their societal burden has more than doubled. It is clear that the open immigration policy embraced by our government has served as a warm invitation. They place a drain on services, they take funds that are scarce, they bring crime and disease, and they also kill Arizona's citizens. The costs they represent have been growing steadily over the last five years - in entitlement programs and social services, in incarceration and the judicial system, in education and in health services. In Arizona, illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona's education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs. As Arizona representative, Kirkpatrick (D-Az) commented, "In Arizona we're ground zero for immigration. This is an issue we deal with on a daily basis."

    In North Carolina, where I live, we have the 8th largest illegal population. There are between 300,000-400,000 illegal immigrants in NC. That translates into a $1.7 burden to the state (2009). While they are a hardworking group, they are also, almost entirely, uneducated. The majority of illegals work in just four (out of 473) major occupations in America. The other 469 are composed of large majorities of Americans. This, I suppose, is what has prompted the argument that we need immigrants to do the jobs that Americans don't want. Unfortunately, that argument would seem to be contradicted by statistical facts.

    Over 85% of illegal aliens in NC have no more than a high school education, if that. Again, they are employed in only a very few occupations. In these high-illegal occupations, unemployment for American workers of the same educational status averages about twice the national rate. In other words, illegals are taking jobs away from Americans who want to work. They do so by performing cheaper services. Our schools are burdened, our healthcare facilities are burdened, our social services are burdened, and the crime rate in our communities has gone up. It only takes a look at the crime section in the local paper to see which people are committing violent and drug-related crimes. I urge everyone to spend a day in the school system. Sit in the emergency room at the local hospital with your sick child and see how long it takes. Now there are reports that illegals are fleeing Arizona to find sanctuary in states like North Carolina. What is happening in North Carolina is surely happening all over the country. Politicians don't seem to care about the impact illegal immigration has on the average American.

    I was in line at the market many weeks back and the headline in the paper on the stands mentioned Arizona's plan to enact its tough immigration law. The man in front of me shook his head. I asked him what he thought of the law and he continued to shake his head. He said that we are a country of immigrants and can't justify all of a sudden trying to prevent people from coming in. I replied that we are only preventing them from sneaking in and avoiding the legal requirements of being a citizen but not trying to deny them the opportunity to become citizens. I told him I understand that we are a country of immigrants but more importantly, we are a country of laws.

    National polls all show that public support is increasing for enforcement of our immigration laws. Americans want our border secured and patrolled. Nearly 9 out of 10 Americans want to increase U.S. law enforcement along the border with Mexico. 8 in 10 also supported a program that would allow illegal immigrants already in the United States to stay here and apply for legal residency, provided they had a job and paid back taxes. But our current administration, like our previous ones, has continued to ignore the concerns of its people. The problem has escalated over the past few years, reaching epidemic proportions, with the crime rate increasing and drug trafficking increasing, and with an increased financial burden on people who are already struggling to make ends meet, and yet there has been no response from the White House.

    For those who study history, immigration has presented a problem on and off over the years and only Presidents Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman and Dwight D. Eisenhower seriously tried to solve the problem. When the newly-elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was "as porous as a spaghetti sieve." The country was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on an immense scale - hundreds of thousands were pouring in from Mexico every year without restraint. By the time Eisenhower took office, as many as 3 million illegal immigrants had walked, waded, or jumped into the US a period of several years in order to find migrant jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and other nearby states. He cut off this illegal traffic quickly and decisively by having INS send out 1,075 US Border Patrol agents to round up and remove illegal Mexican immigrants from the southwest US, mostly California and Arizona. The tactics used by INS included systematic police sweeps of Mexican-American neighborhoods and random stops and ID checks of "Mexican-looking" people in regions with many Native Americans and native Hispanics. This action came to be known as Operation Wetback (referring to the watery route that illegals took to cross the border). Approximately 1 million illegals were deported back to Mexico. In some instances, illegals were deported with their American-born children. Eisenhower rarely spoke publicly of the operation but he was clearly disturbed by the relaxation in ethical standards which came to accompany farmer exploits and the growing contraband labor pool.

    The truth is that the federal government has ignored the immigration issue and illegal aliens for decades.

    For the past many years, we have watched silently as illegal aliens have continued to pour across our southern border with little obstruction. As concern for their numbers, their illegality, and the increased problems that accompanied them began to rise and as people began to demand action, civil rights and human interest groups began to fight them. And then "sanctuary" cities began to emerge. "Sanctuary city" is a term given to a city that accepts or follows, whether by law (de jure) or by conduct (de facto), certain practices that protect illegal immigrants. These cities generally do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws or allow police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status. In essence, these cities are aiding and abetting illegal aliens and are a disgrace to this country and to our rule of law. On the other hand, in jurisdictions that respect immigration laws, state and local authorities have been and continue to be instrumental in identifying illegal aliens. Sixty-three state and local jurisdictions, and seven in Arizona alone, currently deal with illegal immigrants via Immigration and Customs Enforcement's 287g program. 287g is based upon ICE, a federal agency, which authorizes local departments to enforce federal law.

    Since the emergence of sanctuary cities, illegal aliens have poured across our southern border, essentially unabated. More than 30 cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Baltimore, Denver, Chicago, Washington DC, Newark, and Dallas, have local ordinances on the books that prevent police from asking about a person's immigration status. The true testament to the government's commitment to the illegal immigration issue is the fact that sanctuary cities have been allowed to exist and remain uncontested by the federal government. As further indication of the intent of our government NOT to enforce immigration laws and address the growing immigration problem, the government has not once filed suit against one of these sanctuary cities for any violation of federal immigration laws. Under federal law, sanctuary cities can be charged with a felony for each violation of federal law by "concealing, harboring, or sheltering illegal aliens" (8 U.S. Code, sections 1324 and 1325; Immigration and Naturalization Act sections 274 and 275). The 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act states that cities can not ban municipal employees from reporting workers immigration status to federal authorities. Furthermore, illegal entry into the United States — entry without inspection — is a misdemeanor, INA section 275, (8 USC Section 1324). Repeated illegal entry is a felony.

    As James H. Walsh, a former federal prosecutor writes: "Sanctuary cities and states demonstrate a complete contempt for the laws of the United States, a contempt that threatens to undermine the Republic. Among those residing in U.S. sanctuary cities are sleeper terrorists and others whose purpose is to destroy the United States. Sanctuary is an insidious cancer rotting the sinew, muscle, and bone of the republic, and the result increasingly promises to be a corpse-like balkanized third-world mish-mash of city-states." [See: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/4/16/121607.shtml ]

    Over the years, we have noticed that different states and cities have responded to the government's negligence in different ways. On the one hand, we've seen sanctuary cities respond by making their cities safe-havens for law-breakers and we have watched in the news how decent, loving family members and innocent children have been murdered by illegals. Arizona, on the other hand, has responded to the government's negligence in another way. It decided to pass state laws SUPPORTING federal immigration laws. In direct contradiction to the policies of in-your-face lawbreaking sanctuary cities, Arizona's immigration law would allow officers to question a person's immigration status and report them to federal authorities if that person is believed to be in the country illegally. While the crackdown would hopefully prompt illegals to leave this country and return to their own countries, with the current "anything goes" policies in sanctuary cities, these illegals might very well seek refuge in those cities. In that case, the problem would continue (but not for Arizonians).

    In his article, Sanctuary Cities & Arizona, Dr. Craig Bosley wrote: "Although having no comments about sanctuary cities, the President did have comments about Arizona, saying it threatens to 'undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.' What does the President think is unfair about securing our borders? What does he think is unfair about arresting and deporting people here illegally? Does the President think the Arizona rancher murdered on his own land did not have a right to the fairness the he so freely claims for illegal aliens? Did the President offer the same support to this American family that he offers illegal aliens?"

    Feeling pressure from Arizona and probably political pressure as well, Obama invited Governor Brewer to the White House to discuss the matter. He promised that the federal government would help the people of Arizona but rather than do so, Obama turned around and filed a lawsuit against the besieged state. The extent to which this President is willing to fight the common sense of the American people and to frustrate their will is astounding to me.

    Arizona, sharing a border with Mexico, and feeling the impact directly of illegal immigration and the crime and deterioration it brings, decided to exercise its sovereign powers to protect its citizens and secure its borders. Governor Jan Brewer accused the Obama administration of failing to secure the border with Mexico, thereby forcing her state to act on its own. On April 23, 2010, when Governor Brewer signed Arizona's Senate Bill 1070 into law, she made this public statement: "Senate Bill 1070 represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix…. For weeks, this legislation has been the subject of vigorous debate and intense criticism. My decision to sign it was by no means made lightly. I have listened patiently to both sides. I have considered the significance of this new law long into the night. I have prayed for strength and prayed for our state. I've decided to sign Senate Bill 1070 into law because, though many people disagree, I firmly believe it represents what's best for Arizona. Border-related violence and crime due to illegal immigration are critically important issues to the people of our state, to my Administration and to me, as your Governor and as a citizen. There is no higher priority than protecting the citizens of Arizona. We cannot sacrifice our safety to the murderous greed of drug cartels. We cannot stand idly by as drop houses, kidnappings and violence compromise our quality of life. We cannot delay while the destruction happening south of our international border creeps its way north."

    Governor Brewer went on to point out "the irony" of suing Arizona for its immigration enforcement law but ignoring cities and other local governments whose "patchwork local 'sanctuary' policies instruct the police not to cooperate with federal immigration officials."

In a speech she gave on July 1, she delivered a statement to President Obama: "Do your job, Mr. President. Secure the border."
Arizona didn't pass an immigration bill just to harass illegal immigrants, as Obama and the Justice Department opponents would us you believe. The good people of Arizona are simply tired of the hundreds of violent crimes being committed by illegal aliens who are involved in drug trafficking or human trafficking or who are simply gang members. How many people know that Phoenix is North America's kidnapping capital and primary location of human smuggling? On March 30, Robert Krentz, a prominent Arizonan rancher and devoted family man and citizen was murdered on his own property by an alleged illegal immigrant. Three Phoenix police officers have been shot by illegal aliens since 1999.

Arizonians didn't riot or break into lawlessness or even target the illegal community physically. Rather, they consulted with legal experts and crafted a sophisticated, thoughtful piece of legislation - modeled after the federal government's own legislation - designed to crack down on illegal immigration in their state. Governor Brewer and the people of Arizona understand what our current President clearly doesn't understand - that when the states ratified the Constitution to form the United States of America, they did NOT give up their sovereign power to provide for the safety and well-being of their own people. The States have the right to defend themselves and their property. The succession of the southern states in 1964-65 showed us and showed the government how vital that right is and to what means they will defend it.

    Anticipating Constitutional challenges and knowing full well that the government, political opportunists, and race-baiters would attack the immigration law (without reading it) by discrediting it and obscuring the realities that prompted it in the first place, and anticipating Constitutional challenges, Arizona consulted attorneys in drafting it. The drafters went to great pains to insulate the law from a federal pre-emption challenge, the most likely of challenges, by making sure it was perfectly harmonious with the federal law. So, in Arizona, an illegal immigrant can only be guilty of the Arizona law if he is guilty of the federal law. Furthermore, in all cases, Arizona will defer to the feds. I ask this question: How is there any attempt to frustrate the federal scheme? How could Arizona frustrate the federal scheme any more than the government itself does by its own inaction. How does a state frustrate the federal scheme when by its very intention, its clear intention, is NOT to enforce the laws? Perhaps the frustration is having a state enforce border control and immigration laws when the government doesn't want them enforced. I can see where the government would get frustrated.
As Rush Limbaugh commented: "Let it be stated emphatically that but for the federal political class's failure to enforce current immigration laws and protect our borders, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The federal sermonizers have no more moral standing to be pointing their phony pious fingers at Arizonans than congressional scalawags who encouraged Fannie and Freddie to back uncreditworthy loans have to lecture "fat cat" banks."

    The truth is that these lawmakers, mostly Democrats, political opportunists, and race-baiters don't want to enforce the laws, for both ideological and political reasons. They need to court the Hispanic vote as well as to be able to thrive on racial discord. It's a political win-win situation for these groups. If Republicans stand up for the immigration law, they can call them "racists," as they already are doing. They can alienate the Hispanic voters from the Republican and TEA Parties by pointing out that these parties don't want them in this country. Politics is a nasty institution.

    In an effort to prove to the American people his commitment to securing the border and addressing their safety and social concerns, Obama sued the state of Arizona. On July 6, the Justice Department filed its lawsuit in US District Court in Phoenix, challenging Arizona's immigration law SB1070, and in effect telling this beleaguered state 'how dare you second-guess the federal government.' In its Complaint, the Justice Department claims that Arizona has usurped the federal government's authority over immigration and naturalization as granted in Article I of the US Constitution (Article I, Sect. 8) and under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI). Furthermore, it claims the federal government has "preeminent authority" on immigration enforcement and that the Arizona law will "disrupt" that balance. The government's filing states: "The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy - a policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance." Attorney General Eric Holder warned of "a patchwork of state laws" that "will only create more problems than it solves." And Obama himself described the law as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed.

    The Justice Department seeks the U.S. District Court in Arizona to "preliminarily and permanently" prohibit Arizona from enforcing SB1070, which was scheduled to go into effect on July 29. In a public release, Holder made it clear that the Justice Department may file an additional lawsuit if the Justice Department concludes that Arizona is engaging in racial profiling under its law.

    Actually, the US Constitution really doesn't address "immigration." It addresses naturalization, but not immigration. Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress the power " To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." Although we are used to seeing the words "immigration and naturalization" together (such as "immigration and naturalization" services), the two words mean different things. The word "naturalization" typically means "the granting of citizenship," although a common 18th century (the time when the Constitution was drafted) definition meant "the act of investing aliens with the privileges of native subjects." The word "immigration" means "to move from one place into the place at issue." It is often assumed that one immigrates with the intention of establishing a new permanent residency. This last point aside, it would appear that the Constitution only gives Congress the right to make rules establishing citizenship. It doesn't speak at all to immigration. And we all know that if the particular power is not expressly granted to Congress in the Constitution, the grant of power doesn't exist. Furthermore, we have the Tenth Amendment which gives the states and the people all the powers not expressly delegated to the federal government. By this analysis, it would appear that the states and the people have the power to enforce immigration issues. By this analysis, it would appear that Arizona is exercising a legitimate sovereign power by choosing to legally address its immigration issue.

    The Supremacy Clause, which the Justice Department cites in its brief, is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2 which establishes the Constitution and all laws made in furtherance of its powers as the supreme law of the land. [The "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…"]. Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted the clause to mean that the states may not interfere with the functioning of the federal government and that federal law prevails over an inconsistent state law. What this means is that the federal government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the Constitution, must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power. The catch with the Supremacy Clause is that the law must first be in furtherance of an actual grant of Constitutional power. The government cannot claim its immigration laws are supreme if the government never had the actual power to regulate immigration in the first place.

    The government's pre-emption argument would equally seem to be without merit. There are times when Congress intends its policy to supersede state policy. In other words, it intends to dominate the particular field of regulation usually for the purpose of creating national uniformity. Federal Pre-emption states that when a state law conflicts with federal law (in an area that Congress has intended to dominate), the state law must be invalidated. The only intention the government seems to have evidenced over the many years regarding immigration and border control is the desire to AVOID it and not enforce its own laws. In fact one might even argue that the government has abandoned its responsibility, thus leaving the void for the states to adopt policy. It's funny how the government, OUR government, is all of a sudden interested in the Constitution's assigned powers. There was little interest when Congress passed the Health Care reform bill.

    The Obama administration may very well try to push the legal doctrine of federal pre-emption in the immigration context, but let's not forget how the administration turned a blind eye to another matter of pre-emption when California endorsed municipal sanctions (boycotts) against Arizona businesses and merchants in a show of opposition to Arizona's immigration law. Other states and organizations did the same thing. How many reports did we hear of local efforts to boycott Arizona, its tourism industry, and its products in order to inflict commercial and economic harm on the State in a show of distaste for SB1970? In April 2010, seven members of the Los Angeles City Council signed a proposal for a boycott that urged the city to 'refrain from conducting business' or participating in conventions in Arizona. Also on Tuesday, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom imposed an immediate moratorium on city employees traveling to Arizona. And California Senate leader Darrell Steinberg said the state should consider a boycott of Arizona. He even sent a letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger requesting a list of Arizona businesses and government agencies that California does business with. Lovely neighbors. Nice to know neighbors like that are there to watch your back, right?

    Well, these California governmental "boycotts," as well as many of the other boycotts, are in fact pre-empted by the US Constitution's Dormant Commerce Clause and violate the Article IV Privileges & Immunities Clause. The Supreme Court has already spoken on the subject of state discrimination of residents from another state under the Privileges & Immunities Clause. The Supreme Court has said that the Privileges and Immunities clause generally forbids states from discriminating against the residents of other states in things like employment. (It should be noted that illegals are not entitled to the protections of the Privileges & Immunities Clause).

    [The Dormant Commerce Clause is also known as the "Negative" Commerce Clause, is a legal doctrine that the Supreme Court has inferred from the Commerce Clause in Article I of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause expressly grants Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states." The idea behind the Dormant Commerce Clause is that this express grant of power implies a negative converse which is a restriction prohibiting a state from passing legislation that improperly burdens or discriminates against interstate commerce. One state can't discriminate against goods and services (commerce) from another state. The restriction is self-executing and applies even in the absence of a conflicting federal statute. The "Privileges & Immunities" Clause of Article IV of the Constitution reads: "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. James Madison, in defending this provision in the Constitution, wrote: "Those who come under the denomination of free inhabitants of a State, although not citizens of such State, are entitled, in every other State, to all the privileges of free citizens of the latter; that is, to greater privileges than they may be entitled to in their own State...."].

    Apparently, the Obama administration is more offended by Arizona's "discrimination" against illegal immigrants than California's discrimination against fellow Americans.

    On July 15, nine states filed a brief in US District Court in Arizona - Michigan, Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia, as well as the Northern Mariana Islands - in support of Arizona. The brief argues that the States have the authority to enforce immigration laws and protect their borders. The brief hits the nail on the head when it states: "By lawsuit, rather than by legislation, the federal government seeks to negate this preexisting power of the states to verify a person's immigration status and similarly seeks to reject the assistance that the states can lawfully provide to the Federal government." Even if states didn't join in this supportive brief, many states are showing tacit support of Arizona by drafting immigration laws of their own which mirror many of that state's provisions, if not all of them. North Carolina, for example, has a law sitting in the state Senate, Joint Resolution, SJ 1349, which would make it a crime ("willful failure") for failure to carry or complete alien registration documents. It in fact does mirror Arizona's law and is waiting to move forward, pending the outcome of the government's lawsuit challenging its legality.

    On July 23, hearings began in the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law in the courtroom of US District Judge Susan Bolton, appointed to the bench by President Bill Cinton. (There shouldn't be any favoritism to the current administration which employs Bill's wife Hilary, right?) Lawyers for Governor Brewer argued forcefully that the legislation is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government answered that the state was inappropriately trying to act in an area that is pre-empted by a comprehensive government policy. Brewer issued a written statement regarding the lawsuit: ""It is wrong that our own federal government is suing the people of Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law. It is a massive waste of taxpayer funds. As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels. And today, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice."

    During the initial day of hearings, Judge Bolton seemed to be unconvinced by the government's pre-emtpion argument. She asked the government's attorneys: "How is there a pre-emption issue? Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?" This line of questioning seemed to bolster support for Arizona's position, perhaps prematurely though, because on July 28, the day before the bill was to go into effect, Judge Bolton issued an injunction, or blocking order, which would prevent key enforcement parts of the law from temporarily going into effect (until the close of the lawsuit when the judge issues her decision).

    Governor Brewer called the decision a "bump in the road." But opponents of the immigration law were out in the streets claiming a victory. Viewing the elements of an injunction [(i) Existence of an imminent likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued; (ii) Unavailability of any adequate remedy at law; (iii) the threatened harm to the petitioner (the government, and by association, illegal immigrants) outweighs any substantial harm to Arizona, (iv) Granting the injunction will not contravene a substantial public interest; and (v) Petitioner has a substantial likelihood of success based on the allegations/merits], opponents are optimistic, claiming that the injunction would not have been granted if there wasn't a good chance of the government ultimately winning the lawsuit.

    Anti-immigration groups, on the other hand, are seething over the ruling. Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform shared his opinion with AOL News: "This is far too important a law to be halted by one judge's decision. We believe her logic is flawed. She seemed to buy the notion that enforcing laws is burdensome. Yes, it is burdensome. But that's the reason for having laws." William Gheen of Americans for Legal Immigration made this statement: "We the people of the United States are no longer enjoying a democratic republican form of government. Instead, we have an oligarchy that includes this president and this judge that is intent upon helping illegal immigrants at the peril of American citizens ..."

    "This fight is far from over," Governor Brewer stated in a press release. "In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens."
On July 29, Brewer filed the State's appeal with the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (a "sanctuary" jurisdiction), asking that court to lift the injunction. We must continue to follow this lawsuit. We must realize that we have a very real legal and Constitutional stake in this decision, even aside from how the decision affects immigration.

    Although Arizona's immigration law has been temporarily derailed, Governor Brewer has promised to take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court. She says she is prepared to fight all the way to the Supreme Court to defend Arizona's right to protect itself and to enforce SB1070. Cristina Rodriguez, an expert on immigration and constitutional law at New York University Law School, predicts: "The Supreme Court -- with a working conservative majority -- accepts a fraction of appeals but may take this case because it presents a conflict of federal and state law."

    What is it about illegal immigration that bothers people? Well, aside from the financial drain it places on already burdened taxpayers and communities, and the increase in crime, and the assault on our general system of rules and laws, and the insult to those who have sought legal entry into this country, and the inability to track these people while the rest of us have social security numbers, tax numbers, and other ID numbers up the wazoo so that the government knows exactly what we are up to and how much money they can take from us, and the visual images of Hispanics (at least 1/3 illegals) displaying the American flag OVER the US flag or sometimes even tearing down the US flag to fly Mexico's instead, I would say the list could go on and on…..

    Here are some arguments that myself and other people are making:

    1). Arizona is one of us. It needed help and the government turned its back. The government isn't supposed to turn its back on any of the states, especially when it has a Constitutional responsibility to provide the help that Arizona was seeking.

    2). The US is under attack from Mexico and Obama takes Mexico's side?

    3). Attorney General Eric Holder claims Arizona is interfering with inherent federal immigration responsibilities. In support of the government's case, Holder claims that Arizona's law "will impact the entire country's safety." I assume he means "negatively." Personally, I think it will impact it for the positive. But here is a question to the Attorney General: "How is a secure southern border a threat to the nation's safety?"

    4). There are people who say that we need the illegals here in this country because they will do the jobs that Americans don't want to do. And they also enjoy the cheaper services they provide. But is it worth the immense burden and cost, and infiltration of crime just to enjoy a cheaper tomato? It is worth the social decline to save a few bucks on lawn care?

    5). Caution signs greet visitors and US citizens at six national parks in Arizona. These signs wouldn't be necessary if it weren't for the violent crime brought in by Mexican immigrants involved in drug trafficking and human trafficking. The signs read:

    DANGER - PUBLIC WARNING
    TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED
    Active Drug and Human Smuggling Areas
    Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling At High Rates Of Speed
    Stay Away From Trash, Clothing and Backpacks and Abandoned Vehicles
    If You See Suspicious Activity, Do Not Confront! Move Away and Call 911

    The Six National Parks / Monuments are:

    Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge (3500 acres closed)
    Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (60% of 330,689 acres closed)
    Ironwood Forest National Monument
    Sonoran Desert National Monument
    Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge
    Coronado National Forest

    Does this sound like a successful US immigration policy? Does this sound like the America of our grandparents or does this sound like a ghetto?

    6). We have a limited number of applications for citizenship for a reason - we can't absorb too many new people at once. Also, it is a long process for a reason - there are a few billion would love to move here but if the government is to do its job correctly, each person is supposed to be cleared for security reasons. Just because the line is too long doesn't make it right to jump the fence. What we need are lawful, educated, and SKILLED immigrants, not unintelligent and un-skilled ones. We have more than enough people in the states who are identified as poorly-educated and low-skilled and who are too quick to go on entitlement and social programs rather than invest in education or career development. Allowing too many unintelligent lowly-skilled immigrants in this country takes jobs away from those who are here legally. Illegals will perform other people's services for a cheaper wage.

    7). According to AZ Governor Jan Brewer, 1,000 illegals cross into Arizona each day. Of those, 70-80% have a criminal background. Furthermore, the US Border Patrol Weekly Blotter, a newsletter informing of illegals detained and arrested, showed last week (week of June 15, 2010) that 4 illegals were previously convicted of child rape or sex offense and deported. Yet here they were found once again in Arizona. Other illegals detained were gang members and drug runners. And these were just the ones that were caught. Many more go un-apprehended.

    8). We pay federal income taxes for basic federal services, the most important one being for safety and security. It's the one responsibility that the government owes its citizens more than any other, aside from the protection of our liberties. Mexico's drug wars have clearly spilled over onto US territory.

    9). More Americans are killed on national soil by illegal aliens than American servicemen and women overseas in the Iraq War. Think about it…. A man or woman killed in Iraq or Iran in the line of duty is a hero. An American killed at home by an illegal alien is just a statistic. The government is letting down its citizens.

10). It doesn't take an Einstein to realize that the reason we haven't addressed the problem head on is because certain political groups are trying to figure out how to organize them into a valuable voting block. They don't want to send the wrong message and risk alienating potential voters. But we need to address the insurgency of illegal Hispanics into this country. If we don't, then we will soon see policies and programs go into effect, especially in our schools and in employment practices, for increased sensitivity and respect for diversity respecting Hispanics. We might even see a Hispanic History Month. What these programs do is burden the rights and diminish the recognition of majority groups.