The Constitution vs:
Understanding the Amendments:
What They REALLY Mean
What They REALLY Mean
Why the Arizona Immigration Law is Correct
June 26, 2012
The Supreme Court has a tendency to get in its own way. Brilliant minds sometimes miss the simplest of issues -- try having a five-minute conversation with Thomas Edison -- and sometimes, when the facts of a case are reduced to their simplest terms, the obvious answer presents itself. Unfortunately arguments before the Supreme Court often focus on the opposite: complex, even strained interpretations of constitutional and case law, without regard to practical application or, dare I say, common sense. Those arguments regarding the Arizona immigration law illustrate the case perfectly.
Ponder the Arizona immigration law in a new way. Pretend, for a moment, that the state of Arizona is an eight-year-old boy, that the federal government is his single mom, and that the responsibility of the federal government to enforce immigration law maps to that mother's responsibility to feed her son. What does any of this have to do with the Arizona immigration law? I'll pause first to defend the simile: a child's need to eat is like a state's need to protect its borders; a child depends on his mother for food as a state depends on the federal government for this type of border security.
The boy must eat. To this point, he has asked his mother to fix him something a number of times, and a day has passed. Mom has steadfastly refused, and so, desperate, the boy turns to the freezer and finds a yummy chicken pot pie that he can microwave and eat in a matter of minutes. But as the boy is about to open the box, Mom finds him, slaps him, takes the box away, and returns it to the freezer, telling him, "Stay out of the freezer!" He asks Mom yet again to fix him something, and she again refuses. Days later, the boy, starving, falls ill.
The analogous relationship between this near-criminal familial relationship and the federal government's response to the Arizona immigration law is clear. On its face, the federal government is hostile to Arizona, is not enforcing its immigration law in the best interests of Arizona, and appears to possess an almost-obsessive goal of ensuring the demise of Arizona. Why else, after all, does it work so fervently to block Arizona from doing the very job that it, by law, should be doing? Why has it decreed that, even at times when Arizona contacts ICE to report an illegal alien, it will deflect those calls, ignore them, dump them to proverbial voice mail? Besides a near-expressed desire to collapse Arizona under the weight of a growing population of illegal immigrants, what other explanation exists to explain this behavior by the federal government?
I can think of a few, of course. But they don't matter a lick, because wherever the truth lies, the outcome -- the state of Arizona completely becoming spiritually detached from, and in the not-too-distant future looking to secede from, the United States -- is all too predictable.
God bless the state of Arizona. The Tenth Amendment Network sincerely wishes you well as you try to manage the problems that the immigration law was meant to help address -- with what's left of that law. As for everyone else -- those in the other 49 states who may not be in the cross hairs of this government today -- whether or not you live in a state with an "offensive" immigration law -- prepare for whatever comes your way. You may be next.