As most everyone knows by now, Obama’s Attorney General filed suit against the State of Arizona for passing SB1070; a law utilizing current federal statutes pertaining to illegal immigration and put into a format whereby these same pre-existing federal laws could be enforced at the state level. Under federal law, a State may not enact any law which is contrary to the federal law; however, they may enact a similar or more stringent law, which is what Arizona did with SB1070.
Well, here’s another little piece of trivia for you. Because the Federal government lacks a coherent policy, the majority of the costs to enforce these federal laws falls to the States, which are already cash strapped. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has taken the unusual step of countersuing the federal government for the costs incurred by Arizona’s taxpayers (like her or hate her, you have to admit that she has moxie). Just how much are we talking about here? How about $125 million. Now, granted, the Federal government reimbursed Arizona $10 million it paid upfront, but the state’s taxpayers got stuck with the rest of bill for jailing and maintaining illegals who regularly slip across the border due to the lack of federal action. You have to remember too that this is just one State along a largely unprotected border. Governor Brewer states in her countersuit that they are willing to forgive the cost in exchange for a comprehensive and enforceable policy. Frankly, I think they have a better chance of getting the money.
Why are States being forced to absorb these costs? In my opinion, it’s to overwhelm them in both terms of numbers (there are approximately 12 million illegals living in the US at the moment) and to force them to drop their opposition to illegal immigration in favor of providing other government services. By dumping the costs of incarcerating illegal immigrants onto the States, local and state governments are faced with the choice of spending dwindling tax dollars on protecting their citizens or maintaining basic services. If our Border States sudden drop the issue of enforcing immigration laws, Obama can declare the problem resolved and on to the subject of amnesty.
Speaking of amnesty, the folks in Washington are at it again. It seems like Obama wants to see those same 12 million illegal aliens put on the fast track to US citizenship, which would naturally in automatic voting rights. The result would be almost certainly a mass registration for the political party which acted as their partner in crime to circumvent our national sovereignty laws, and thus, create a defacto mono-political system in this country and chart a permanent course toward the far Left. Of course, we can’t put all the blame on the Democrats. There are some Republicans who would like to grant amnesty as well.
Their motive seems to be creating a huge pool of cheap labor. This, in turn, would drive down employment costs since this new pool of labor would be willing to work for less, and would likely waive any health or retirement benefit packages. In order to maintain compatibility, other employees would have to be willing to do likewise. This same group would also be less willing to join unions out of fear of losing their newly found jobs. Besides, amnesty will only encourage more to illegally cross the border, and the problem perpetuates itself as it did under President George II.
Crime and Punishment Delayed
Jose Oswaldo Reyes Alfaro, who is here illegally from El Salvador is finally going to be allowed a stay in the US. Alfaro was officially deported by the US State Department 10 years, but apparently decided it was only a “suggestion”, has been charged with murdering three people in Virginia on February 11, 2011.
Alfaro is believed to have brutally killed 37 year old William Ashcroft and 56 year old Brenda Ashcroft in his first attack. Later that same evening, he allegedly murdered 48 Julio Cesar Ullio. Also injured were a 77 year old woman; a 15 year old girl; and a 34 year old woman.
ICE Agents Shot Outside of Mexico City
Two of our nation’s law enforcement officers were apparently set up just 100 miles outside of Mexico City on February 16. The two Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were ambushed in what is believed to be a drug cartel reprisal for US assisted intelligence provided to the Mexican government. The officers were traveling north on Highway 57 when they stopped at what they thought was a military checkpoint when they came under fire. One officer was killed and the other was severely wounded. Both officers were in a well known vehicle, a blue Suburban, used by the US Consulate’s office and were not armed in accordance to Mexican law. In short, the bad guys saw them coming…literally…unarmed, unescorted and in a well marked vehicle.
Finally, in a case of inconceivable stupidity, an Arizona rancher has been order to pay $90,000 to illegal immigrates trespassing and trashing his property. Yelp, you read that right.
The US Ninth Court of Appeals has ordered Roger Barnett to pay $90,000 to 16 individuals illegally crossing across the Mexican-Arizonian border onto Mr. Barnett’s ranch. Mr. Barnett held the 16 illegals at gun point until the sheriff could arrive. So, what’s wrong with protecting your property? Ah, my friends read on.
Mr. Barnett was charged with holding the illegal interlopers at gun point “too long”. Seriously. Under Arizona law, you are allowed to “draw” on someone until such time as it is determined that the danger had passed. The men in the group allegedly asked to leave (apparently late for work) and be allowed to continue on their way. The women mostly cried. When the sheriff arrived, Mr. Barnett had already holstered his weapon, however, apparently the group of illegals were miffed that they were stopped. They then retained a public defender who sued Mr. Barnett.
Now, I want you to think about that for a moment. Barnett was protecting his property from, as far as he knew, drug dealers or smugglers, on his property; trashing his property; and then because they…the criminals were upset about being stopped, got a taxpayer paid lawyer and sued the guy protecting his property! What the…?
We have the right to protect ourselves, our family, and our property. We have the moral obligation to assist, if possible, in the prevention of a crime and to contact the appropriate authorities. All of this Mr. Barnett did. Folks, this is so wrong on so many levels.
Post a Comment