Don't Call Them Drunk Drivers

Here we go again. In an “opinion” piece from June 23, Linda Valdez of the Arizona Republic re-enforces the tried (or should I say tired) and true method of the left; vilify Americans while at the same time beatify illegal immigrants.

If people want to make an argument for unfettered, uncontrolled, unmonitored immigration then they should just make it. But please stop glorifying illegal aliens as some sort of altruistic population of innocents who should be exempted from criticism because they are "trying to provide a better life" for their kids or family or by using the "we wouldn't have any onions, lettuce,oranges, etc... if it weren't for illegal aliens," meme. give me a break.

First you have to swallow the supposition that the people that cross the border, in violation of federal law, are "migrants." Well the cold hard fact is this: these people are illegal aliens, criminals; just because they are not violent does mean that they do not commit crimes.

Second, even if you recognize that they are illegal aliens, you must somehow absolve them of any wrongdoing once they are in the country. Notice how the illegal alien mother people love to imagine in these hypothetical scenarios, apparently, bears no responsibility for putting her own son in danger of being arrested for violating the law, just so she can get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk. What kind of parent are we talking about here? How much more selfish could she possibly be? Here are all these illegal immigrants in this country and Ms. Valdez seems to believe that illegals should be allowed to come and go as they please without any fear of being arrested or deported. That there shouldn't be any consequences for there actions because they pick onions.

And finally you must delude your self into thinking that crossing the border illegally is the ONLY crime/violation of the law they have committed; never taking into account that illegals drive without valid driver's licenses, drive without insurance, present fraudulent documentation to get jobs, steal social security numbers and other identification, fail to pay taxes, and may even commit fraud in order to collect government benefits such as food stamps.

Let us, for a moment, imagine that we use this same logic on drunk drivers. But please, don't call them drunk drivers, call them inebriated chauffeurs. No wait! How about impaired vehicle operators. No, no, no. Stop being so judgmental! They are just commuters. They are just regular people trying to get to work so they can support their families. You shouldn't try to pass laws that further force commuters to go into the shadows. And if a 18 year old commuter is taking his mother grocery shopping he shouldn't fear being arrested for taking his mom to get milk; never mind that his blood alcohol level is .136 and he has been arrested twice before for DUI. Nope. He is just trying to get his momma some milk.

And if you support laws that would prosecute commuters then you must be prejudiced against them and you are only writing these laws to try and get them to stop commuting in your state. Because they aren't doing anything bad, they are just driving under conditions that your average American refuses to drive under. They shouldn't be punished for driving when others refuse to drive. Never mind that in addition to driving while intoxicated they run red lights, fail to yield, speed, fail to signal, and fail to maintain reasonable and prudent distance from the vehicle in front of them. Those are just harassment laws designed to persecute commuters. and putting breath-analyzers in cars is just pure persecution; no one should have to "prove" their sobriety before commuting. We shouldn't pass laws that would discourage commuters from driving. Leave commuters alone.

Silly? Absolutely!! But that is the argument from the left; it doesn't make any logical or common sense when applied to any other group of people or any other type of law, and yet they continue to make it.

How sad.

THE TIME IS NOW

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location**

Before I start this article and before people begin to rake me over the coals for flawed legal analysis, let me caveat this article by saying that I am NOT a lawyer (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night).  I am writing this article on some of my own observations and, ­­dare I say it, common sense and logic.  I have read the decision by Judge Bolton as it relates to the Arizona law SB1070.  It seems to me that the entire judgment was a travesty to a society founded on law.  The federal government’s argument is ridiculous and the judge’s ruling even more so.  Part of the judge’s ruling states the following:  "Thus, an increase in the number of requests for determinations of immigration status, such as is likely to result from the mandatory requirement that Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies check the immigration status of any person who is arrested, will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities."

What could be more of a priority than to ensure the safety of the citizenry and security of the borders?  Isn’t this the primary function of government and more specifically the Department of Homeland Security, to include the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)?

But beyond that, it seems to me that if we are to extend the same logic that the judge used in this ruling to all laws that are overseen by the federal government as the basis for a preemption argument we, as a nation, are in big, big trouble.  Here is just one example:  Arizona state law classifies as illegal, under Title 13 – Criminal Code 13-3552, the commercial sexual exploitation of a minor (excerpt follows):

13-3552. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor; classification
A. A person commits commercial sexual exploitation of a minor by knowingly:
1. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
2. Using, employing, persuading, enticing, inducing or coercing a minor to expose the genitals or anus or the areola or nipple of the female breast for financial or commercial gain.
3. Permitting a minor under the person’s custody or control to engage in or assist others to engage in exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
4. Transporting or financing the transportation of any minor through or across this state with the intent that the minor engage in prostitution, exploitive exhibition or other sexual conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction or live act depicting such conduct.
B. Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor is a class 2 felony and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to section 13-705.

AND here is the federal Law:

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 110 > § 2251
§ 2251. Sexual exploitation of children
(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

They are quite similar.  As a matter of fact, the federal law is, essentially, restated in the state statute.  Much the same way federal immigration law is restated in AZ SB 1070.   Are we to understand that state and local municipalities are prohibited from enforcing child pornography laws because this would pre-empt the federal government as it would divert resources from the Department of Justice’s other responsibilities and priorities?  I would hope NOT.  I think it is safe to say that most sane people would say that IF there were a sudden rise in child pornography and local jurisdictions began to refer cases to the DOJ for adjudication that they would expect the DOJ to take those cases.  Using Judge Bolton’s ruling as a guide it would be possible for the DOJ to claim preemption because they have other responsibilities and priorities and a sudden increase in Child Pornography cases would divert resources.  Does that make sense to anyone?

A by-product of the ruling is the idea that a State may not enact a law to support and supplement federal law. This can and may have far reaching ramifications and unintended consequences in the future.  This has the possibility of affecting prosecutions and verdicts in many jurisdictions.

But there are more basic questions.  For example:  What does it mean when the federal government takes a position against the enforcement of a law that would have the effect of assisting that same federal government in fulfilling its obligation under the United States Constitution in favor of millions of law breakers?   How does the federal government justify a position of accepting the status quo rather than accept the help of state, county and municipal jurisdictions indentifying, detaining and arresting people who have violated our countries immigration laws? What has happened to the rule of law?

There is no argument that the federal government has failed and continues to fail in its duty to protect and defend the general welfare of the citizens of this country.  No one is denying this fact.  What is unbelievable is that the government, while acknowledging its failure to properly enforce the law, continues to erect obstacles to ensure the status quo.  The solution to the border problem is not solved by closing park lands and erecting signs south of Phoenix warning citizens that there are drug smugglers in the area, but by immediately increasing forces along the border to keep the smugglers out.  The government’s response to Arizona SB1070 is inconceivable, but somehow, not surprising.

How many hospitals must be shut down?  How many billions of dollars must we spend on social services, medical care, and schools?  How many citizens and legal residents must be assaulted, robbed, raped, and killed before we finally demand that the federal government do its job?  We have to ask ourselves, how long are we going to accept the federal government’s dereliction of duty?  How long are we going to wait for the petty politics in Washington to catch up to the real world realities along our southern border?  There comes a time when states must take a stand for what is right and what is just.  There is a time when states must act in the interests of their citizens’ safety and security.

For Arizona, that time is now!

In Response to Harry Reid:

**This blog entry was written previously and is being reposted here.  I will post all of my previous articles here as a method to consolidate all articles in one location** 


After Senator Harry Reid’s comment about Hispanic voters, I believe that, in fact, he does need to say more.  I would like for Harry Reid to explain to Hispanics all the wonderful policies that the Democrat Party advocates that either benefit the Hispanic community or are in line with the average Hispanic voter.  I would like for Harry Reid to address each of these issues and convince Hispanics that the Democrat Party is looking out for their best interests.

First and foremost it is an insult to the Hispanic community to refer to them as one monolithic group.  There are many, many distinct and wonderful cultures which would otherwise be categorized as Hispanic.  People whose origins can be traced to  Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia, Venezuela, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, Cuba or Puerto Rico are all considered Hispanic.  And within those countries there are a plethora of different indigenous peoples and cultures.  But Harry Reid and the Democrat party arrogantly insist on lumping them all together as if there were no distinction among them and as if they all are too ignorant to have differing views on the issues that face our country today.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, in a report issued in April 2007, 83% of all Hispanics identify themselves as Christians; either Catholic (68%) or Protestant (15%).  As a result most Hispanics are more socially conservative and have nothing in common with the social agenda of the Democrat party.  Among the social issues that Hispanics are at odds with Democrats are:

ABORTION- Since abortion is condemned by the Catholic Church and many Christian churches, why would any Hispanic support the Democrat Party?  The Democrat party has all but made the acceptance of abortion a requirement for membership in the party and continues to advocate for abortion legislation to include: Partial birth abortion, embryonic stem cell research, funding for Planned Parenthood, child consent laws, among others.

GAY MARRIAGE- Same sex marriage is anathema to natural law and to Catholic teaching.  Hispanics may vary widely on whether or not this is a good idea, but there is no doubt that many of them disagree with the agenda of the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-Sexual, Transgender lobby, which most Democrats support.

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM- Many immigrants from Central and South America immigrate to the United States in search of the American Dream.  The opportunity to succeed and to achieve based on effort.  Many have left their homeland because of the leftist socialist policies adopted by their home countries.  Economic empowerment allows immigrants to care for their families and leave a legacy for their children.  They have come to America to find an economic environment that encourages rather than stifles entrepreneurship.  Why would these Hispanics vote for Democrats who have over the last 18 months nationalized the auto industry, nationalized the mortgage market, bailed out the banking industry, and nationalized the post-secondary education loan industry?

THE RULE OF LAW- People want a government that is based on law.  It is only in this way that people can be assured that what they work for cannot be taken away.  And they expect that everyone should and will be treated equally under the law.  Many have come to escape the day to day corruption of their home country; to a place where waiting your turn and complying with the law are a welcome change to the corruption and lawlessness of their home country.

FREEDOM- Hispanics want to enjoy freedom; freedom to speak and to assemble. Many Latin American countries have been or are in the process of stifling these freedoms.  Many Hispanics want to live without fear of repercussion from the government.  Cuba has had a despotic Communist regime for decades, Venezuela has shut down most of the independent press and has nationalized the oil industry, Bolivia is a Venezuelan puppet state and is following Venezuela’s lead.  There are many examples of leftist regimes from which Hispanics have sought and continue to seek refuge.

So, Harry Reid and Democrats let me just say that there are a lot more reasons for Hispanics to be Republican than there are for them to be Democrat. I will not be so arrogant to say: I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Democrat.

I will say to all Hispanics: If you are pro-business, pro-life, pro-freedom, pro-family values, and want small government, and low taxes; I don’t know how you could NOT be a Republican.