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.

"DOMESTIC VIOLENCE " AGAINST ARIZONA

Immigration has become a hot issue once again with the introduction of SB1308, SB1309, and SB1611 in Arizona.  The problem is that confusion and distraction has been created as the State of Arizona tries to address the illegal immigration problem by passing legislation to discourage illegal aliens from coming to Arizona or encourage illegal aliens to leave.  The subsequent court battles then surround the constitutional issue of “birth-right citizenship” and the issue surrounding the 14th Amendment.  But this does not allow for a real and substantive discussion about the real issues. 

 The illegal immigration problem is made to be complex but, in fact, is relatively simple.  It can be summed up thusly:  The federal government of the United States has ignored its responsibility under the Constitution to provide for the “common defence.” Interestingly the "common Defence" is one of the primary reasons for establishing the Constitution in the first place.

By ignoring the illegal immigration crisis on the southern border of the US the federal government has put the “common defence” in jeopardy.  There is no logical argument that can be made that this is not the case.  The Federal government knows the territories of the US are threatened by criminals both foreign and domestic, so much so, that it has erected signs in the Arizona desert warning US citizens that the areas may be monitored and patrolled by members of Drug cartels (here), (here), (here).
 
Providing for the “Common Defence” is one of the powers of Congress under Article I Section 8.  It is the duty of the legislature to accomplish this; through statute and appropriations.  This is a major failing of our government and of the officials our nation has sent to Washington to represent us.
 
Under Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution the States are guaranteed that the Republican Form of Government “shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on application of the legislature, or the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”  There is little doubt that Arizona is victim to both an invasion and “domestic Violence” as it relates to illegal immigrants crossing the international sovereign border of the United States and committing violence inside the boundaries of the US.  Border Security should be the priority effort, both at the Federal and State level.  The Federal government is the guarantor from “domestic Violence” against the States, and Arizona and other states should demand that the Federal government make good on that guarantee.

The single most effective method of coming closer to solving the illegal immigration morass and making good on the guarantee to protect the nation from "domestic violence" and ensure the "common Defence" is to build a physical barrier along the border with Mexico. 
 
A physical barrier/fence/moat will greatly decrease the amount of illegal aliens crossing the border.  According to a report by the Congressional Research Service in 2007, data shows that after the construction of a triple-fence in the San Diego sector apprehensions dropped from 480,000 in FY1996 to 100,000 in FY2002.  The US Border Patrol’s “Imperial Beach and Chula Vista stations saw their apprehensions decline from 321,560 in FY1993 to 19,035 in FY 2004 – a reduction of 94% over the 12 year period.”   And the results for the San Diego sector could be even starker but the fence in the sector can’t be completed due to environmental concerns.  

But the average American doesn’t need studies and reports to validate what we all know intuitively.  Physical barriers work.  There is a reason that “Good fences make good neighbors.”  That is why we have doors on our houses, fences around our yards and gates around our neighborhoods.  We use physical barriers every day, in all aspects of our lives.  You need a badge to access some work areas; everyone must pass through security at the court house and the airport; there are vehicle gates at parking garages, parks and businesses.   The argument that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Napolitano made when she said; “show me a 50-foot wall and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder” is specious at best.  Like Secretary Napolitano, many argue that the fences don’t deter illegal border-crossers, that they will just go to where there is no fence.  But that is entirely the point.  Fences work, period.  A continuous fence would work better.  A continuous double or triple fence with concertina wire at the top and all along the back side would work best.
 
The state of Arizona should force the Federal government to uphold the guarantee stipulated in Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution and put forth an “Application of the Legislature” against domestic Violence.   Take this official step and force the Federal Government to directly and explicitly either comply with or ignore the founding document of our Nation and our Republic.

At least, that way Arizonans will know whether the Federal Government and this administration stand with them or with the illegal criminals crossing the borders everyday.