Maybe securing US borders is too hard for Washington
August 1, 2010
by Joseph P. Tartaro
It doesn’t seem to matter which political party is in control of federal agencies. Both Republicans and Democrats have seemed bent on a “look-the-other-way” border control policy, with the focus on amnesty because the problem of illegal entries they have ignored for decades has gotten too big for them to come up with a solution other than amnesty.
That seemed to be the strategy of the Bush Administration and is now the strategy of the Obama Administration.
And it seems that they don’t want anyone else to come up with a different solution.
Perhaps that would be too difficult, considering the work involved and the many special interests that either want the cheap labor, or are too kind-hearted to ever say “No.”
When the state of Arizona passed a law that allows its state and local law enforcement agents to enforce existing federal laws against illegal entry, the President and his attorney general, Eric Holder, set off a hue and cry among the media and a number of lesser politicians who have tarred Arizona as “anti-immigration.” Yet it has been reported that many states are following the fight between Washington and Phoenix, because they are also considering following the Arizona model.
In a sense, Arizona’s law is designed to help federal immigration authorities enforce their own laws against illegalsstatutes that the feds have largely ignored. The Arizona law was crafted carefully to mimic federal laws on the books precisely to avoid a lawsuit based on federal supremacy.
The bill’s primary sponsor, Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, shrugged off the administration’s lawsuit filed on July 6, telling Fox News: “We knew they were going to sue. This was written based on their law, knowing they were going to sue. We will prevail.
“They’re looking for an easy way to find a liberal judge who will put a TRO (temporary restraining order), so they can usher in amnesty. It is a policy of non-enforcement. This administration . . . it’s about time we elect people that have a sacred, and a solemn duty, to the Constitution.”
Apparently unable to substantiate its earlier “racial-profiling” allegation, the Administration instead focused its lawsuit narrowly on the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution.
Actually, the federal suit is just one of about seven that have been filed to prevent Arizona from enforcing illegal immigration laws that had previously been enacted by Congress but ignored by several US administrations.
The media seems generally inclined to marginalize Arizona’s governor, lawmakers and citizenry over the law. However, some legal scholars are suggesting that Eric Holder’s lawsuit is very likely to fail.
And that’s an outcome that many Americans actually believe is just. You won’t hear from anyone’s lips in Washington, or read about it in your newspaper, but the American public, including many who came legally from Mexico and other parts of the globe, seem to side with the authorities in frustrated border states.
Here on the northern border this morning, AM radio station WBEN in Buffalo, NY, ran a poll on whether listeners approved of the federal suit against Arizona’s law. The reported response was a whopping 88% against the filing of the US court action.
Your might wonder why? Then again, you may have seen the criminal consequences of a laissez faire policy regarding enforcement of federal immigration laws.
How serious is the situation along the US-Mexican border? On July 2, The New York Times reported that 21 people were killed in a Mexican border area on the day before during a fierce gun battle between suspected members of rival drug gangs, quoting Mexican authorities, who reported taking another nine survivors into custody, including six with bullet wounds.
The Times said the bloodshed took place only 12 miles from the US border, in Sonora, a Mexican state famed for its beaches but whose interior has increasingly been consumed by drug violence. In the last year, the rate of killings has only surged, and this year is already on track to become the deadliest in half a decade. More than 5,000 drug-related killings have occurred thus far in Mexico, nearing or eclipsing the 6,500 killed in 2009 alone.
The issue isn’t “immigration.” The issue is public safety.
Here’ what Fred McDaniel, a Gun Week reader from El Paso, TX, called to our attention in a recent letter to the editor:
“I am glad that you all printed (Gun Week, July 1, 2010) the article about the two illegal aliens that got caught in McAllen, TX, with the 147 ‘assault rifles,’ 150 high capacity magazines, and 10,000 rounds of ammo that were destined for illegal import into Mexico. This at least informs your readers what we are faced with here on the border. What most people do not know and what the news media is not reporting is the follow-up to the story.
“One of the illegals got 10 days in jail while the other one only got 45 days in jail! Quite a sentence for gun running these days. The FBI agent that got caught here in El Paso just selling guns without a license faces 6-10 years!
“The El Paso Times is not fond of my comments in the letters to the editor column but somehow this one slipped by their editorial board and was printed. Needless to say, it has caused quite a stir and I have received numerous calls wishing to discuss my opinions on the matter (some have been rather vocal about my choice of using the term “illegal alien” and pointing out Calderon’s hypocrisy).
“As I said in my letter, where in the hell is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and why the lenient sentences?”
In addition to informing El Paso readers in his published letter about the light sentences given the two gun-running illegals and Mexican President Calderon’s call for gun control in the US Congress, McDaniel’s letter to The Times editor said:
“The Democrat politicians and Calderon want to take away our Second Amendment rights as Americans, but when two of their cherished illegals flagrantly break our firearms laws, they get a vacation with room and board, on us, for only a short period of time.”
Well said, Mr. McDaniel. And kudus to the 88% of Western New Yorkers who think the feds should lose their suit against Arizona. Stay tuned!
Return to Archive Index