Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Signs EO Barring Ilegals from State Benefits

Ya gotta love Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. No sooner did Obama bypass Congress and the Constitution by implementing his own "Dream Act" granting backdoor amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants (who he desperately hopes will vote for him in November, another illegal act), Governor Brewer signed her own executive order denying state benefits and ID's to the illegals.

Brewer’s Wednesday order says she’s reaffirming the intent of current Arizona law denying taxpayer-funded public benefits and state identification to illegal immigrants.

Brewer’s Wednesday order says she’s reaffirming the intent of current Arizona law denying taxpayer-funded public benefits and state identification to illegal immigrants.

I'd like to know where it's written in the Constitution that anyone and everyone, regardless of citizenship status, is entitled to any benefits. Common sense should dictate that those benefits are only for citizens.

But then again, we're dealing with progressive politicians who look upon the Constitution as a set of "negative liberties," not a document that restricts the power of Washington as it was originally intended. Do you think that California would be in its current situation if they adhered to this principle? I rather doubt it.

This needs to happen nationwide. Of course, the lawless Obama administration would tie these EO's up in court, but a clear message would be sent to Washington: you will obey the law of the land.

Obama Administration - Let the Invasion Continue

May You Live in Interesting Times. This isn't a toast, it's a curse. And whoever wished it upon us is no doubt chuckling with glee right now.

As all fourteen of you are probably aware, the Supreme Court announced their decision to effectively stop the state of Arizona from stopping the flood of illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border into our country. They did leave intact one part of SB1070 that allows Arizona to detain illegals.

The interesting part of this is that within hours of the Court's decision, the Obama Administration announced that the Department of Homeland Security would no longer assist the state in the prosecution of illegals.

PowerLine has this assessment of yesterday's events:

Next, the administration announced measures designed to undermine the portion of the Arizona law that was upheld, unanimously, by the Supreme Court. The Department of Homeland Security said it would exclude Arizona from a program known as 287(g), which allows the feds to deputize local officials to make immigration-based arrests. A Homeland Security official explained that the administration finds such agreements “not useful” in states that have Arizona-style laws. I guess the program is “useful” only in states that aren’t taking meaningful measures to identify illegal aliens.

Accordingly, local police in Arizona will have to rely on federal officials to arrest illegal aliens. But federal officials have made it clear that the feds will not respond to calls from Arizona law enforcement unless the person detained meets certain criteria, such as being wanted for a felony. Being an illegal alien is not enough. As Obama showed with his unilateral mini-DREAM act, this administration is no longer interested in enforcing the immigration laws except perhaps against illegal aliens who are shown to have engaged in felonious conduct.

In addition, the Justice Department set up a hotline through which people can complain about having their immigration status checked by Arizona law enforcement officials. Obama thus hopes to drum up complaints against Arizona law enforcement agents. He wants to make the federal government a party to the harassment of those trying to do what Obama won’t – enforce the law. Obama hopes to intimidate them into not using their authority to address the severe problem of illegal immigration — authority granted by the state legislature and upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.

So this administration, much like the previous one, refuses to uphold the laws of the United States by ignoring established law in order to gain votes among the Latino community.

We're putting up with this, why, again?

I should note that it's illegal for any administration to refuse to enforce a law. It's also unConstitutional. My question is, why is no one calling out the president on this? Why is no one in Congress speaking up against this outrageous action that defies the very foundation of our country and the Founding Principle of the Rule of Law? Why isn't the Supreme Court not warning this president that he is in violation of the law and his Oath of Office?

What are you all afraid of?

Why is a secure border politically controversial?

It's no coincidence that those on the Left hide behind the false charge of Racism on this issue. It's their fallback position, since they have no real argument for their cause. It's tiresome and ignores the entire reason they hold office. But the persist because  their goal is not the same as our goal: theirs is to destroy our country, which we average citizens are allowing them to do.

There is a way to defuse the false charges of racism, but for some reason, those who are in a position to stop it are reluctant to use it. How difficult is it to preface a remark on the illegal immigration problem with a statement similar to this: "We (or "I") are all for welcoming those who wish to become Americans in accordance with our laws, but..."

This administration has made it clear it has no wish to uphold the law or the Rule of Law which states that everyone is to be treated equally.

Thus, we are being invaded with the full consent of the White House.

Obama Implements Soros' "Open Society" Agenda

In case you somehow missed it, last Friday President Obama decided to bypass Congress and ignore the Constitution to implement a backdoor amnesty program for illegal aliens.

If you've been wondering why Eric Holder and the Department of Justice have been suing states like Arizona and Florida to keep them from requiring voters to produce a valid identification at the polls, wonder no more. The other shoe has dropped.

This comes as Obama's approval numbers are sinking and his popularity is diminishing by the day. Despite saying that this "wasn't a political decision," the results from his refusal to enforce immigration laws say otherwise.

This is also a mistake from an economic standpoint: at a time of near-record high unemployment, allowing some 800,000 young illegals to compete in the job market will only make things worse.

Even some on the left have started to notice that this president has more in common with tinpot banana republic dictators than with any American President. From the Politico site: Obama's policy strategy: Ignore laws.

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

A White House official said the strategy is the result of a stalemate in Washington.

There is a "stalemate" in Washington for a very good reason. The 2010 midterm election was a message and a mandate that the country sent to this administration. In no uncertain terms, we said we wanted this leftward lurch to stop.

There are a few more things we the people want: we don't want our Constitution ignored, we want all of our laws enforced, and we damned sure don't want some power-hungry leftist's "one world government" agenda imposed upon us.

Obama’s Political Cowboy Poetry

Ignoring a seriously depressed economy, four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline and a ten percent inflation rate, President Obama took to the campaign trail in Texas yesterday to talk up immigration reform and talk down to Republicans, conservatives, and anyone else who dares to think that we should actually enforce our existing immigration laws.

Here’s a sample:

The president said “we have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I suspect there will be those who will try to move the goal posts one more time. They’ll say we need to triple the border patrol. Or quadruple the border patrol. They’ll say we need a higher fence to support reform. Maybe they’ll say we need a moat. Or alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.”

No, Mr. President, that’s smug condescension on your part, which I guess passes for politics to you. We’re still waiting for you to get serious about enforcement. We wonder why you aren’t stopping the flood of illegals across our Mexican border. We wonder why you’re intent upon suing the state of Arizona to stop their recently passed illegal immigration law that closely mirrors the federal law you refuse to enforce.  Jake Tapper does a bit of fact-checking Obama's speech here.

We wonder why there are signs like this anywhere in America.

(H/T to Great Satan Inc.)

We wonder why we tolerate the environmental destruction that those illegals cause. Why aren’t the greenies outraged at the 225 tons of trash they left behind in 2010? The 13.5 tons of tires? The 77 vehicles abandoned and removed?

How about the fact that Phoenix, AZ is now one of the world’s most dangerous cities due to the high and rising number of kidnappings by drug cartels? Janet Napolitano recently stated that the Mexican border is safe. I guess since she can’t see it from her office window in Washington, she thinks it is. Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu begs to disagree, in front of a Congressional committee no less.

Not to mention the potential for terrorists to cross into America unnoticed. This alone should be sufficient cause to secure our southern border, especially now that known terrorist groups are established in Mexican border towns.

President Obama is more than happy to confuse legal and illegal immigration for political purposes, and he’s not alone in using that tactic.

Fox News notes,

“…Obama is pitching his immigration argument to the larger public, refining it in a way that goes to Americans' pocketbook concerns. White House officials say Obama will emphasize the economic value of reforming immigration laws, noting that immigrants account for a substantial share of business start-ups and patent applications, among other things -- activities that create jobs for everyone.”

Those are legal immigrants, with whom no one has a beef. If you want to come to America and do so through our traditional (and legal) method of application, then we welcome you as we always have. It’s those who enter this country illegally without regard for our laws that we’re concerned about. Illegals working under cover and for less wages impact our economy negatively, displacing American workers. It’s no coincidence that Mexico’s second greatest source of national income (behind oil revenues) is from illegals in America. Count in the states that strangely give public benefits to illegals and the costs outweigh any benefits.

We don’t need immigration reform. We already have a pathway to citizenship, but to hear the President and many others speak, we don’t.

And if the Democrats or Obama thought for a minute that any of these illegals they want to give amnesty to might vote Republican, they’d be the first ones to close the Mexican border.

You can hang your ten-gallon hat on that, pardner.

No Need to Change the 14th Amendment, It Already Prohibits Anchor Babies

I ran across an interesting article in yesterday's local puppy training device newspaper. It was interesting for two reasons: it discussed the issue of the 14th Amendment and it has vanished from the Interwebs. I cannot locate the article anywhere, and when I say anywhere, I mean anywhere. Not on Google or Bing or Dogpile or the syndication site or the local newspapers' site.

It's gone. So you'll just have to take my word for what I'm about to write, unless you have a link to this article: Many on right eager to amend anew by Kathleen Hennessey of the Tribune's Washington bureau. If you do, please leave me the link in the comments.

This article begins with the idea of a few GOP Congressmen to alter the 14th Amendment to prohibit "anchor babies". Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer chimes in,

The intellectual positions are not new. What's new is there's a nascent political movement willing to take these up contrary to settled law. But one of the great things about constitutional law is nothing is ever settled.

Um, Dean Kramer, that's not a feature, it's a bug. Perhaps you haven't noticed your own contradiction. You say the law is settled, but in your next sentence, you say that it's not.

That's the problem. This legal instability is causing a great deal of weariness within America. We hear about the seemingly endless cycles of appeals and wonder when the judicial branch of our government is ever going to settle down and say that something is either illegal or it isn't and there is no in between. We'd really like to see some settled law for once. We do know, by the way, that endless appeals benefit lawyers, since they bill by the hour. The more hours they bill, the more money they make. So we're left to wonder if lawyers are actually interested in a law being settled, since that would tend to reduce their bottom line.

Let's take a look at what the 14th Amendment actually says:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That seems simple enough. It's written in plain enough language that the average person can understand it. All persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens.

But there is a qualifier in that sentence, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That qualifier makes it clear that our Founders never intended for just anyone to become a citizen and took into account certain situations, such as diplomats from other countries who may give birth while here on official business.

Certainly, if this qualifier was not included, then "anchor babies" would most certainly be legal. But the provision is there and it's there for a reason, specifically to prevent the problem that we now have with illegal immigrants coming here to give birth to American citizens.

Folks, this is clearly illegal. The Supreme Court that gave us this skewed decision is in gross violation of the Constitution. And this kind of misreading of the Constitution is the reason that there is a movement to return to the Original Intent of the Founders, because when we read its plain language, we can see that this problem was already accounted for and wisely prohibited. After all, if a country is to control immigrants, they must necessarily be routed through an immigration authority to determine if they are eligible for citizenship. This is just common sense.

But there are forces who mean to gain a political advantage by allowing illegal immigrants into the country with the intent of granting them amnesty, hopefully in exchange for their voting allegiance, those forces being the Democrat Party. This notion is contrary to the overwhelming majority of Americans who wish to see all of our immigration laws enforced and our borders secured.

We don't need any kind of revision to our Constitution. We merely need a Supreme Court that can read the original words of the Founders and adhere to them with unfailing will.

Many of our problems would not be problems if this were the case.

A Wolf at the Door

*Ding dong*

*dingdongdingdongdingdong*

*Bang Bang*

"I'm coming, give me a second."

*Bang Bang*

When I opened the front door, I was met with an unusual sight. A short woman in a judicial robe holding some papers surrounded by several large men wearing purple SEIU t-shirts. Behind them were several well dressed men carrying briefcases, whom I assumed were lawyers, all holding cell phones to their ears. One of them bore a striking resemblance to Eric Holder. Behind them were two police officers.

"Is this the Samuel residence?" she asked curtly.

"Yes," I replied.

"OK, boys, you know what to do." The purple shirts rushed past her and, with tools in hand, began to remove our front door.

"Excuse me. Just what do you think you're doing. And who are you anyway?" I protested.

"My name's Judge Bolton and I'll thank you to refer to me as "Your Honor." she replied in a condescending tone.

I said, "But, we're not in your courtroom, this is my front porch."

"You're quite correct, Mr. Samuels. But perhaps you're not familiar with my ruling concerning doors. Just this afternoon, I ruled that your front door is racist."

"What are you talking about? That door's been there since the house was built!"

"That's not what's in dispute here. By having this door on your house, you're keeping out this Mexican family, the Juarez's. They want to live here."

"But this isn't their house. I'm the one who's making the payments," I said. My protests did not stop several people with children from coming into the house and into the living room. Soon, the TV was blasting so loudly, we had to yell at each other.

Judge Bolton continued, although in a louder voice this time. "You see, this is what we're talking about, your inherent racism."

"What racism? I'm no racist. My family and I live here and have for years. We don't discriminate against anyone. All we do is live..."

It was here that I took notice of the two policemen on the sidewalk. I raised up on my tiptoes and yelled, "Hey, what are you guys doing. Aren't you going to help me defend my home?"

They looked at me and shrugged. "We're sorry, sir. Judge Bolton's ruling means we can't help you. The only reason we're here is if you become violent or interfere with the removal of your door."

I turned to see that the guys in the SEIU shirts had suddenly stopped working and were now arguing with each other. One of them said, "No, no, you can't remove those screws, only the ones above them. It's in our contract."

Another purple shirt said, "Well, who's going to take those screws out?" "Where's Larry?" "I don't know, whaddaya askin' me for, it ain't my day to watch him." Then they started yelling at each other while another one pulled a phone and started making a call. "Guys," I said, "Go stand over there and bicker."

Still arguing, they walked away, trampling the gardenias that my wife had planted the week after our youngest daughter was born. It was the first thing she did outside when we brought her home from the hospital. I turned my attention back to Judge Bolton.

"Your Honor, I thought that our Constitution gave me the right to my own property. What about due process?"

She waved the papers in her hand toward my face. "Mr. Samuel, here is my decision. Due process has been achieved. I did that this afternoon."

She continued, "Our Constitution was never intended to deny freedom to anyone inside our country. Everyone who is here is guaranteed the rights embodied in it, regardless of nationality. Perhaps you need to get with the times and realize that we've interpreted the Constitution to reflect modern progressive values. Ours is a living Constitution that changes with the requirements of modern life here in America. Or don't you know that? Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

"But, but..."

I was pushed aside by yet another purple shirt with a screwdriver who proceeded to finish the removal of the front door.

Mrs. Samuel came running up to me and grabbed me. "What are we going to do? We can't stay here, there's no front door any more. Anyone can come right in. What if we're robbed, or worse?"

Judge Bolton looked at her and said, "This is how things are now. If you don't want to live here, you can just move."

My wife began to cry.

Constitutional Shootout at the It's Not OK Corral

Since this post is about the law, I think I'm legally required to tell you that I'm not a lawyer. That might be a law, I don't know.

Today's post is about the illegal immigrant debate centered around Arizona's new law to curb illegal immigration and the Obama administrations efforts to defeat it in court.

There can be no doubt that Arizona has a big problem with illegal immigration. Phoenix now holds the unwanted distinction of being the world's number two city where you are most likely to be kidnapped. Mexican drug cartels have established the state as their main route for drug importation into the US. A large swath of land is off limits to Americans due to the danger that drug runners pose to anyone who might disrupt their illegal trade, inside a National Park.

This is a situation that the good citizens of Arizona want resolved. Their pleas for help have fallen upon deaf ears in Washington for many years. For some inexplicable reason, the Federal government, who claims to have sole responsibility for border enforcement, is refusing to do its legal duty to enforce immigration laws. No one has explained the reason for Federal inaction. What is heard instead is the insistence that the southern border is more secure than ever.

Arizonans know better.

After years of Washington essentially allowing the invasion of the US by Mexicans, the state passed its own bill to enforce border security and insure the safety of the people. S.B. 1070 was written with an eye towards winning the inevitable legal challenge: its' wording closely mimics the language of Federal immigration law. Provisions in the law explicitly spell out the circumstances under which a suspect can be questioned about their immigrant status in a further attempt to deflect charges of racial profiling. In all, this bill was written to be as effective as possible to protect its citizens from Mexican criminals.

Here is where the story takes a turn towards the questionable. The Obama administration is currently seeking to strike down the law, saying it interferes with Federal immigration law. Many in Washington initially condemned the law without reading it. The crude irony in all this is that the state law was made necessary as a direct result of Federal authorities refusing to do their Constitutional duty.

Now here comes the sticky part of the government's argument against Arizona: the DOJ claims that the law interferes with its jurisdiction and impedes federal enforcement of the law. Washington claims to hold sole authority over the border and that no state has the right to interfere with enforcement in any way.

OK, Washington, if Arizona can't enact a law that interferes with federal enforcement of immigration laws, what about the many sanctuary cities in America that have passed their own laws directly prohibiting any cooperation with federal immigration authorities, cities such as San Francisco? Is that not interference with federal authority moreso than Arizona, whose law is nearly identical to Washington's and doesn't seek to interfere, but instead repeats the federal law nearly word for word?

I've often wondered about the legality of sanctuary cities. I'm not alone. Ace wonders too. He links to a Washington Times article that raises the same questions.

It's clear that sanctuary cities are in violation of the law, not only the Constitution, but also the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 that requires states to assist federal authorities in immigration matters.

Our Constitution mandates the enforcement of all laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

All of them.

Not just some of them. And not just when you feel like it.

All of them.

It is crystal clear that President Obama cannot pick and choose which laws he wishes to enforce. Our republic doesn't work that way. We are a nation of laws, not of the whims of powerful men. Our legal framework is the glue that binds us together as a nation. Indeed, it is the sole reason for our existence. Ours is the world's oldest Constitution because of our adherence to the principles enshrined in it. We create laws we deem necessary to maintain order and repeal the ones we no longer need or want. This is the true nature of our freedom.

Anything less is anarchy.

Anything less defeats the whole idea of any society. Why have laws if they're not enforced?

In this blog's humble opinion, this issue could be a defining point in our history. Eventually, a suit will be filed that questions this administrations' selective enforcement of the law. The Supreme Court will be asked once again if our Constitution is the law of the land.

It must answer yes.

There is no other reply.

That Front Door is Racist!

So, let me see if I have this right.

Our border with Mexico isn't secure. It hasn't been for well over a decade. There are between 12 and 20 million people in our country illegally. These illegals drain the resources of Arizona that were paid for by, and intended for, their citizens. They brought crime with them, killing police officers and a rancher. The citizens of Arizona decide that they've had enough. Their state representatives crafted a law modeled closely after the Federal statute that makes undocumented  residency illegal. The governor signs it and there are non-stop protests ever since.

Am I right so far?

Not being ones to let a good crisis go to waste, radical left-wing protestors come crawling out from beneath the baseboards to scream that everyone who supports the new law is racist. The state capital building has swastikas drawn on its windows with refried beans. The Right Reverend Al Sharpton is the national face of Washington's opposition to the law. In a stunning statement, President Obama sides with the left-wing protestors and against the Constitutional right of Americans to be secure. It looks as though, from all outward appearances, the Obama administration wants the border of Mexico to be open, in direct opposition to the will of Americans.

This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the rule of law. Those professional racists cannot argue that point with any validity or accuracy. Let's just say this right now and get it out of the way:

It's not racist to want a secure border any more than it's an act of racism to have a front door with a lock on it.

You have a right to control who enters your home.

Our country is no different.