Arizona steps in where the Feds have epically failed

Seems like immigration might be a hot button issue this summer heading into the November election. This was shifted into overdrive with the recent passage of Arizona’s new law saying that law enforcement officials must now ask for proof of legal status if they suspect an individual is in the country illegally.

First and foremost, the federal government, including President Bush and President Obama, should be ashamed for failing to address border security and enforcing current immigration law. Arizona is stepping it up to try and fix problems they have such as rampant drug-related kidnappings in their capital city of Phoenix due to Mexican drug cartel.

Fox News reports on the ruckus:

PHOENIX — An Arizona congressman urged the Obama administration not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if a tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, and civil rights activists spoke on Sunday to thousands of people gathered at the state Capitol and called on President Barack Obama to fight the law, promising to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply.

“We’re going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we’re going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law,” Grijalva said.

Obama has called the new law “misguided” and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it’s legal. It requires police to question people about their immigration status — including asking for identification — if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Opponents say it would lead to racial profiling because officers would be more likely to ask people who look Hispanic.

Supporters have dismissed concerns about profiling, saying the law prohibits the use of race or nationality as the sole basis for an immigration check. Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the measure Friday, has ordered state officials to develop a training course for officers to learn what constitutes reasonable suspicion someone is in the U.S. illegally.

It isn’t racial profiling, it is criminal profiling since it is a crime to be in this country illegally without proper documentation. This has nothing to do with your ethnicity since anyone who isn’t a US citizen can be an illegal alien. Of course, Arizona’s overriding problem is Mexican immigrants so of course they will be the most affected by this. However, that is no excuse not to pass such legislation and it is no excuse to accuse the supporters of being racist or “misguided” as President Obama has stated.

What is so misguided about following federal law, President Obama? Maybe you should try it.

This is the crux of the issue everyone is ignoring:

Bill Baker, 60, took time off work at a downtown Phoenix restaurant to sell umbrellas and Mexican and American flags to the largely Hispanic crowd. He said he wasn’t making much money, but he wanted to help them exercise their freedom of expression — even though he supports the law they all showed up to oppose.

“If I go to another foreign country, if I go to Mexico, I have to have papers,” Baker said. “So I don’t feel there’s anything particularly harsh about the law.”

He said he’s worried the bill will hurt the economy if many of Arizona’s estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants leave the state and stop spending money here.

“But that’s the price you have to pay to have a lawful country,” Baker said.

We live in a country with immigration laws on the books. If we aren’t going to enforce the, why bother wasting the paper? Every other country has immigration law and rightly enforces it, we are no different. Mexico is very strong with regard to their own enforcement of immigration law.

Furthermore, when Mexico catches an illegal alien in Mexico, i.e., an undocumented person who has entered Mexico illegally, they are not nearly as friendly as we are:

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve our illegal immigration problem.

Mexico has strict immigration policies which we should emulate. In fact, the Arizona law only works to function similarly to the way Mexico enforces its own immigration laws.

Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

* in the country legally;

* have the means to sustain themselves economically;

* not destined to be burdens on society;

* of economic and social benefit to society;

* of good character and have no criminal records; and

* contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

* immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

* foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

* foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

* foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

* foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

* those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense.

If you are found in Mexico illegally you are promptly arrested, imprisoned and eventually deported. That is, of course, if you aren’t in the hands of corrupt officials who do not follow the law and you end up stuck in a crowded Mexican prison for eternity.

America is overly generous to legal immigrants, we welcome them with open arms. They are the life-blood of new ideas and new businesses.

There is no rationale explanation for not enforcing immigration law for reasons of safety and reasons of taxpayer exhaustion. Arizona is leading the way and I hope other states get on board.

  • JD

    The real question is why more states haven’t bumped up immagration laws? In a nation where we preach State rights, why should Virginia pay for Texas borders? I mean, they don’t want to pay for texas schools or police departments…

    So is this a state issue or a national one?

  • States such as Texas, Arizona, New Mexico etc.. take the brunt of it on the border, however, illegal immigration remains a national issue.

    Illegal immigrants can migrate anywhere in the country once they get in. Therefore, it is in Virginia’s best interest along with Montana’s best interest along with Texas’s best interest to secure the southern and northern borders appropriately.

    This is one issue which is proper for the federal government to tackle using federal resources. It should not be carried by one state.

    In the same token, Virginia shouldn’t pay for Texas schools as Texas should not pay for Virginia schools. Immigration is different since it concerns federal law and national security.

    JD, do you support or oppose the new Arizona law?

  • JD

    First, I don’t mind the new law in Arizona but, then again, I always have my Driver’s ID with me per state law when I drive.

    Personally, I think we are going after the wrong people. I still feel illegal immigration exists because the Jobs do. I think we should be targeting the employers of illegal immigrants and not the general population. Still, I think this will work.

    That said, I am really curious on what this will do to the police force? I wonder if they are have enough resources to handle what they are about to uncover.

    Let me be clear, I do think there is going to be select cases of racial profiling and innocent people getting accused but overall I think it will work. As a society we have to look at the overall benifit and work to refine the law to make sure the innocent are safe and the people who take advantage are eventually weeded out but my no means will this start out perfectly.

    With that in mind, I think education is also a national issue because the less educated a state the more crime and poverty. Crime and poverty moves around just like illegal immagrants. However, I don’t want to distract this thread from immagration.

  • I agree, education is a nation issue, mainly for the reason JD gave. Yet I have brought this up many times without any decent feedback.

  • That’s OK, we all seem to be in agreement on the Arizona law anyway.

    I’d say the education discussion lies in whether or not such a body of the Department of Education is a constitutionally-backed entity.

    Interesting piece on this topic from 2003:

    Looking at the United States Constitution, no provision is made for education, but the Constitution does instruct that … “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Tenth Amendment) In other words, education is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Why, then, do we have a cabinet level United States Department of Education (US DOE)? Does this not violate the U.S. Constitution? In a word, “yes.” The US DOE was established under the Carter Administration as a political payoff to the teacher unions for their support of Jimmy Carter for president.

    Inquiry of the US DOE recently, concerning the constitutional authority on which it was established, brought an interesting response. No doubt many will be surprised to learn that the US DOE was established to help and support states in the area of education; and, therefore, doesn’t require a constitutional mandate.

    No doubt those reading federal legislation and laws, replete with “must” and “shall” as condition of receipt of federal tax dollars, would dispute the contention that the US DOE is there merely to help and support states in the matter of education. No doubt a competent constitutional attorney could make the case that federal laws concerning education have, in fact, served to move control of education from the state level to the federal level in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

    http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter9.htm

    That is where the answer lies along with the argument on both sides.

    The only way to make education a national issue, backed by the constitution, is to carve it out somewhere to make it an issue the federal government can mess with. In JD’s case, he has carved it out under the topic of national security and general safety. As in, better educated people commit fewer crimes. Could be, but then again, that could be a slippery slope to start handing all authority to the federal government under the blanket of national security.

    However, a strict interpretation would find that education, since it isn’t absolved to the federal government, must be left to the states since it hasn’t been delegated to the federal powers.

    Since international borders are indeed a federal issue, clearly border security falls under the federal government as does enforcing immigration law.

    The constitution always has the answer…

  • JD

    I also think the constitution was written many years ago in a time where education wasn’t what it is today and a doctor was more likely to bleed you out than save your life.

    The truth is the constitution has had amendments to it and it was suppose to. The founding fathers never meant for the constitution to become 100% inflexible.

    Still, there are plenty of ways to help out states educations without taking it over such as the current way of funding. None the less, it is a national issue.

    Imagine if we never amended the constitution? Freedom of religion, possess firearms, assures trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, Defines a set of guarantees for United States citizenship, Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex, Prohibits the federal government and the states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex, and so on would not exsist universally across america.

    I guess, per your point, the only clear way is to first amend the constitution to make it a national issue and apart of the constitution. That said, I think this would be very difficult. I mean, a civil war was waged over “all men created equal” and states rights to slavery per the non-mention in the constitution.

    I don’t believe our constitution is foul proof and in the area of education, i think it should be a national issue. I would like to reitterate this doesn’t mean government take over but some kind of national standard states are required to meet and taking education beyond high school.

  • “I would like to reitterate this doesn’t mean government take over but some kind of national standard states are required to meet and taking education beyond high school.”

    Like the success of the Bush/Kennedy “No Child Left Behind” standards? Unfunded mandates and such..

  • JD

    firstly, I think No child left behind was a good idea but as you said it fell short with funding. Proving that passing a bill and funding it is two seperate things. However, there have been plenty successes from this bill. Imporved local standards have been reported all around the US and schools are having to report more information to their students parents.

    I still think there needs to be mandates to push our education system. I think the ultimate failure stems first from the simple fact that education isn’t considered a national issue. We in general don’t consider Kansas’s education as important as our own and so on.

    All this said, I don’t think we are perfect. Just like I said the immagration policy in Arizona is perfect but No child left behind was a good step forward. There definitely needs to be some reform on it to solve the issue that have come up.

  • JD

    can’t edit but I ment to say arizona immigration policy is not perfect… not that it is perfect.

  • Actually, this is where you and I will diverge.

    When you say this:

    “I think the ultimate failure stems first from the simple fact that education isn’t considered a national issue.”

    All that immediately comes to my mind is that the first ultimate failure lies in parents who don’t involved themselves in their child’s education enough.

    Public education is there to provide the base minimum and will not teach your child morals, ethics or even basic societal responsibilities like becoming self-reliant and balancing your checkbook.

    Yes, they’ll learn plenty of book smarts but you the parent need to teach your child how to become a productive citizen, the school doesn’t have the ability to do that.

    So we come back to programs like school vouchers to give parents more power and more choices. Personally I would never put a kid in a public school since I have firsthand experience of what they teach and produce. I’d like better quality for my money, thanks.

    Above all though, education starts in the home, not from the government so I can’t agree on the notion that keeping education from being a national issue is some kind of huge dilemma. It simply isn’t since parents around the country in any given school district do fine when they are involved in their kids education.

    You say the government should step in whereas I think the government has done enough considering that test scores have remained flat since the Dept of Education was created. It has been a waste of money and has done little to improve education.

    See the following:

    Unfortunately, almost no profit has been generated by the huge federal investment in education. The Department of Education, in No Child Left Behind: A Guide for Policymakers, acknowledges this: “Since 1965, the United States has nearly tripled the amount spent on every public school student in the nation, even adjusted for inflation. Yet, over the same period of time, test scores nationwide have stubbornly remained flat….” Harvard University researcher Paul Peterson confirmed this in Our Schools and Our Future…Are we still at risk?, in which he analyzed data from Scholastic Aptitude Tests, National Assessment of Educational Progress exams, and several international comparisons, and found that “no matter what instrument is used, the results are roughly the same: America’s schools are stagnating….”

    http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4574

    Why are we wasting federal tax dollars which have shown no improvement?

    Perhaps it is time to look elsewhere than the government monopoly on education.

  • JD

    So you are suggesting that if we didn’t have public schools then we would be better off? Historically and now?

    You are right that public schools are not the end all be all. They are not as nice or as pristegious as private schools. Then again, private schools have the right to refuse students which was the whole point of public schooling… equal opportunity.

    I, of course, don’t nessissarily have a problem with vouchers nore do i ignore the failings of parents but when talking about an organization we try to keep in the constraints of the organization. Not to mention what makes you think the same crappy parents are going to make good decisions on vouchers?

    It isn’t the failings of the schools that make bad parents.

    You are correct that I do diverge from you in the notion that this country would have been and would be better off with out public education. Why would we make the children pay for bad parents?

    The point is opportunity. To give them a chance to rise above their parents or neighborhood. Not all will succeed but not all will fail.

    As for you not sending your kids to public schools because you know what they teach and produce, well that is for you to decide. Personally, I know half a dozen teachers in public education and every single one of them goes above and beyond thier job and pay grade. They have countless success stories on what is produced from it.

  • I wont argue against the constitution, it is what it is, but I’d say an amendment is warranted for EDUCATING our nations citizens. As JD stated, and as Nate hinted at, imagine a United States where all citizens are very much educated. Would it be a real land of milk and honey, the nation of inventors, innovators, would it help us to solve our economic issues, being a country who has so many new innovations to sell? A nation that dominated in various things that other countries used to dominate in. I’m sure it would gives us so much money money to play with.

    Capitalism would surely thrive if more people were educated and starting up new companies of their own and employing others. If the nation was much more educated would we come up with no ideas to help us to be less dependent on other countries and their innovations? Imagine if many more of our products that we buy said “Made in the USA”

    “All that immediately comes to my mind is that the first ultimate failure lies in parents who don’t involved themselves in their child’s education enough.

    Public education is there to provide the base minimum and will not teach your child morals, ethics or even basic societal responsibilities like becoming self-reliant and balancing your checkbook.

    Yes, they’ll learn plenty of book smarts but you the parent need to teach your child how to become a productive citizen, the school doesn’t have the ability to do that. ” Nate

    I agree 100% but do you see the loop that our nation is in? Parents are uneducated, have kids who are uneducated, that become another generation of uneducated parents having children? How do we stop the cycle? Can we so easily say, “PARENTS! TEACH YOUR KIDS WHAT YOU DON’T KNOW YOURSELF OR CARE ABOUT!”?

    I doubt that would work, would you not agree?

    I placed my daughter in a “Charter School.” If you don’t know what that is, it’s basically run via government grants and fund raising. So it’s a public school per say, but not completely. In order for my daughter to attend this school, I have to volunteer within the school a certain amount of hours per school year or my daughter will not longer be allowed to attend the school.

    Also the parents raise money for the school. This can supplement for your volunteer hours as well. So this way ALL parents are forced to play some sort of role in the school, weather it be in the classroom, school events, fund raising, ect. And what these things do is also bring various families together to meet each other. I think this is also affective because parents end up talking about being a family, about their childrens educations, ect.

    Now say we as citizens of the US came together and fought for a constitutional amendment, or in some other way make it mandatory that parents volunteer in the schools, or make it mandatory that parents show their involvement in their childrens education? I know where that could go, “Government forcing me to live my life a certain way.” BAD BAD BAD. But with the right BRAIN to write it all out to prevent government control while aiding the children, i think the charter school idea being implemented in all public school would be great in more than one way.

    Our tax dollars not being wasted on public schools. Families more involved in raising money to fund public schools on their own not just via their tax dollars. Children and Families coming together not only for education but when you get them together they can also learn the value of “family.”

    Much more can be said on this subject, but it take a breather. I know you ALL can rally behind this subject, there’s no way we can disagree with Parents being involved in Education. Nate, Bill, DD Mao, JD, and Kendale can all agree that we need to somehow get these “non-involved” parents “involved”

  • Kumbaya.

    There are valid points all around which is what makes this subject interesting to discuss.

    Just to add a few things to JD’s comments.

    “Why would we make the children pay for bad parents?”

    We shouldn’t and we don’t which is why public schools exist. However, they should not an excuse or a crutch ti ignore where education begins which is in the home. Furthermore, children learn a lot at church also concerning morality and ethics, more so than schools.

    “Personally, I know half a dozen teachers in public education and every single one of them goes above and beyond thier job and pay grade.”

    Of course there are good teachers and I had great experiences with some. However, they cannot overcome the system as a whole.

    Public schools differ geographically and demographically of course. Upstate NY schools where I attended middle and high school were not competitive as they didn’t need to be. There were awesome teachers, yes, but there are also horrible teachers and the same old tired liberal public school system.

    Public schools here in Fairfax County, VA are much more competitive because they have to be, they are competing for bodies against private schools. They are also competing for good teachers against private schools also. The schools are still rather liberal here but less so since they have to compete academically against private schools.

    Keep in mind, the first public school was a religious school in Boston. It was not government-run.

  • JD

    I am sure you knew this was coming but I think the quality of education you get is not tied to it being religous or not.

    As for the public school in boston, they were religious but they were also disriminative in that you had to be a member of the church which put you out of luck. Much like the Vadican is a government and also a religion doesn’t make what they do right or wrong or better.

    Anyway, I digress. I just don’t think there is a connection between that and a rich non-religous private school. The key is well funded, efficient, and community based education system.

  • “I am sure you knew this was coming but I think the quality of education you get is not tied to it being religous or not.”

    I never intended to imply that.

    I do maintain that private education creates competition whether it is religious or not. Competition creates better students, better teachers and a better system.

  • JD

    Competition also excludes which brings us back the exception to the rule with public education. The truth seems to be with a hybrid of the two ideas.

    I guess for me, it comes down to a question of why can’t we take the same attitude we had of putting a man on the moon toward educating america? I just think first you have to make it a national priority.

  • “We shouldn’t and we don’t which is why public schools exist. However, they should not an excuse or a crutch ti ignore where education begins which is in the home. Furthermore, children learn a lot at church also concerning morality and ethics, more so than schools.” Nate

    Yea assuming the parents take the child to church. If you can’t even get involved in your childs education I’m sure you aren’t likely to get involved in their spirituality.

    “Competition also excludes which brings us back the exception to the rule with public education. The truth seems to be with a hybrid of the two ideas.” JD

    Charter schools are also called Hybrid schools because they have characteristics of both public and private schools. I will still say Charter schools are great. Some people can not afford Private Schools and we know most Public schools suck, thus Charter eliminates the issue of not afford the school by having parents volunteer within the school and raise money for the school.

    “I guess for me, it comes down to a question of why can’t we take the same attitude we had of putting a man on the moon toward educating America? I just think first you have to make it a national priority. ” JD

    I agree. We as a nation should ALL want our country to be populated with well educated citizens. We should all know this is a difficult task because we do not live in Nate’s perfect world where everything works as it should. We should make education a priority because an educated society can very well benefit us all in the long run. A society of idiots only brings us ALL down. If we were an educated society we would not need all of the Obama/Democratic Social programs because an educated man can stand on his own two feet, and idiot needs help.