In the wake ofÂ the brouhaha last year over Arizona’s passage of a law requiring enforcement of federal statutesÂ in re illegal aliens, the US Government, in the persons of Barack Obama and Eric Holder (men, not laws) chose to take Arizona to court, claiming that the supremacy clauses in the US Constitution and the doctrine ofÂ pre-emption made federal enforcement of immigration laws the exclusive property of the US Government.Â Well, that episode is in the courts.Â What weÂ are amused at during this time is the jarring inconsistency in the stances taken by federal officials,Â state officials, Â media pundits and politicians, on both sides of the aisle, Â in their positions on who should act and in what areas.
For instance, why is it that a sovereign state is to be denied the right to police it’s borders, and what goes on within it’s borders, but at the same time, private businesses operating within those borders are defacto deputies of the federal government by being required to participate in the E-verify program? Private concerns must make it their business to deny employment to those ineligible to work in the US, thus, in theory, disincentivizing illegal immigration.Â But the State Government, the law enforcement agencies, the ones sworn to protect and serve?Â Back off, they are told.
Fine.Â Keep the ones who want to work from working, because justÂ that youÂ want to do something doesn’t mean you are entitled to do so.Â And, Obama and Holder to the contrary notwithstanding, there are laws.Â In fact, there are lots of laws.
Proceeding to the next piece of this puzzle, which is obviously way too complicated for 99.99% of the politicians, professors, pundits and patrons ofÂ The Bar to understand, there are people who want to go to college.Â Now, they are in this country illegally just the same as those who want to work.Â Apparently, that you want to go to college, and/or remain in the UnitedÂ States under some status or other, just because you want to, is sufficient grounds for suspending the rules.Â Â The working theory of the proponents of things such as the Dream Act, or various state programs to offer in-state tuition to illegal alien students, is that this demographic of the illegal alien population are in the US not of their own volition, but as a result of their parents’ (or perhaps the human traffickers’?) actions, and they need to be catered to.
There are stipulations included in the Dream Act, which by the way probably won’t pass anytime soon.Â One is that the supposed student, or military service enlistee ‘be of good moral character’.Â …………’Si, lo soy!’ ……Â Another is that the applicant to the Dreamy program must provide proof of residence for a five-year period.Â Now, usually, when you and I have to provide proof of residence for some government purpose or other, it has to be, uh, legal residence.Â Uh, legal proof.Â Uh, law abiding.Â Uh, ‘good moral character’.Â Well, unless we were raised by immoral un-law-abiding illegal aliens, but we digress.Â We suspect that one stipulation that goes unsaid, or unwritten, is that the prospective student must, in addition to wanting to go to college, also intend to vote the straight Democrat ticket, but again, we digress.
Yes, it is a mess, isn’t it.Â Sometimes we do feel sorry for the politicians who can’t figure it out, like Dick Durbin and Orrin Hatch, the co-sponsors of the Dream Act.Â But what about the people on the state level, the legislators and activists who grant such amenities as in-state tuition to illegal alien students, thus reducing the amount of money collected by the state in return for their education?Â Many of these same states at the same time incongruously support and enforceÂ the E-verify program, thus denying the illegal alien parents ofÂ these illegal alien students the opportunity to work and pay for their own children’s education, thus removing that burden from these states.Â Is it just us, or does something not jibe here?
Well, the counter argument would go, the ones, the adults, who entered the country illegally should not be rewarded with jobs.Â Â (Government-issued ID’s?Â Welfare and Social Security benefits?Â Child care and baby sitting services?Â Library privileges?Â No problemo! )Â But we still have to feel sorry for the kids, right?Â Okay, so what about the kid who doesn’t want to go to college, or doesn’t want to be a soldier ?Â What if his ‘dream’ is to work at the Honda plant making $30 per hour plus benefits for himself and any family he might raise?Â Sorry, kid.Â E-verify, dontchaknow?Â So in the end, it’s not even really about what a person wants, is it?Â It’s actually about what groups of people, or organizations, or special interest cliques, or political parties, want.
This is, of course, just a cursory and perfunctory look at one aspect of the propagandization and politicization of law and sovereignty.Â How issues like these are presented is instructive.Â It is usually with the human-interest point of view.Â The caring, compassionate mode of looking at things the way the proponents wantÂ us to look at things.Â And those are not without merit, surely.Â But the way issues are compartmentalized, such that the needs of one subset of the population, whether legal or illegal, are presented to the exclusion of perhaps just as deservingÂ another subset of the population, legal or illegal, shows why we have laws in the first place, and equality under the law, and including immigration law.Â Â And the point hardly ever taken into account is that the protection of people, as people, as citizens and those who would become citizens,Â is routinelyconsidered and Â included in the laws we have erected as the foundational blocks of our civilization in the first place.
The men, and women, who would insinuate themselves and and their judgement, and their ‘dreams’, into the affairs of those who actually believe in the oaths they took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, or their various state constitutions, are often lawyers and one would think ought to have the capacity to think on their feet.Â Some do.Â Many don’t.Â However complicated they want to make the issue is usually an indication of whether they are serious people or not.Â For us, it seems that if you want to let people do what they want to do, then suspend law altogether.Â Open the borders and be done with it.Â If you want to respect national, and state, and territorial sovereignty, the rights and responsibilities of citizenship,Â and this ‘dream’ called America, Â then those tools are already available.Â Use them.