Home » Featured, Headline

Be Like Ike? No, Obama Chooses to Ignore Public Opinion and Sue Arizona!

Daniel J. Kelley 8 July 2010 3 Comments

It is easy to understand the concept of Federal preemption in a number of contexts: there are no state bankruptcy courts, for example, since bankruptcy is exclusively a federal court matter. In other areas, however, it is less than clear where federal authority is absolute and where a state law can mirror legislation passed by Congress. For decades, Chicago and many of its suburbs ignored the Second Amendment by enacting gun laws that were ultimately stricken by the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional despite numerous favorable rulings which upheld the bans in lower courts.

Obama’s ethically challenged Attorney General, Eric Holder, who managed to forget to discuss a variety of pertinent matters during his Senate confirmation hearings, has attacked the Arizona immigration law as being unconstitutional. Legal scholars have opined that the challenging the validity of the Arizona law is not necessarily going to be a “slam dunk” for the administration. Interestingly, Holder is not concerned about challenging those municipalities that hold themselves out as “sanctuary cities” that promise to ignore the federal immigration laws. Chicago is one such city that chooses not to cooperate with the Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency.

In relation to other issues, however, the federal and state governments have historically cooperated. The 18th Amendment ushered in the Prohibition Era in America. The Volstead Act was the legislation that implemented alcohol prohibition on a national level. Nevertheless, many states, including Illinois, followed through upon passing state statutes which codified the restrictions upon the production, sale and transportation of alcohol. When the 18th Amendment was repealed in 1933, it was necessary for the Illinois state legislature to authorize a repeal convention to ratify the 21st Amendment and to enact its own statute repealing the Illinois prohibition law. Prior to those actions, no one from the Department of Justice sought to invalidate the Illinois prohibition law on the basis of pre-emption.

During the Fifties, the federal government partnered with state and local law enforcement officials to jointly administer the nation’s immigration laws with an emphasis on deporting or repatriating foreign nationals.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was alarmed that illegal immigration had been ignored by the Truman administration as close to one million illegal aliens had been entering the USA annually. Eisenhower appointed a new commissioner to lead the Immigration and Naturalization Service and called upon General Joseph Swing to implement the deportation program. The program was modeled after the repatriation policies utilized by the administrations of Herbert C. Hoover and Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the height of the Great Depression. The ambitious program employed over a thousand additional Border Patrol agents with the goal of apprehending one thousand illegal aliens per day.

Within two months, 50,000 illegal aliens were deported. The aliens were transported to locations within Mexico far removed from the border so as to prevent easy re-entry into the USA. The success of the program caused close to another half million aliens to voluntarily leave to USA rather than running the risk of apprehension. Despite this historical precedent, Osama’s “tough, no nonsense” Department of Homeland Security Director, the former Arizona governor, Janet Napolitano, has claimed that a widespread deportation program is unworkable and that “comprehensive immigration reform” — a euphemism for amnesty — is essential.

Naturally enough, since the Roosevelt and Eisenhower programs were an unqualified successes, liberals have denounced these efforts at border control as “racist” ever afterwards. US Representatives Hilda Solis and Luis Guiterrez have demanded that the Congress issue an apology for such programs and policies. What part of the definition of the word “illegal” is it that these Congressmen do not understand?

The bitter reality is that the Obama administration does not actually want to allow the Arizona law an opportunity to succeed. If Arizona is able to exercise greater control over its border with Mexico, it stands to reason that other states will follow suit by enacting similar laws. If such curbs proved to be successful, one of the major props would be knocked out of Obama’s lame rationale for another massive amnesty program. Under the current administration, border security and interior enforcement have been woefully lax. Rather than enforcing the existing laws, Obama wants to impose a unpopular political solution upon the American public.

Purists have noted that as the Democratic Party continues its long march to the left of the political spectrum, it needs to create a new pool of pliable voters to insure its continued electoral success. Native born American citizens are growing restless and can no longer be relied upon to regularly vote the Democratic party line. In the best traditions of Chicago alderman such as “Bathhouse John” Coughlin, Michael “Hink Dink” Kenna and “Johnny Da Pow” Powers, Obama and the Democrats are looking to enfranchise a massive bloc of impoverished immigrants who will readily vend their votes to Democratic bosses in return for government sponsored benefits. There is a method behind such madness when one sees US Representatives Guiterrez and my favorite Marxist, Jan Schakowsky, pandering to the illegal aliens who they see as future voters.

Arizona is not alone in its desire to curb illegal immigration and the crime and corruption that it breeds.
California is another example of a state that has tried to stem the constant influx of Mexican and Latin American illegal aliens. The Save Our State initiative Proposition 187 enjoyed widespread public support and received 59% of the vote in a statewide referendum in 1994. Former California Governor Pete Wilson managed to stage a political comeback and gain reelection on the strength of supporting Proposition 187.
The policies embodied within the law were designed to limit illegal immigration by removing the lure of government benefits by questioning the citizenship status of those persons seeking such entitlements. By halting the free lunch, it was reasoned that illegal aliens would remove themselves from the Golden State and that illegal immigration would decline via attrition.

The California law was promptly enjoined by a federal court district judge before its key provisions were implemented, but the ruling was never fully appealed. When Gray Davis succeeded Pete Wilson as governor, he declined to pursue the appeal. As such, the law was never reviewed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or the US Supreme Court. In some respects, the Arizona law incorporates elements of the California plan. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has pledged to litigate the validity of the Arizona law to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was criticized last year for making the casual observation that California might do as well to construct its newest prison facilities across the border in Mexico. The construction and operational costs would have been far less than erecting and maintaining the penitentiaries in California and many of the Mexican nationals in custody in the California penal system could be immediately repatriated upon their discharge. Despite the controversy that ensued, it is worth noting that close to one third of the US prison population is composed of non-citizens. In most states, it is customary for these prisoners to serve their sentences before being deported. California is facing bankruptcy, in part, because it cannot meet the costs of providing for its residents and its uninvited guests simultaneously.

I am not unsympathetic to the plight of immigrants, but I think that it is appropriate for Americans rather than foreign nationals to enact US immigration quotas and laws. As a caller to a talk radio program recently observed if a person is prepared to break various laws to enter the USA illegally and to seek employment without authorization or work eligibility for openers, exactly how many other inconvenient laws will the same person choose to break?

A personal aside: a former friend relocated from Lake County, Illinois to California. The man married a Mexican-American woman and started a family. Sadly, in the last years of his life, he endured many medical problems related to injuries sustained in three separate automobile accidents. The injuries and the resulting complications shortened his life. In all three accidents, this gentleman’s car was struck by vehicles driven by illegal aliens who were driving without automobile insurance. There are numerous laws against this, of course, but how many inconvenient laws will some persons choose to break?

**

Daniel J. Kelley is a regular contributor to “The Chicago Daily Observer.”

3 Comments »

  • Charles Saunders said:

    Mr. Kelley, your observations are, as usual, astute. If you remember, Ike also ordered the 82nd Airborne into Little Rock to defend a Supreme Court decision. He personally and fundamentally disagreed with the High Court’s ruling, but, unlike the current administration, did his duty as Commander in Chief and upheld his Oath of Office.

    In my small county in Northwest Ohio, I repeatedly listened to our Common Pleas Judge discuss how illegal aliens have caused a massive increase in incarceration and defense costs.

    The County Prosecutor says the illegals are going on the “Free Medical Plan” when he does get a conviction.

    As I have stated in earlier comments, the solution is so simple it is scary. 1) Disband I.C.E and use the money for privately funded and properly trained and bonded citizen-bounty hunters and pay them per capture and deportation. 2) Plant anti-personnel mines all over the border. 3) Require proof of Citizenship or proper documentation before entering into any business transaction and severely fine those who ignore the law. 4) Require all Hospitals to notify the local bounty hunter or central registry when an Illegal comes in for “emergency” care.

    Our illegal immigration problem would be cured in less than two years. Many state budgets would be saved.

    This is a crises of National proportion that makes a hurricane, oil slick, or 9/11 pale in comparison. If you erected a monument to every American Citizen killed by an illegal alien, it would surpass the number of individuals killed in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

    Sadly, there is no Walter Cronkite equivalent doing the “evening body count” on the national news regarding Americans murdered or killed recklessly by illegal aliens.

    I fear this is a national nightmare from which we will never awaken and the Anointed One’s administration, Eric Holder, and the minions and peons at I.C.E. are holding the chloroform soaked rag over our collective mouths.

  • Dan Kelley said:

    Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, of “The Not Ready for Prime Time Players,” just fumbled an obvious question during a press conference. Gibbs was unable to explain why the Department of Justice is suing Arizona while it has never challenged any of the “Sanctuary Cities” that routinely refuse to cooperate with the DHS and ICE in terms of reporting the presence of illegal aliens in police custody, for example, in defiance of Federal law.

  • Benito said:

    I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

    I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

    As for the undocumented workers, as was attributed to Ronald Reagan “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. When the economy is good you say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when the economy is down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. This too will pass, the real problem is the narcos, arms and people smugglers and that’s what the focus should be on.

    Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.