The end of U.S. immigration law

[Jeanfromfillmore]

OPINION: The end of U.S. immigration law
Las Vegas Review-Journal May 9, 2010
By Glenn Cook, Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 9--Once you're in, you're in.
And you can invite the rest of your extended family to come along.
That, in the smallest of nutshells, is the new federal immigration policy being demanded by the frothing masses protesting the Arizona law that, we're assured, will create a police state on the other side of Hoover Dam.
The demonstrations against not just the Arizona statute, but Arizonans themselves, as being racist are among the most disingenuous and opportunistic exhibitions in outrage I've ever seen.
And they just might work.
The illegal immigrant lobby, which champions the cause of "comprehensive immigration reform," has been desperate for a bogeyman since the amnesty movement self-destructed four years ago in a parade of foreign flags. They've needed something big to distract the public and the media from their politically toxic, outrageous arguments and list of demands.
Drunken tea partiers waving their guns around a nursery parking lot. Some wealthy Republican donor caught enslaving his maids and gardeners. A videotaped police beat down of a handcuffed immigrant. Anything that could portray illegals as a persecuted class. Anything to marginalize opponents of amnesty -- the majority of American voters, who overwhelmingly support legal immigration -- as anti-immigrant purveyors of hate. Anything to fire up the base.
The Arizona law is nothing remotely Draconian or racist. It's a measured response to the federal government's refusal to enforce existing immigration law, secure our southern border and take some ownership of the social, economic and criminal problems caused by the half-million illegals who now call the Grand Canyon State home. Years of escalating drug cartel violence were the final straw for Arizonans.
The statute makes federal immigration crimes -- being in the country illegally, resident aliens not carrying documentation of their immigration status -- state crimes. It gives Arizona police officers the authority to question someone about their immigration status, but only during a "lawful contact" such as a traffic stop, and only if the officer has "reasonable suspicion." Officers can't use "race, color or national origin" as the sole reason to request proof of legal residency.
A primary seat belt law is a greater invitation for racial profiling than this statute, which has yet to take effect.
But the opportunity to condemn an entire state as a Nazi colony was too good to pass up. Hey, the Rev. Al Sharpton doesn't get in the game if he can't call someone a racist.
They're demanding that Congress act immediately. And as long as they can keep their marches and scare tactics at the top of the news, they won't have to say what it is that they want: A free pass for illegals to remain here for the rest of their lives, a process to give these lawbreakers citizenship, visas for the family members they left behind and no additional steps to secure the Mexican border.
But in attacking the Arizona law, they've revealed an underlying belief that immigration law is unenforceable in the United States. If you press the issue with them, they'll argue that the Bill of Rights makes determining the immigration status of anyone already within our borders an unconstitutional infringement of civil liberties.
Outside of being captured illegally crossing the border in the desert, or being lawfully detained at an official customs checkpoint, the reasoning goes, there is no constitutional way to investigate and identify the millions of illegals among us.
Once you're in, you're in.
We can't ask for proof of citizenship or immigration status when illegals enroll their children in our schools or use our emergency rooms for free health care.
They can actually get help signing up for welfare benefits and social services, with translators and Spanish documents available.
But we can't determine whether they're here illegally. So we need to make them legal.
The hypocrisy of the pro-amnesty crowd is staggering. They claim that as part of "comprehensive immigration reform," illegals will have to learn English. Set aside the logistics and taxpayer expense of verifying that more than 10 million illegal immigrants are proficient in the English language. It's a clear acknowledgement from their political sponsors that the vast majority of illegals have little to no English skills, and that it's a problem.
Given that acknowledgement, under Arizona's new law, it should be acceptable for a police officer to question a suspect about his immigration status if he doesn't speak English, right?
Wrong. The anti-Arizona protesters say a lack of English skills are not enough to justify "reasonable suspicion" that a suspect might be in the country illegally -- even though our soon-to-be forgiven illegals need to learn English.
The "comprehensive" plan also requires illegals to undergo criminal background checks. Yet the same people who support these background checks oppose the federal 287(g) program, which trains state and local police to identify illegal immigrants among those already jailed in connection with other crimes. That partnership -- you guessed it -- leads to racial and ethnic profiling, we're told.
So law-abiding illegals will get their background checks, and the criminals will avoid them, knowing we can't even apply immigration law in our jails.
Look past the phony shrieks of protest against Arizona and the political cover they're intended to provide and focus on the bigger picture. Democrats are trying to secure a future voting bloc. To do that, they're willing to give illegals everything for nothing. They're willing to end immigration law as we know it.
We are on the cusp of becoming the only developed nation in the world to totally abandon sovereignty.
Once you're in, you're in.
Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is a Review-Journal editorial writer.
http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/news....ryid=144730938