Get PJ Media on your Apple

Come November, Remember Yesterday’s ‘Temporary Restraining Order’ in Arizona

We all know what the motive behind it was, and it has nothing to do with “human rights” or “splitting up families” or other such poppycock.

by
Pam Meister

Bio

July 28, 2010 - 4:35 pm

Most of the places I go to do serious business here in the U.S. require me to prove who I am. I am required to provide official identification if I want to:

  • Vote
  • Apply for a job
  • Enter a contest
  • Get a driver’s license
  • Apply for a loan or any other type of credit
  • Open a bank account and take money out of said account
  • Write a check for goods and services at various businesses

In fact, when applying for employment, one of the questions almost every employer will ask is if you are eligible to work legally in the U.S., either as a full-fledged citizen or a legal alien with a green card.

The few times I’ve been pulled over by the police for driving infractions, I’ve also been asked to provide not just my driver’s license, but proof of having registered my car and proof of current insurance on that car.

All of these are things that I and other law-abiding citizens do on a routine basis with little fuss or whining. We accept that if we want to live in society, we must have certain laws to keep order, and in order for society to run smoothly, we abide by them. If we don’t, we accept that there will be consequences for our actions.

So I’m frankly astounded that the immigration law in Arizona, which is supposed to go into effect this week, has not only created so much so-called controversy but has prompted the federal government to pursue a lawsuit against the state. And now, a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order that nullifies parts of the law until a full hearing is held.

The parts of the law that have been temporarily suspended are:

  • Requiring immigrants to carry papers with them at all times
  • Allowances for law enforcement to check on one’s legal status while enforcing other laws
  • Making illegal the gathering of illegal aliens in public places to solicit employment

We all know what the score is here. It has nothing to do with “human rights” or “splitting up families” or other such poppycock. It’s about buying votes. Democrats (and a number of RINOs) think that if they appease illegal aliens and their supporters and manage to push amnesty through, then they’ll have secured the votes of millions of people — not to mention locking in the support of the businesses that hire these illegal aliens.

Interestingly enough, the feds now require passports at the borders of Mexico and Canada for everyone, including U.S. citizens, in the interests of security. And the Mexican government — one of the biggest critics of the Arizona law — has immigration laws in place that are just as strict, if not stricter, than Arizona law SB1070. Then again, if it weren’t for the U.S. acting as a pressure valve to help its poorest escape their misery, Mexico would have imploded long ago. Of course it’s in Mexico’s best interests to keep that valve open. It’s a heck of a lot easier than reforming their own corrupt government and pathetic economy.

But Americans want secure borders. And until the federal government decides to actually do something about it rather than pay lip service to taxpaying citizens and legal residents, they support the right of states like Arizona to do the job the federal government won’t. And so while the feds try to curry favor with illegal aliens, who as of yet cannot vote — or so we’re told — they’re in danger of further alienating the rest of us. Andy McCarthy is right:

This decision is going to anger most of the country. The upshot of it is to tell Americans that if they want the immigration laws enforced, they are going to need a president willing to do it, a Congress willing to make clear that the federal government has no interest in preempting state enforcement, and the selection of judges who will not invent novel legal theories to frustrate enforcement. They are not going to get that from the Obama/Reid/Pelosi Democrats.

So what can law-abiding citizens do? At the moment, not much, other than to continue to contact your congressman and senators to tell them what you think. And come November, vote out the incumbents who refuse to put American citizens — the people they purport to serve — first.

Or you could do what Rush Limbaugh suggests: when asked for ID, just say “no hablo Ingles.”

Pam Meister is a freelance writer whose work has appeared in a number of online publications including Big Hollywood, American Thinker, and Family Security Matters.
Click here to view the 101 legacy comments

Comments are closed.