Alabama: “Anti” Immigrant or “Pro” State Survival?
September 29, 2011 - 7:36 pm
Let the media spin begin, following this week’s ruling by a federal judge which allows most of the Alabama Immigration Law to go forward. On Thursday evening’s ABC World News, Diane Sawyer incorrectly referred to the law as the Alabama “Anti-Immigrant” law, which would almost give her viewers the impression that Alabama’s citizens are against people rather than for the economic survival of their state.
ABC talked with sympathetic principals and worried students. One of the students interviewed said “What is the definition on a citizen?” He clearly felt entitled to the benefits of citizenship, and who can blame him? There has been no serious enforcement of immigration law for a very long time, and ICE has refused to properly enforce it.
Strangely, when looking for an official definition of citizenship to offer this student, I found that official government sites such as the IRS still use the term “alien.” I thought we weren’t allowed to use that word anymore:
“You should first determine whether, for income tax purposes, you are a nonresident alien or a resident alien. Figure 1-A will help you make this determination.”
Wikipedia offered a basic definition which appears to require some specific guidelines for qualification as a citizen:
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State Constitution provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the juurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State Wherein they reside.”
Alabama will be attacked relentlessly by the left for enforcing the rule of law, yet no one is stepping up to take responsibility for the situation. These school kids are in this position because no one has been enforcing the immigration laws of this country, nor offering a common sense solution to the problem. Meanwhile, states are expected to absorb the overwhelming costs of support for non-citizens to the tune of $113 billion a year, according to a 2010 study:
The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a
staggering $113 billion a year — an average of $1,117 for every
“native-headed” household in America — according to a study conducted by
the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
In addition to the economic impact, states are encouraged to turn the other way while the less-than-honorable among them break our laws and many are not deported even after breaking the law.
We may or may not agree with the version of enforcement Alabama has chosen, but it is a matter of following the rule of law and presenting the topic of immigration honestly, which MSM anchors like Diane Sawyer apparently choose not to do. You may recall back in May 2010, during the media uproar over the Arizona law, the head of ICE, John Morton, had this to say regarding enforcement:
Morton said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants
referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal
immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of
state laws, he said.
“I don’t think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution,” Morton
But that really isn’t his job, is it? ICE is to enforce law, not pick and choose. The states can’t wait for that “comprehensive federal approach” he advocates because it is not forthcoming.
Not surprisingly, overwhelming us with uncontrolled immigration appears to have been recommended by radicals as far back as the Marxist Frankfurt School (point 5 below). These rules, according to Timothy Matthews from Catholic Insight are:
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
Rather than refuse to follow the laws voted in by the representatives of this land, it seems like the sincere immigrant advocate would be working with shortening the cost and process of becoming a legal citizen rather than attacking those who want our laws enforced.
If the illegal immigration advocates are truly concerned for this segment of the population, why are they not proposing smart, common sense reform that would have a chance of passing? By refusing to address this huge and devastating problem, the federal government is forcing states to take action, yet attacking them when they do. One might think their intent could be to stir up discontent (and votes), not solve the problem nor enforce the law of the land. Maybe those who like to label others as “anti” immigrant should consider being a little more “pro” active in coming up with some real solutions. Any ideas, Diane?