Are we a nation of laws or a nation of situational ethics?
You've got to wonder given the reaction on both sides of the fence to Arizona's law requiring police officers to demand proof of citizenship of anyone they come in contact with while doing their jobs that they suspect might be an illegal immigrant.
First, the pro-law folks who hang their hat on no law-abiding person should be offended because police ask for ID to prove their citizenship. That's true - to a degree. Police routinely ask for ID although not in all encounters with alleged lawbreakers. The problem comes with who will actually be asked to produce such ID more often than not. Rest assured it won't be light-skinned people without an accent who may very well be here illegally from Canada. It essentially encourages racial profiling that will catch a lot of American citizens in its net which of course shouldn't offend them according to backers of the law. That's easy to say if you're not the one repeatedly targeted.
Yes, police must have cause but as any law enforcement officer tell you there are tons of things that can justify stopping someone such as a minor traffic infraction. The fair question is simple: Would those who look like Hispanics or those who are non-Hispanic be pulled over more for small infractions? No matter how you color it, it would smack of racial profiling.
That said, there is no moral high ground for those who are howling foul over the intent of the Arizona law which is to arrest and deport illegal immigrants.
The operative word here is "illegal." You can huff and puff all you want about Americans being too lazy to do some jobs, how illegals strengthen the economy, and how they are for the most part not engaged in criminal activities. That isn't the point. They are here illegally and are breaking our laws.
Simply put, they have no legal right to be in the United States. Even so, many who are aghast at the Arizona law are using it to launch a campaign to grant blanket citizenship to millions upon millions of illegals now in this country.
If they want to become citizens of the United States, they can do it the right way and immigrate here legally and then take the citizenship test which, by the way, requires them to understand English to take it.
To address the problem of illegal immigrants, no new laws are needed especially those that cross the line of a basic American principle. What is needed is vigorous enforcement of federal requirements that local jurisdictions comply 100 percent with reporting undocumented immigrants to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).
Jurisdictions such as San Francisco that are self-proclaimed sanctuary cities have policies in place that thumb their noses at federal requirements. San Francisco's policy is to report only suspects in felony cases that are illegal residents of this country.
San Francisco thought it was unfair for those illegal immigrants picked up for misdemeanors to be deported.
What is unfair about it? One of the most basic laws is illegal entry into a sovereign nation. Being an illegal immigrant isn't a traffic violation; it is a serious crime. They do not have legal permission to be in this country.
In reality probably only felons and repeat offenders will be picked up by ICE and put through the deportation process thanks to staffing constraints.
Still, it is not reasonable for a city to undermine federal law when it comes to granting amnesty, as it were, to low-level criminals who also happen to be illegal immigrants.
If Congress wants real reform they will provide the adequate manpower ICE needs to enforce the most basic laws that a nation as a whole can have which is, namely, to manage the flow of immigrants.
While understanding why many may try to sneak into America for a better life, starting off your tenure in this county by a criminal act - which is exactly what an immigrant here illegally is committing - certainly is not a solid demonstration of your worthiness to be accepted legally as an American citizen.
You've got to wonder given the reaction on both sides of the fence to Arizona's law requiring police officers to demand proof of citizenship of anyone they come in contact with while doing their jobs that they suspect might be an illegal immigrant.
First, the pro-law folks who hang their hat on no law-abiding person should be offended because police ask for ID to prove their citizenship. That's true - to a degree. Police routinely ask for ID although not in all encounters with alleged lawbreakers. The problem comes with who will actually be asked to produce such ID more often than not. Rest assured it won't be light-skinned people without an accent who may very well be here illegally from Canada. It essentially encourages racial profiling that will catch a lot of American citizens in its net which of course shouldn't offend them according to backers of the law. That's easy to say if you're not the one repeatedly targeted.
Yes, police must have cause but as any law enforcement officer tell you there are tons of things that can justify stopping someone such as a minor traffic infraction. The fair question is simple: Would those who look like Hispanics or those who are non-Hispanic be pulled over more for small infractions? No matter how you color it, it would smack of racial profiling.
That said, there is no moral high ground for those who are howling foul over the intent of the Arizona law which is to arrest and deport illegal immigrants.
The operative word here is "illegal." You can huff and puff all you want about Americans being too lazy to do some jobs, how illegals strengthen the economy, and how they are for the most part not engaged in criminal activities. That isn't the point. They are here illegally and are breaking our laws.
Simply put, they have no legal right to be in the United States. Even so, many who are aghast at the Arizona law are using it to launch a campaign to grant blanket citizenship to millions upon millions of illegals now in this country.
If they want to become citizens of the United States, they can do it the right way and immigrate here legally and then take the citizenship test which, by the way, requires them to understand English to take it.
To address the problem of illegal immigrants, no new laws are needed especially those that cross the line of a basic American principle. What is needed is vigorous enforcement of federal requirements that local jurisdictions comply 100 percent with reporting undocumented immigrants to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).
Jurisdictions such as San Francisco that are self-proclaimed sanctuary cities have policies in place that thumb their noses at federal requirements. San Francisco's policy is to report only suspects in felony cases that are illegal residents of this country.
San Francisco thought it was unfair for those illegal immigrants picked up for misdemeanors to be deported.
What is unfair about it? One of the most basic laws is illegal entry into a sovereign nation. Being an illegal immigrant isn't a traffic violation; it is a serious crime. They do not have legal permission to be in this country.
In reality probably only felons and repeat offenders will be picked up by ICE and put through the deportation process thanks to staffing constraints.
Still, it is not reasonable for a city to undermine federal law when it comes to granting amnesty, as it were, to low-level criminals who also happen to be illegal immigrants.
If Congress wants real reform they will provide the adequate manpower ICE needs to enforce the most basic laws that a nation as a whole can have which is, namely, to manage the flow of immigrants.
While understanding why many may try to sneak into America for a better life, starting off your tenure in this county by a criminal act - which is exactly what an immigrant here illegally is committing - certainly is not a solid demonstration of your worthiness to be accepted legally as an American citizen.
