From Jack Hunter: http://www.amconmag.com/tactv/2010/04/27/praising-arizona/
Over the weekend, thousands of protesters gathered in Phoenix to speak out against newly enacted legislation designed to address illegal immigration in Arizona. Many specifically focused on what they called an unprecedented and oppressive mandate that would allow law enforcement to check suspects’ citizenship status. Yet, unlike the Tea Partiers, this time the media, many politicians and even the President seemed to side with the protesters. Speaking at a White House naturalization ceremony, Obama said “the recent efforts in Arizona… threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Referring to the legislation again, the president noted, “Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others.”
So, according to Obama, forcing citizens to purchase health insurance or risk a paying stiff fine is justified and even a moral good, yet trying to determine whether non-citizens are indeed such, undermines “basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans” even for non-Americans?
Obama calls Arizona’s recent efforts “irresponsible,” but to his credit notes the “failure to act responsibly at the federal level.” Failure indeed. Constitutionally, border enforcement and regulation of citizenship is a federal responsibility, something even the president acknowledges. What could be more “irresponsible” than government’s failure to keep an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens from entering the country, something the Feds not only continue to ignore but encourage with promises of amnesty? In a state where an estimated 600,000 illegal aliens operate undisturbed, what correctives is Arizona supposed to pursue? Is it not laughable that federal officials would now insist that citizenship issues are not in a state’s legal purview?
If anything, the Arizona situation outlines the wide chasm between the desires of the ruling class and the average citizen. Advocates of Obamacare say the Tea Partiers are overreacting, while Arizona officials claim the president and others are overreacting to this new legislation, which probably says more about each group’s concept of the common good than even the gravity of the issues at hand. If the average citizen cries out against what he perceives as oppressive and unconstitutional legislation, like government mandated healthcare, media and political elites automatically dismiss his grievance as irrelevant or misguided. If a non-citizen, or those sympathetic to their plight, cries out against what he perceives as unconstitutional or oppressive legislation, like in Arizona, the media and political elite automatically consider that grievance justified, always seeing practical political questions through the lens of race, identity and “social justice,” and not simply the Constitution or rule of law. For elites, their concept of the common good is typically whatever Washington, DC lawmakers deem “good,” the Constitution or rule of law be damned.
Obama admits the “failure to act responsibly at the federal level” on immigration, and yet does anyone believe he or anyone else in Washington, DC was about to take responsibility for it? In fact quite the opposite, as many believe Obama and his party are set to use the Arizona controversy to pick up where George W. Bush left off on “comprehensive immigration reform,” or amnesty. There are perhaps many different, better solutions in addressing illegal immigration, where finally securing the border, ending welfare, free education and mandatory medical care for illegal aliens or getting rid of so-called “anchor baby citizenship” could result in more effective solutions. But who is actively pursuing such solutions? And perfect or imperfect, effective or not, I find it hard to blame Arizona for doing a job the federal government won’t do.