Enemy of the State, Part I

Arizona’s New Shootout at the O.K. Corral

Rare is the occasion when an elected official appears willing to be tossed out of office because he or she has taken a position on a particular issue, that is unpopular or cuts against the mainstream political current. It is, therefore, rather refreshing to see Jan Brewer, Governor of the embattled State of Arizona put it all on the line for the lawfully passed Immigration Bill SB-1070, which calls for cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws. Brewer, and a majority of the State Legislature, has committed to doing the will of the people of Arizona: “to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”

If the resulting furor over this act is any indication of the price these individuals would pay at the ballot box, upcoming elections in Arizona could set the stage for national debate on this issue.

I am reminded of the words of Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who, in Federalist # 52 stated as follows: [elected office is open to all citizens] “whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.” They further called for frequent election of fresh representatives who are expected to “have a common interest with the people” whom they represent. Most would agree that Hamilton, Madison and their contemporaries never intended for elected representatives [at any level] to aspire to life-tenure in office. The Arizona contingent appears to have taken this message to heart.

Spurred on by the Federal Government’s refusal to enforce existing immigration law, the Arizona Legislature exercised, what could be deemed a last resort option: passage of laws to compensate for shortfalls in Federal enforcement, at the potential loss of their jobs.

While enforcement of immigration laws fall under Federal jurisdiction, Arizona was compelled to take appropriate action in the face of growing violence and an ever growing drain on its law enforcement and other resources.

Whether you agree or disagree with Arizona’s decision to pass SB-1070, one thing is indisputable: the immigration debate is far from over. In fact, immigration issues are certain to play a major role in upcoming midterm elections as well as the 2012 presidential election. The president’s decision to pursue legal action against Arizona sets the stage for a constitutional battle over states’ rights. Furthermore, the Administration’s actions have unleashed the hounds of racial tension, the likes of which we have never seen before.

In previous articles I have commented on the intensification of racial tensions since Mr. Obama’s election. Mr. Obama’s public denouncement of the new law, and his subsequent comments and actions served only to embolden agitators who would like nothing more than to stir-up racial conflict. Contrary to the pronouncements of its opponents, SB-1070 is not an anti-immigration law, nor is it an anti Mexican law; in fact, this law would pave the way for improved legal immigration from Mexico. This country is built on immigrant culture, albeit, legal immigration. End part 1