Monday

ICE refuses to deport illegal immigrants. Then find someone who will!

If Immigration and Customs enforcement will not deport illegal immigrants then we need to rethink funding them. If ICE administrators feel that deporting those who violate our law to be beyond their scope of authority, then exactly what is it that they do?

This is tantamount to a judge refusing to render a verdict or a McDonald's employee refusing to take your order. ICE has no other real function than to protect our borders and it appears that are refusing to do just that.

Fox News reports the following:
A top Department of Homeland Security official reportedly said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona authorities.

I'm curious how any federal agency can refuse to do that which it was enacted, and funded by taxpayers, to do?

John Morton, assistant secretary of homeland security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, made the comment during a meeting on Wednesday with the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune, the newspaper reports.


"I don't think the Arizona law, or laws like it, are the solution," Morton told the newspaper.


The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, he said, and not a patchwork of state laws.


The problem is that the federal government is too busy pandering to illegal immigrants to take enforcement action against them. Had the federal government been doing their job Arizona's law would have been unnecessary. 

Immigrant rights' supporters around the country took to the streets on May 1 to protest Arizona's new immigration law which seeks to identify, prosecute and deport illegal immigrants. Take a look at the massive protests.
The protests pale in comparison to the popular support for the law; a fact which seems to escape the Obama administration. Elections have results but so does the systemic and egregious disregard of voter will. 


The law, which criminalizes being in the state illegally and requires authorities to check suspects for immigration status, is not "good government," Morton said.

Federal law criminalizes being in the country illegally; Arizona's law mirrors federal.  The Arizona law simply allows local law enforcement to enforce what is already federal law. If Obama sycophants find the Arizona law objectionable they should take a closer look at the federal law upon which it is based.

The outrage against this law is nothing more than political demagoguery at its worst.

In response to Morton's comments, DHS officials said President Obama has ordered the Department of Justice to examine the civil rights and other implications of the law.

The results of the "examination" will be predictable. Arizona lawmakers went through great pains to ensure that the law is constitutional. They even tweaked the language to ensure that there were no ambiguities in the law for opponents to carp over. The law will be found constitutional and Obama and his sycophants will explore administrative avenues to subvert the will of Arizona and her voters. 

Meanwhile our borders remain porous and unprotected. It is simply a matter of time before we are made to pay for that fact with the blood of our citizens.



3 comments:

  1. "I'm curious how any federal agency can refuse to do that which it was enacted, and funded by taxpayers, to do?"

    Southron, this was a very smart post, and kudos to you for asking an important question. But you're in law enforcement, right? So you must be familiar with the fact that not every arrest gets prosecuted. The DA decides whether he wants to prosecute based on the quality of the evidence, whether he thought the arrest was carried out legally and properly, and so on. As a matter of fact, you as a law enforcement officer must be aware that you don't pull someone over and carry out an arrest every single time you see a law broken. It's called "discretion," right? Why is this not just another example of a level of government exercising its discretion? Especially since it's the federal governemtn that has Constitutional authority to regulate borders and enforce immigration laws?

    ReplyDelete
  2. .... damn anonymous above just torched you! are you embarassed?
    I'm curious.. as a republican, is the general consensus that big government is a bad thing? or does it depend on situations, or does it depend whether or not the president at the current time is a democrat? so big government is alright to have the power to pull you over to verify residency, but big government is not alright for health care? doesnt it seems that arizona giving its police the authority to question anyone at any time to view documentation of residency sound more fascist than the health care reform sounding socialist? and should ice deport everyone who violates the law? deportation does not protect the borders, stronger monitoring of the borders protects the borders. and what would happen if someone from canada decides to visit arizona but doesnt have documentation?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let me assure you, Anon #2, that there was no intent to torch, and as far as I can tell, Southron has no reason to be embarrassed. I just thought there was a legitimate question worth raising, and I raised it. Of course I agree with you that "Arizona giving its police the authority to...view documentation of residency sounds more fascist than HRC sounds socialist," but let's be real here---this is America, and the words "fascist" and "socialist" really do not describe any serious American political figures, whether they are Republican or Democrat. Arizona's immigration legislation raises legitimate questions about civil liberties, but calling it fascist obscures important issues and makes it more difficult to reason about the legislation in question.

    ReplyDelete

Be respectful or be deleted. Your choice.