by John Hill
Stand With Arizona
How significant was Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn’s ruling upholding key sections of Alabama’s H.B. 56 immigration law? Well, just ask the New York Times, which flipped out over it in their lead editorial:
A federal judge has upheld most of Alabama’s new immigration law, the nation’s harshest and most radical attempt to harness a state’s power to find and punish illegal immigrants. The consequences for Alabamans will be serious — not just for the undocumented, but for their blameless citizen children, for those who are mistaken for unauthorized immigrants and for farmers and other business owners ensnared in the law.
“Harsh”, “radical”, “find…punish”, “unauthorized immigrants”. Read enough of the Times‘ editorial and you might actually forget that illegal immigration is, well, ILLEGAL.
While the Times is relieved that Judge Blackburn suspended (pending trial) sections making it a crime to “harbor or transport” illegals, barring illegals from public universities, and preventing day laborers from seeking work, they spared no hyperbole to describe the sections she upheld which do no more than uphold Federal immigration laws on the books:
But her mixed ruling was most discouraging for what survived. Judge Blackburn upheld the “papers, please” section, an echo of Arizona’s notorious attempt to require state and local law enforcement officials to check a person’s immigration status during traffic stops if they have “a reasonable suspicion” that someone is here illegally.
She upheld a section that criminalized the “willful failure” of an illegal immigrant to carry federal immigration papers.
Ah, the old “Papers, please” reference to Nazi Germany, suggesting that checking people’s IDs is akin to the Nazis checking “papers” for Jews or political opponents to arrest or otherwise persecute. But what if you are here in the U.S. legally, as a Permanent Resident? Well, you get a “green card” to prove it.
And what is the Federal law for green card holders regarding carrying the ID? It is written right on Form I-797, which all holders receive:
Hmm…what does that say? Let’s take a closer look…
Wow, those evil Nazis at Homeland Security force green card holders carry their “papers” at “all times”! How outrageous! I am expecting a follow-up editorial from the Times decrying this Fascist mandate.
And those are LEGAL immigrants. ILLEGAL aliens typically have NO official ID, unless it was forged or stolen from a legal American (or they have a driver’s license from UT, NM or WA). Yet the Times doesn’t want them to suffer any consequences at all from their unlawful actions.
And how about the Times‘ reference to Arizona’s S.B. 1070 requirement for police to check immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion” as “notorious“. Well I guess the Times must also decry the Supreme Court. Or more specifically – the “Warren Court” of the 1960s – widely regarded as the most liberal in history. That same Court found, 8-1, in “Terry v. Ohio (1968)” that “reasonable suspicion” is constitutional:
…the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime….
And then the Times even finds evil intent in…counting. How so? Well, H.B. 56 includes Alabama’s effort to determine the annual cost to the taxpayers of educating illegal alien children. Why? Because the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates the cost was a staggering $82.5 million in 2007 alone, and Alabama wants to determine the accuracy of this estimate.
It’s kind of hard to figure this out unless you know how many students are not here legally. In other words, you count. Clearly the Judge understood this. But to the Times, it is beyond the pale:
[S]he left untouched a section that requires elementary and secondary schools to collect data on the immigration status of incoming students and their parents, a clearly unlawful attempt to frighten families into keeping their children out of school.
I will await the Times‘ follow-up to explain how counting is “clearly unlawful”. But if families are indeed “frightened”, perhaps it is because they have something to hide: the fact that their very presence in Alabama and the United States in in violation of Federal, and – according to a Federal judge – Alabama law. To leftist, open-borders entities like the New York Times, which has routinely scoffed at immigration laws, any attempt to enforce those laws against “undocumented immigrants” is an evil, racist act.
But to the vast majority of the American people, it is merely the just exercise of the rule of law.
Final thoughts from our hysterical friends:
In the absence of a broad federal reform of immigration laws, states have been trying to outdo one another in such crackdowns. Their zealotry will now be encouraged further, as will the racial-profiling, discrimination and other ills that accompany it.
Just pathetic. Race-baiting, fear-mongering propaganda – right out of the Obama/DNC playbook for 2012. Well, sorry to disappoint you, New York Times, but yes the states will indeed continue to bring forward innovative and fully constitutional legislation to enforce the rule of law where the Federal government has willfully failed. And groups like Stand With Arizona – which is launching a 22-state effort to pass Arizona-style laws through 2012 – and its allies will enjoy bringing you additional fodder for your editorial page in the months to come.
The laws will be enforced. Illegal aliens will leave the states that enforce those laws. We will prevail.
PLEASE CONSIDER A DONATION to Stand With Arizona, to help us continue to fight against illegal alien amnesty and push for Arizona-style enforcement laws nationwide: DONATE link. Thank you.