Obma and Immigration: Yes We Can't

Arizona's recent immigration law creates some interesting dilemmas for the current administration, and for conservatives also. The fact that it brings into question some of the Obama administration's policies, especially its alleged unwillingness to secure the US and Mexican boarder, forces Obama to focus on an area where he is on thin political ice. Furthermore, the immigration debate also impinges upon the foundation of the welfare state. Can we simultaneously grant increasingly large welfare benefits while encouraging the immigration of those who will be given those benefits? Does, "yes we can" apply in these areas? The political nature of the human beast dictates that no government or policy will survive without popular backing. This is the fundamental theorem of politics.

Conservatives back the Arizona law because it attempts to remedy weak enforcement by the federal officials. This (I believe) puts conservatives on the opposite side of the preemption question that usual. Justice Thomas, for instance, believes that federal statutes should not be read with a presumption against preemption. (see Cipollone v. Liggett Group,(1992)). Preemption is the doctrine that states federal law invalidates state and local law on the same subject.

Preemption is a complicated topic. Most conservatives believe that the federal government should be silent on most questions traditionally addressed by our common law. That covers almost everything, but probably not immigration. Courts have not only looked at the state and federal statutes to determine if conflicts exist, but they have also looked at the factual background to determine if there is a state interest that is not being addressed by the federal law, or federal enforcement there of.

That is why lack of federal enforcement is an issue in the present case. That is why BHO recently stated that the boarders are more secure that ever. What that opinion is based upon,or whether that is good enough, he did not say. The U.S. Supreme Court in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 US 497 (1956), stated that there was no state interest to be protected and that the federal government was dealing appropriately with the problem that the laws in question were enacted to address. (In that case the court held that the Federal Alien Sedition act preempted the Pennsylvanian statute.)

Two factors that obviously distinguishing the Pennsylvania and Arizona cases: 1) Arizona is indeed being harmed by illegal aliens who must be provided services at state expense, and 2) in spite of its expenditures, the federal enforcement effort has been ineffective as demonstrated by the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and elsewhere. There are of course other distinguishing factors and other legal arguments in favor of (and against) the Arizona enactment, which time prevents me from discussing here.

Regarding the propaganda surrounding this matter, why did the BHO functionaries and lackeys and their lap dog press proclaim loudly and ad infinatum that the Arizona law was racist then not include civil rights violations claims in their legal arguments ???? Inquiring minds and the junior Senator from Minnesota want to know why they were lying.

Will War Save the Obama Presidency?

The nations of the world are disingenuously venting their indignation toward Israel just as our press is wrongly characterizing the Arizona matter. The negativity directed toward both is unfounded when the facts are actually considered. The Arizona law is no more stringent that the US Code. It calls for enforcement by state police of illegally present foreign nationals, which is nothing that is not already being done. Moreover, the law itself, by its own terms, several times states that racial profiling is not allowed. Anyway, the opponents admit to not even knowing what the law actually says. Neither do the opponents of Israel seem to know what actually happened regarding the boarding of the Turkish ship by Israeli commandos. Israel has been stopping all shipping to the Gaza strip for three years. "Humanitarian aid," which means almost anything short of weapons or terrorists is allowed in.

The captains of these Turkish flagged ships knew that there was a blockade. They were either trying to get contraband in or trying to create an incident. It appears that both motives may have been involved. The worse result would be for Israel to cave to international pressure and stop the blockade, thus allowing their enemies in Gaza to rearm. They may be forced to do just that if the Turkish or some other power's navy protects the next convoy and no power supports Israel.

A strong US foreign policy response is called for. Such as: inform Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Greece, maybe a few others, that the US requests their moral support for Israel in the UN. If not, we should advise them that we intend to withdraw from the UN. We should indeed withdraw if we do not receive some support for the US and Israel.

A great speech opportunity for a senior US diplomat would then arise. He or she could recount, before the UN, the various failings of that organisation over the years and its refusal to support the US at critical junctures. (Our diplomat should attempt to sound like an offended Frenchman as much as possible.) The speech would then briefly touch on the relevant details of the current Israeli incident and the frankly disingenuous response of most of the world. Our diplomat should then gather his notes into his attache case and walk out. Of course the current administration is joining in the unfounded attack on Israel so there is little chance of the proper response. On the other hand, even Obama may see a strong response as the best chance to avoid war. War of course probably saved the FDR presidency but that would not happen for Obama. The nation's voters would recognise that he is the last person, along with his cohorts, to be in office during a serious war.