Furthermore, as many patriots have noted, the Obama Administration has decided unilaterally not to enforce our existing immigration laws by refusing to deport any but proven felons who are here illegally.
Of course, the Washington Post’s headline demonstrated its continuing bias against patriotic immigration reform when author Robert Barnes’ story reads, “Supreme Court to hear challenge of Arizona’s restrictive immigration law” (by Robert Barnes, December 11, 2011):
“Arizona told the justices in asking them to accept the case that the border state was feeling the brunt of a ‘broken’ immigration system, and that its law was intended to cooperate with federal laws to control illegal immigration, not to usurp the federal government’s power."
The story continues:
But the US Justice Department claims that enforcing existing US immigration laws by the States is illegal. (Go figure!) So, in its zeal to continue to un-enforce existing US immigration law with 12 (?) million illegal aliens here already,
“…has filed suit against similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah, and said it is reviewing laws in Georgia and Indiana that have been challenged by private groups and individuals.’
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. ‘told the justices that they should wait for some of those suits to work their way through the courts.
In addition to taking different approaches to the subjects the Arizona law addresses, the other laws address different issues such as housing, contracting, education and transportation Verrilli said.
‘There’s no reason to think that reviewing this [Arizona] preliminary injunction would resolve those cases.”
Thankfully, many dispute the Justice Department’s actions. And this Supreme Court decision to hear the case may well be good news for American citizens.
Not surprising, in a public relations effort to tamp down the anger at not enforcing existing laws, WAPO buys into the Obama story based on what it describes as
“a record-breaking pace to deport unlawful immigrants. About 1.2 million illegal immigrants have been deported in the first three years of the administration, compared to 1.57 million during all eight years of President George W. Bush’s administration. And the number of those entering the country illegally has fallen dramatically.”
Of course, VDARE.com writers have shown (here and here) that this “record-breaking pace” of deportation is a myth. In fact, the Obama Administration has barely maintains the pace set at the end of the Bush Administration. And the 8.6% unemployment figures and the Great Recession which seems likely to continue as far as the eye can see—certainly through the upcoming election year—offer ample reasons for the temporary slow-down in our long standing immigration invasion. The invasion is not over, just pausing. We still now have more foreign-born people in our nation than ever in its history. (38.5 million, according to the Census.)
Naturally, WAPO’s Barnes uses an ethnic twist to make us think this is a racial issue:
“But that doesn’t mean the issue has cooled politically. And the decision of additional states to become tougher on illegal immigrants has contrasted with the rising number of Hispanic voters, whom studies show are far more likely to oppose the tougher restrictions than whites.”
Please! This is not a racial issue, never has been. It is a question of “immigration overload”, enforcing laws which exist to protect American citizens, and making immigration choices that benefit American citizens——not special interests who have fought for decades to import cheap labor at taxpayer expense.
Most thinking Americans understand this, but now this majority of American citizens wait with interest to see if the Supreme Court understands it too. Is this the last appeal we can make for continuation of our precious Rule of Law?
So now go follow: The case is Arizona v. United States.
Donald A. Collins [email him], is a free lance writer living in Washington, DC, and is Co-Chair of the National Advisory Board of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). However, his views are his own.