By Douglas V. Gibbs
In a 13-1 vote, the Los Angeles City Council approved sanctions against the State of Arizona by the California City. The boycott is expected to affect $8 million in contracts with Arizona. The move is in response to Arizona's recent immigration law (SB 1070) that allows local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.
Arizona has been under assault by illegal immigration in ways that has crippled the State's business sectors, and has brought Phoenix to the level of being the city in the world with the second highest kidnapping rate. In the hopes to control, and eventually eliminate, the criminal element that accompanies illegal immigration, SB 1070 enables local law enforcement, after making contact with the parties for other infractions, to question regarding immigration status should they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is in the country illegally.
The U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to protect the states from invasion in Article IV, Section 4, and the U.S. Code, Sections 1324 and 1325 considers it a felony to conceal, harbor, or shelter illegal aliens. The Immigration and Naturalization Act, sections 274 and 275 consider illegal entry into the United States without inspection to be a misdemeanor, and repeated illegal entry is a felony. The Immigration and Nationality Act, section 287(g), which was added in 1996, grants local and state jurisdictions the ability to enforce immigration law with proper training and supervision by federal authorities. In 2003, Alabama became the second state in the nation to participate in the program by signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Homeland Security. Florida was the first state to participate, in 2002, and later Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio sent his deputies for training.
The cry by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that the Arizona law is unconstitutional, and illegal, is then a false claim. The argument by Villaraigosa, and other opponents of the Arizona law, is that immigration is a federal authority, and so the states, or municipalities, have no authority to enforce those federal laws. If that was the case, then perhaps the next time a bank is robbed the local law enforcement ought to watch the criminals drive away, claiming they cannot take chase until the FBI arrives. Since federal agencies like the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) exists, does that mean alcohol related crimes are a federal issue as well, and local police cannot pull over drunk drivers without a federal okay? In other words, the argument that states cannot enforce a federal law is not only a foolish one, but the law, as stated in the previous paragraph, has been specifically written to enable local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. If Villaraigosa, and other opponents of the Arizona law, wish to see a list of what the states cannot do, as per the U.S. Constitution, it would be best if they referred to Article I, Section 10, and the numerous amendments.
SB 1070 is actually not a new law, but simply putting in writing what is already the law, and what is expected of all local law enforcement agencies nationwide.
The Los Angeles boycott of Arizona also poses other problems for the California city. Los Angeles is currently struggling through an economic crisis that has the second largest American city on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of liberal leadership. A full boycott of Arizona would force the city to end contracts with Arizona entities for water and power, and would then result in Los Angeles purchasing much of its water and power from more expensive providers. The city, unable to absorb the increased costs would then have to pass on the increase to the citizens who are currently up against a 12% unemployment rate, and already some of the highest utility costs in the nation.
A boycott by Los Angeles of Arizona is not only foolhardy because of the ignorance of the law by the city leaders that have approved this boycott, but because at a time of economic difficulties, the boycott will only worsen Los Angeles' financial outlook.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
L.A. Becomes Largest City to Boycott Arizona - CBS News Los Angeles
In a 13-1 vote, the Los Angeles City Council approved sanctions against the State of Arizona by the California City. The boycott is expected to affect $8 million in contracts with Arizona. The move is in response to Arizona's recent immigration law (SB 1070) that allows local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.
Arizona has been under assault by illegal immigration in ways that has crippled the State's business sectors, and has brought Phoenix to the level of being the city in the world with the second highest kidnapping rate. In the hopes to control, and eventually eliminate, the criminal element that accompanies illegal immigration, SB 1070 enables local law enforcement, after making contact with the parties for other infractions, to question regarding immigration status should they have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is in the country illegally.
The U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to protect the states from invasion in Article IV, Section 4, and the U.S. Code, Sections 1324 and 1325 considers it a felony to conceal, harbor, or shelter illegal aliens. The Immigration and Naturalization Act, sections 274 and 275 consider illegal entry into the United States without inspection to be a misdemeanor, and repeated illegal entry is a felony. The Immigration and Nationality Act, section 287(g), which was added in 1996, grants local and state jurisdictions the ability to enforce immigration law with proper training and supervision by federal authorities. In 2003, Alabama became the second state in the nation to participate in the program by signing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Department of Homeland Security. Florida was the first state to participate, in 2002, and later Arizona's Sheriff Joe Arpaio sent his deputies for training.
The cry by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa that the Arizona law is unconstitutional, and illegal, is then a false claim. The argument by Villaraigosa, and other opponents of the Arizona law, is that immigration is a federal authority, and so the states, or municipalities, have no authority to enforce those federal laws. If that was the case, then perhaps the next time a bank is robbed the local law enforcement ought to watch the criminals drive away, claiming they cannot take chase until the FBI arrives. Since federal agencies like the ATF (Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) exists, does that mean alcohol related crimes are a federal issue as well, and local police cannot pull over drunk drivers without a federal okay? In other words, the argument that states cannot enforce a federal law is not only a foolish one, but the law, as stated in the previous paragraph, has been specifically written to enable local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. If Villaraigosa, and other opponents of the Arizona law, wish to see a list of what the states cannot do, as per the U.S. Constitution, it would be best if they referred to Article I, Section 10, and the numerous amendments.
SB 1070 is actually not a new law, but simply putting in writing what is already the law, and what is expected of all local law enforcement agencies nationwide.
The Los Angeles boycott of Arizona also poses other problems for the California city. Los Angeles is currently struggling through an economic crisis that has the second largest American city on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of liberal leadership. A full boycott of Arizona would force the city to end contracts with Arizona entities for water and power, and would then result in Los Angeles purchasing much of its water and power from more expensive providers. The city, unable to absorb the increased costs would then have to pass on the increase to the citizens who are currently up against a 12% unemployment rate, and already some of the highest utility costs in the nation.
A boycott by Los Angeles of Arizona is not only foolhardy because of the ignorance of the law by the city leaders that have approved this boycott, but because at a time of economic difficulties, the boycott will only worsen Los Angeles' financial outlook.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
L.A. Becomes Largest City to Boycott Arizona - CBS News Los Angeles
No comments:
Post a Comment