Liberal Reforms

(eastex.net)
(eastex.net)

By: Wayne Brown

The recent debacle stemming from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico brought the issue of States Rights once again to the forefront of discussion. Most Americans do not see it as such but this is really the basis for the conflict which ensued during this disaster. In this case, each state had some idea how they wanted to handle the problems which the oil spill was causing for their coast line. These concerns ran the gambit from environment issues to the financial damage threatened by a drastic decrease in tourism.

Each state moved on their own to remedy these concerns and in most of the cases eventually ran afoul of the Federal Government and the control that it tends to exercise through tentacles associated with environment, international borders and waters, and the use of the Jones Act. States argued their individual dilemma only to be frustrated by the barring of their actions and further enraged by a slow reaction on the part of the Federal Government to act at all.

The same may be said for the immigration situation currently playing out in Arizona and for that matter, playing out to some extent in all border states. Although the southern borders between the USA and Mexico have always been somewhat poreous, the grave consequences of 9/11 along with the increase in drug wars, drug and human trafficking, and the general flow of criminal elements have driven the Arizona situation to a level which the citizens of the state can no longer bear.

Officials of the State of Arizona felt compelled to address the issue and have attempted to do so by enacting a state law for enforcement that shadows the laws set forth to be enforced by the Federal Government. The bottom-line in this situation is that although there are Federal Laws on the books to enforce, the Federal Government is not putting the finances or potential resources behind those laws that would allow an efficient enforcement process.

The Obama Administration has further elected to stop all work associated with building border fences and has eased pressures on inspecting potential employers of illegal immigrants by almost 75% since taking office. From the Federal perspective, it’s business as usual along the southern border of Arizona.

Thus we have a “State’s Right” debate in that the Federal Government claims responsibility for securing the borders via the United States Constitution and Arizona points out that the Federal Government is failing at that enforcement. Essentially, the Federal Government is thumbing its nose at Arizona while at the same time attempting to compel the state to do nothing with regard to immigration enforcement. The Governor of Arizona has requested use of the National Guard on a scale that would raise the potential security of the border. The Obama Administration initially indicated that it would provide 1200 National Guard troops to assist and then eventually only provided approximately half that commitment on a gradual growth to strength basis. Ultimately, Arizona sees the response as too little too late.

Other states watch this debate closely. Some states such as California and New Mexico have already made their position clear on the issue and have for all practical purposes sided with the Federal Government’s position. For New Mexico, this is a rather easy position to take but California is reeling in potential government bankruptcy from the impact of illegal immigration and the weight of overloaded social programs thus their decision is not seen as a rational one.

 Arizona is seeing boycott pressures applied by various states and organizations bent on leverage the state’s acceptance of the Federal position. Arizona is spending heavily out of state coffers to fund efforts to deal with the impact of illegal immigration while at the same time spending even more state money to fight the debate over essential a “States Rights” issue in the Federal Court system.

By taking a look back through history, the situation as it stands in Arizona will likely follow the road that other arguments in “States Rights” have followed. The most recent of course, and the one that associates most closely with the illegal immigration issue is that of civil rights battles that occurred in the 1960’s and 70’s. These confrontations between state and federal governments revolved around the issue of segregation but ultimately played against the back drop of “States Rights”.

 As we see from history, in almost every case the court system sided with the Federal Government overriding the states claims and enforcement. Much of this outcome can be credited to the scope of control given the Federal Government under Article 10 of the Constitution thus some on the courts see the outcome as predetermined by the Constitution. This certainly appears to be a strong general argument but does not answer the query as to what states should and can do when the Federal Government fails to act effectively.

It is one thing to look at the issue of “States Rights” as it pertains to the facts of law and the rule of law within the structure of this union. It is quite another to look at it from a political perspective and one of leverage in terms of crafting and enacting legislation which favors the outcome desired by particular political groups.

In the case of the Gulf oil spill, the actions of the Federal Government and those elected to direct them played heavily to the environmental and union lobbies of the country. There was no attempt whatsoever to relax environmental enforcements or to ease laws such as the Jones Act in light of damage that might be far greater in potential than the enforcement of these standards. Laws are designed to protect people, not tie their hands in times of disaster.

In the case of Arizona, the political fallout rest on the division between those wanting “comprehensive immigration reform", as desired by the Obama Administration, and those who are in favor of establishing border security first, which is a majority of the American people by statistical sampling. In a rational world, one might think that the Federal Government would see that the majority desires a secure border and take actions in that direction. That does not seem to be the desire or direction of the Obama Administration as it uses the promise of border security as a leverage to achieve “comprehensive immigration reform”, whatever that is under their definition.

The Obama Administration attempts to point out to the citizens of America that it is impossible to secure the border without first getting the reforms that are necessary in place. Now, what might those reforms actually be? No one seems to really be able to explain that aspect nor how it ties into currently securing our southern border. There is certainly political advantage in seeking reform in that at the very least reform offers a promise of “deferred adjudication” to the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants already in this country at best estimates. It potentially offers a larger voting block that could very easily be swayed to the liberal leaning as this is the side that is seen as looking out for their “rights” whatever that might be.

Reform indicates that things need to be changed. Let’s see, we have immigration laws that spell out the path to citizenship and the requirements to legally become a citizen of the USA. But, wait, they might be too tough and require people to learn about English and its use; to pledge allegiance to the flag and the country; to desire citizenship and association with the principles and desires of true Americans. No doubt, much too difficult in light of the need to stuff ballot boxes with a liberal block of votes. Reform is a transparency that is not going to serve the Obama Administration well with any rational thinker in this country.

In the end, the liberal sect of America and the Obama Administration per se sees a sliding voter base with many dangers lurking. Black America is beginning to gain an economic foothold in this country. Many black Americans are not longer accepting “group think” or reacting to “racial baiting” in their actions at the voters booth. They, like most other Americans, are beginning to see the tax and spend ideology and the growing socialism associated with the liberal left in this country. They are intelligently exercising their own intelligence at the polls and slowly moving to a more conservative voting block in the USA.

In truth, the liberal left must have a new “voting block” of poor, uninformed, and down-trodden people in this country on which they can depend to continue their efforts in taking America to its “socialist destiny”. The immigration issue along our southern borders play to that need like 3-4 musical time plays to a good waltz. Obama and company will continue efforts to resist border security and to gain reform with this outcome in mind.

Herein lies the problem and “States Rights” is just an unfortunate irritant to the inevitable outcome in Obama’s mind and in the minds of many currently serving in our Congress who depend heavily on the liberal left voting block. This effort to establish Federal Supremacy in every walk of life in America will increase and increase and increase as long as there exists a broad enough liberal voting block to keep these people in office to pursue their socialist agendas. America has a line drawn in the sand down in Arizona. Which side of it will you stand on?

 

© Copyright WBrown2010. All Rights Reserved.

 

More by this Author


Comments 24 comments

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 6 years ago

I stand with Arizona. I am appalled that the federal government would sue a state. The government should be knocking themselves out securing our border. That is paramount.


Pamela99 profile image

Pamela99 6 years ago from United States

Wayne, You made several good points in your hub as the political climate is changing with regard to blacks and it is obvious what motivates Obama to legalize all these illegals. States rights should be respected and I am all for Arizona.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@BPop...me too, Poppy! This should be a "joint-effort" not a fight! Let's get a President who knows how to unite people in a common cause for liberty, justice, and the American Way! WB

@Pamela99...Thanks, Pam...We need to be with Arizona as it may be our state in the barrel next! The last time I checked this was not suppose to be a nation run by appointed czars! I want to keep it that way! WB


Tom Whitworth profile image

Tom Whitworth 6 years ago from Moundsville, WV

Wayne I stand with Arizona!!! I'm even making a concerted effort to buy products produced in Arizona, like a reverse boycott. These immigrants must assimilate like others have done all through our history.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

Arizona !! yes

Border security and immigration are too separate issues and Security is National Defense.

Drug Cartels and Terrorists have free entry into and out of the country.

We need a 24/7 fully armed military and we need not forget how easy it was for the bad guys on 911.

IN this years election we need to know what the candidates will do for our country, and especially our borders.

~:}


eovery profile image

eovery 6 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

The way I see it, BO cannot let the states have control of anything, or he will start losing control. Socialism does not allows other control.

Keep on hubbing!


TimBryce 6 years ago

Wayne -

Good hub. This is why many states recently reaffirmed the sovereignty of their states, including Palin who did it before she left office in Alaska.

All the Best,

Tim


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@Tom Whitworth...Right on Tom! The President says that Arizona having a law will simply set off a patchwork of immigration laws throughout the country. I do see that occurring if we secure our border...there would be no need. If he has a problem with the laws, then where is his problem with "sanctuary cities"? Thanks, Tom! WB

@OpinionDuck...You are exactly correct on that point. They are two separate and distinct issues and should be approached in that manner with border security coming first and foremost! Thanks Duck! WB

@eovery....Bingo! That's the way I see it too...Control, Control, Control! Thanks for the comments. WB

@TimBryce...good to see you out and about Tim. Thanks for the read and the comments. I hope the states keep affirming their pledge in the future! WB


GojiJuiceGoodness profile image

GojiJuiceGoodness 6 years ago from Roanoke, Virginia

Well, I didn't know that about clean up efforts & the feds messing it all up, but I'm not surprised. State rights is really want we need to fix America--it would take care of immigration laws in AZ, the health care bill and a host of other issues.

I wonder what American would look like now if the South had won the Civil War? (The war was fought over state rights, not slavery) Would we have our state rights now? Makes you think about it...


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@GojiJuiceGoodness...it's hard to say what things would look like...even if we were still around. In some ways, I wonder if it would look any different, afterall, we would still have politicians! There are certainly some issues that defy States Rights and most of those are rooted in asking whether the impact is a national one or whether the impact is more associated with the people of that particular state and those like it. In the case of immigration across the southern border, Arizona seems approximately one-half of all illegal immigration experienced. On that basis, I would think they have a strong argument for the case they have made for enforcing immigration laws. As with anything, States Rights can certainly be abused. Slavery would certainly not be an issue that most folks these days would want a state to take to task as the basis for applying States Rights. At the same time, considering the times, there were certainly people in that era who strongly believed that it was the states right to secede from the union regardless of the issue surrounding the succession. We have grown as a country since that time and our interdependence across states has grown as well. The isolation of economics is not so prevalent as it may have been in the Civil War era with an industrial North and an agricultural South. On the basis of what has happen in the world from 9/11 on, I would think every state in the union would desire that we have secure borders regardless of what stand we elect to take on illegal immigrants. These are two separate and distinct issues which the Obama Administration is bent on using as one calling for reform before security. Reform currently has no factual definition and represents a wid-open potential for outcome. There are no "magic aspects" of reform that will secure our border any better or any faster than we currently have the capability to do. In fact, there is a much greater threat of increasing illegal traffic across the border with the talk of amnesty, etc. as a part of any proposed reforms. We have laws on the books regarding immigration that need to be enforced first in their current format. We have procedures in place to qualify and become a citizen of this country. These steps help to guarantee that a person truly desires to be a citizen of this country thus they have a level of difficulty to achieve and represent far more than just a desire to be here. If we are to maintain our "culture" with a value for liberty then we must guard against "diluting" our population with people who care little for our values and are more than willing to vote for those who make it the easiest for them to be here. There is great danger there in many ways. Consider all these things then add the potential for terrorist acts on top of that and border security quickly becomes the #1 priority. Thanks for the comment! WB


C.A. Johnson profile image

C.A. Johnson 6 years ago from South Hutchinson, KS

Did you know that there has been a federal law in place for decades to allow only 114,200 people to become US citizens per year? The law was put in place to control population and protect the social structures throughout the country.By allowing and encouraging the mass immigration from our southern border, the government has violated this law several times over not to mention the side effects that come along with the people. Most other countries have not eradicated the diseases and infestations that America has solved and as such re-introduce these negative effects into our schools, hospitals, churches, and other public areas. They talk about how the American population could not exist without immigration and hold up examples of immigrants that have added to our economy such as the founders of Google and Ebay but fail to mention that these people came into the country legally and chose to stay obtaining their citizenship. The federal government also fails to recognize that the jobs being taken by illegal immigrants are the ones belonging to the blue collar working class who possess a high school education or less. These are your construction laborers, maids, mechanics,short order cooks, etc. Since illegal immigration has become uncontrolled, the average native born person with minimal education has been displaced in the workforce to the tune of 1.6 million jobs per year in effect helping with the elimination of our middle class.

Oh, and just in case the government has forgotten, illegals are not entitled to vote in this country despite the fact that it is overlooked in the polls and often ignored. But doing and end run with amnesty will take care of that,wouldn't it? As for which side am I on? Well, sealing the borders and resolving internal issues would not be low on my priority list. I believe that Arizona is in the right.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@C.A. Johnson...I did not know there was a cap...well I guess I assumed there was but never remembered seeing the figure. Now that starts to make sense as to why Obama and company would like to push through a "delay adjudication" reform without Congress voting on any of it under the name of "National Security". That is about as far out on the edge of idiocy as I have seen in a while. You should write a hub from this angle as it would be quite informative and much appreciate I am sure. Thanks for the great comments! WB


sheila b. profile image

sheila b. 6 years ago

Just this morning I read a headline on Drudge: AZ Sheriff - our own government has become our enemy. That's bad.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@sheila b....I think that is a reasonable assumption. I am digging a bit in Chicago politics to see what relationship surface on Obama...I have already scared myself deeply. This guy and all he associates with are bad news in the first degree. I cannot believe he could get elected. Hilary Clinton could not believe it! WB


dabeaner profile image

dabeaner 6 years ago from Nibiru

There is a lot that states could do to curb Federal authority. But the problem is that the major state politicians suck up, in general, to the Federales, because those state politicians have national ambitions.

People also say the states have to suck up because of the Federal money coming in. States COULD protect their citizens and businesses against the Federal Income tax, then say screw the Federal money.

Also, some time ago, I read that the County Sheriffs are the ultimate authority in a county, and that they have to power to boot the Federales out, PHYSICALLY. Not gonna happen though.

So, just make sure you carry a jar of Vaseline and hope they grant a little mercy and use it while they have their way with you.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@dabeaner...You paint a rather vivid and likely accurate picture of the relationship of politics in the process. "Go along and get along but keep a jar of Vaseline hand!" sounds like good advice! Thanks for your comments! WB


tony0724 profile image

tony0724 6 years ago from san diego calif

Wayne this was a really good comprehensive hub here. And states rights are playing out like never before. Aside from social programs public employee unions are crippling the California economy and budget too. I listen to this on the local talk radio programs daily here. And I find it to be no surprise that the SEIU bused in a bunch of union thugs to Arizona from California to bully the pro Arizona contingent. And I hope Virginia wins their lawsuit against Obamacare too. A judge yesterday would not throw out the suit even though the Feds requested it and Virginia has an outside shot of winning. Let's face the facts , the citizenry of the nation is slowly but surely starting an all out revolt against Government and quite frankly this administration has earned that !


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@Tony0724...Thanks much Tony for the read and the comments. If we can see Obamacare soundly defeated and see Arizona's law survive the court system, it might dull the efforts of the Feds to continue this onslaught. In my lifetime, I have never seen a more enraged public in America...far worse that the media displays I think. I hope they stay enraged so changes can be made in November that will stymie this administration's agenda on pushing socialist issues. We definitely have a cancer on the Presidency. Thanks. WB


GojiJuiceGoodness profile image

GojiJuiceGoodness 6 years ago from Roanoke, Virginia

@Wayne Brown--I'm certainly not for slavery! However, I side with the South. It's interesting to note that Gen. Lee, although in the South, freed his slaves. I think that regardless of whether North or South had won the war, we'd still be dealing with issues in America today--the world isn't perfect & so there will always be problems. Like you said, we've still got politicians! I won't pretend the South had perfect leaders. Davis wasn't the best president--he made plenty of mistakes & Gen. Johnson had problems with actually fighting/moving his army in a timely manner. Gen. Lee had a tendency to not exercise military discipline, especially with his generals.

Enforcing our immigration laws is really what we need to do, that I agree with 100%! I saw these two articles on FoxNews last night, which is very encouraging.

Judge Permits Virginia Health Care Law Suit to Continue

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/02/judge-p...

Virginia AG Rules Officers Can Check Immigration Status

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/02/virgini...

Virginia stands with Arizona on immigration & I think many states in the Union do!


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@GojiJuiceGoodness...Yes, I grew up in the deep south and also have an appreciation for the southern perspective beyond the aspect of slavery in the Civil War. In fact, multiple generations of General Albert Sidney Johnston lived just down the street from my parent's home. At the time, I was too young and uninformed to appreciate it much. I saw those same stories on Fox last night as well. They were encouraging stories in an otherwise dismal setting in the country. I hope these folks can prevail and turn things in a different direction. Thanks for the read and the good comments! WB


CornerStone51 profile image

CornerStone51 6 years ago from Mifflintown, PA

I stand with Arizona and with the states that have the suit against the Health Care reform bill charging that it is unconstitutional. And I am a GRIT...Girl Raised in Texas! I am proud of my Texas and Southern heritage. I am an American by birth and a Texan by the grace of GOD!!! Loved you hub Wayne!

And that picture is priceless!

Gayle


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

I knew that you were a GRIT! Texas women are fiesty and stand their ground real good! That was a great picture of Obama. One that really says a lot about who he is I am afraid. Arizona may be our modern day Alamo. Thanks much for the read and your comment! WB


outdoorsguy profile image

outdoorsguy 6 years ago from Tenn

one of the things that can be done, but hasnt every state that should recall their senators. who by the constitution are supposed to represent the State not the people. if a bill is up for a vote and a state is against it and their state senator decides his opinion is better than his states. the state should call him back home and make him sit there, consider if every state against the health care bill had called home their senators. there would have been no vote. no majority and no debate.

if the senators continues to do what he or she wants, then the state has the right under the constitution to replace a sitting senator. this is a state right and one that has rarely if ever been used.

as far as Cali is concerned. Id say its almost impossible for them to face reality, given they are drowning in a sea of Illegals and refuse to grab a life raft. its called insanity.

Sancutary cities should be denied Federal funding till such time as they come into line with the Law. or face having the sitting city government arrested for not following the law. thats what happens to private citizens who decide not to follow a law.

because in all honesty if we lose our personal and states rights, the Republic is dead. the Fed needs to take a back seat and that means we start with the Sitting senators. recall the bottom feeders and put new ones in with a real short leash.


Wayne Brown profile image

Wayne Brown 6 years ago from Texas Author

@American Romance...now that you mention it I do recall that power of the state. If it did not get used for Obamacare, I cannot imagine when it would! Sanctuary cities is about the most rediculous concept anyone has come up with in this country...begin the law breaking right in the office of the mayor. We need to get a grip. Thanks for all the good comment, AR! WB

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working