Legislation that is crafted with an eye toward enforcing the law against illegal immigration is “tough,” “harsh,” and “cruel.” But what about legal taxpaying citizens who have to foot the bill for lawbreakers who take advantage of public services? Why is the mistreatment of taxpayers not considered to be just as harsh and cruel?
Next up after healthcare could be an aggressive push for an amnesty bill allowing illegal aliens the full rights of citizenship. Although public sentiment is very much on the side of tougher law enforcement and improved border security the Obama Administration’s approach to socialized medicine demonstrates that it will not be slowed or hobbled by democratic considerations.
The first step on the way to a renewed push for amnesty begins with a compliant news media that recycles White House talking points that are designed to blunt thoughtful policy challenges. Here again, The New York Times is leading the charge in favor a liberal agenda opposed the majority of Americans who are already footing the bill for illegal aliens.
Arizona lawmakers have given their initial approval to a new state measure that would provide local police with more latitude and authority to act against illegal aliens. The bill also establishes heightened penalties against employers who knowingly hire illegals. And as a result, it is described by The Times as a “tough” and by implication cruel and mean spirited policy change that will greatly burden law breakers.
“Immigrant advocates call the bill some of the harshest legislation they have seen in a state where battles over immigration are particularly sharp edged,” The Times informs readers. A few questions are in order.
Why is the story only told from the perspective of foreign nationals who violated America’s immigrant laws?
Why isn’t it “harsh,” “cruel,” or “punitive” to impose additional financial burdens on legal citizens who are already crushed by higher taxes?
Why is it a cardinal sin for a border state to move forcefully where the federal government has failed?
Here is potential lead sentence that would perfectly captures the fiscal reality of illegal immigration that will never find its way into The Times.
“America’s already beleaguered taxpayers must step up once against to finance hospitals, schools and other public services to accommodate illegal aliens who now have the same rights and privileges they do as citizens thanks to Obama’s amnesty legislation.”
This is no more opinionated and slanted than what is sold as reporting on the Arizona law. Gov. Jane Brewer, a Republican is facing a primary challenge, and would not otherwise be supportive of such hard edged legislation, the report suggests.
Meanwhile, Republican State Senator Russell Pearce is ignoring the advice of self-described civil libertarians who are crusading for open borders and The Times is quite put out.
“State Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican and the chief sponsor of the legislation, brushed aside concerns raised by civil libertarians that the law would open the door to racial profiling,” a recent report says. “The local office of the American Civil Liberties Union says the bill is unconstitutional.”
Well of course they do; anything in the best interests of the U.S. is unconstitutional. That is to say it runs counter to what the ACLU views as constitutional law, which is not to be confused with the actual Constitution.
“Mr. Pearce said the bill gives the police another tool and compensates for lax enforcement of immigration law by the federal authorities,” The Times continues. “The police, he said, do not have to arrest every illegal immigrant on trespassing charges, but it gives them that discretion.”
At least Sen. Pearce had his say and that’s progress.
Popularity: 2% [?]
