Disappointing.

The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.

The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the controversial sections should be put on hold until the courts resolve the issues.

Don’t bother emphasizing that the judge blocked only parts of the law. She blocked the parts that matter, so the law basically is impotent.

Do states have inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law?

Update: A nice summary from Heritage.

I’ve blogged about immigration enforcement from a Christian perspective several times. In fact, I was working on an article I planned to submit to Christianity Today in response to this article. About an hour ago, someone pointed me to this article, similar to my own. If I finish the piece, I may submit elsewhere or post it on the blog.

An excerpt of “Immigration Reform: Another Christian View”:

“With so many Christian leaders on one side of immigration reform, how could there be any doubt? But there is doubt. Polls show church members with deeply divided opinions. The issue is far more complicated than the rhetoric used by many who favor liberalizing current immigration law.

“Here are some of the complexities:

“1. The United States is not analogous to ancient Israel. Biblical “sojourners” are not easily comparable to modern-era illegal immigrants. The “foreigners” in ancient Israel were non-Israelites who were permitted to pass through or reside in Israel. They were required to comply with Israel’s laws and respect its customs.

“2. The oft-quoted command in Leviticus 19 that “you shall not oppress the alien” should indeed inform our attitudes. But this passage provides no clear guidance on how the United States should set limitations on immigration. It does not indicate whether 1 million “green cards” granted every year are too few, too many, or just the right number.

“3. Alongside the biblical teachings about hospitality to strangers also stand the teachings about the rule of law. The Christian point of view on immigration reform should also look at passages such as Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. They stress a clear responsibility to obey properly constituted human authorities when their demands do not violate conscience. U.S. authorities are well within their proper powers in controlling immigration. Christians on all sides acknowledge that power, but the question is how to balance justice against mercy toward those who have broken the law.

“4. It is important to distinguish the callings of church and state. The church is called by God to welcome all with the grace of Jesus Christ. It does not make distinctions according to nationality or immigration status. The state is called by God to enforce justice. It properly makes distinctions between those who obey and those who break the laws. It properly looks first to the interests of the citizens for whom God holds it responsible.”

Related posts:

• Illegal Immigration From A Biblical Point of View
• This Christian Isn’t “Torn” Over Illegals

(via the Center for Immigration Studies)

I’m attending a conference in Simi Valley, California, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. I’ve been here three times, and I’ve never visited Reagan’s grave or taken pictures of the scenery. No time! I will make time this year.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting and sitting beside the man behind SB 1070 (PDF), the Arizona bill that basically eliminates all sanctuary policies in the state and makes it illegal for illegal aliens to remain in the state. Senator Russell Pearce said that states have an inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law. Eighteen states are working on laws similar to Arizona’s. A majority of Americans supports Arizona’s law, as does 73 percent of Arizonans. The immigration bill is controversial only to mainstream media.

Did you know the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to babies of illegal aliens born here? The senator’s working on a bill to end birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

Senator Pearce doesn’t believe immigration reform is necessary. No amnesty, either. Enforce the law. Period. More later.

I also met Frank Ricci of Ricci v. DeStefano. More on that case later, too.

Update: I’d be remiss if I didn’t link to this: Barack Obama plans to send up to 1,200 National Guard troops to the Mexican border. We’ll need more than that, but it’s start. Looks like somebody’s shoring up his defenses for November. Keep demanding border security, Americans.

Come to think of it, would their purpose entail keeping people from crossing the border? That’s not a stupid question. Knowing Obama, it’s totally serious.
———————————————————————————

Here’s a somewhat humorous yet entirely frustrating consequence of a liberal governor hamstringing law enforcement on the illegal “immigration” front:

A drunk “suspected” illegal alien rear-ended an anti-immigration enforcement lawmaker in Massachusetts. The idiot reportedly laughed and said, “Nothing is going to happen to me, man.”

Governor Deval Patrick, who called Obama’s policy critics seditious, revoked former governor Mitt Romney’s order empowering law enforcement to investigate a suspect’s immigration status.

If nothing else, this incident will generate public discussion about the state’s impotence to protect citizens from drunk-driving illegal aliens and rally voters to “persuade” Patrick to reinstate the order (won’t happen, but voters can still raise a ruckus). Isaias Naranjo was lucid enough to know how lax America is about enforcing its immigration laws. Shameful.

(Hat tip: Nice Deb)

In 2010, it’s considered racist for the United States to maintain and regulate its own borders. It’s much worse that states want to maintain and regulate their borders. How did this happen? The attitude evolved over several decades.

I remember being shocked years ago when asked during an automated customer service phone call to choose English or Spanish. How, when, and why did this happen, I angrily wondered at the time, and I was a liberal! Now, it obviously had occurred before, but perhaps that was the first time it sank in.

The illegal “immigration” debate in the U.S. isn’t simply about breaking the law. It involves the lack of assimilation, and the expectation that English-speaking America somehow is obligated to accommodate those who seek the privilege of being in this great country instead of the other way around.

Americans for Illegal Immigration reports that at least 17 states are considering illegal immigration measures similar to Arizona’s, and I’m proud to know my home state of South Carolina is among them.

No matter how much people rant and rave about giving people a “second chance” or how illegal aliens come here only to work, the fact remains they’ve broken the law, and they should not be rewarded or excused for it. It raises my blood pressure just imagining raging hypocrites like Mexico’s president Felipe Calderon (pictured) uttering one complaint against the United States, let alone actually speaking those words out loud. His people are dying to get out of his country, and it’s a felony to be in Mexico illegally at any time. (Who’d want to be in Mexico, is my question.) In the U.S., it’s a felony only if a deported illegal alien returns.

I say we change the law.

I lament the paucity of men in high profile places and with power who will speak the truth without apology or fear and who put what’s best for America and for Americans before any others. (I note the irony of my statement. Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer is woman, and she’s standing her ground. More like her, please.) I don’t have the power to change anything, but they do. Yet, what do they do? Display moral cowardice, to Felipe Calderon’s amusement.

Tom McClintock had this to say to Mexico’s president after he criticized an American state’s common sense immigration law (on our soil and without irony, considering how his country deals with illegal aliens). More men like McClintock, please.

As you may know, President Barack Obama doesn’t like beleaguered border states exercising their duty to protect citizens. His interest lies in protecting illegal aliens and pandering to Hispanics to secure votes.

Eric Holder, Obama’s attorney general, said the Department of Justice may sue Arizona for its audacity. He’ll have to find a way around a 2002 DOJ memo that recognizes states’ “inherent power” to arrest illegal aliens for federal law violations.

And he’ll have to sue California as well. According to the state penal code, “Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws,” and attempt to “verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws.”

Before DOJ files that lawsuit, Holder and his legion of lawyers should search the penal laws of every state in the Union to determine which ones authorize law enforcement agencies to assist the federal government with immigration enforcement. If the feds single out Arizona when other states have similar statutes, won’t that be…discriminatory?

I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around a lot of things lately. May be hormonal. Or seasonal. Or those bloody chirping house finches on the front door. What sort of country cares more about the well-being of non-citizens who violate the law and less about taxpaying citizens trying to undo some of the damage caused by the federal government’s dereliction of duty?

And consider this: The federal government needs the assistance of state and local agencies on immigration enforcement. Does ICE rely on civilian tips only, or does this agency work with local law enforcement?

In 2005, I spoke to an ICE spokesperson about the Herndon, Virginia, day labor center mess for a column I was writing. I asked her what ICE intended to do about illegal aliens in Herndon. After trying to avoid answering the question, she finally said, “We continue to work closely with law enforcement partners to enforce immigration laws, and I don’t have anything to say about a local issue.”

We continue to work closely with law enforcement partners to enforce immigration laws…

It’s one thing if a blogger rants and raves about something without having read the thing they’re complaining about. It’s quite another if government officials in authority criticize the thing without having read it.

For example, Eric Holder, the United States Attorney General, for crying out loud, the nation’s “top cop,” publicly criticized Arizona’s illegal “immigration” law, and he hadn’t even read it.

In the same vein, one wonders if elected officials in California cities who decided to boycott Arizona over its common sense law ever read their state’s law on illegal “immigration.” The California penal code reads in part (emphases added):

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws.

(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:

(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
…
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited [Hello, "sanctuary" San Francisco and Special Order 40 Los Angeles].

That’s right. Cops in California are required to check the immigration status of suspected illegal aliens they arrest. Let’s do a double-reverse gotcha, and boycott California! In fact, let’s hope the entire “racist” state slides right into the Pacific, like the cool special effects in the movie “2012.”

After Cali goes belly-up, let’s wage a full-scale Civil War II over illegal “immigration.” Let’s boycott the federal government for coming up with laws to regulate the country’s borders in the first place! Only xenophobes need borders and law and order.

(Hat tip: Digital Karen)

Update: Being in the U.S. illegally is a civil offense, as it turns out, not a criminal one. But it’s still against the law. Illegal aliens are breaking the law. I can’t emphasize that enough.

Arizona has done something marvelously radical. Arizona has made it a crime to be in Arizona illegally. The headline is correct, but for clarity, it should read: “AZ makes it a state crime to be an illegal immigrant.” I think the feds should follow suit, don’t you?

Check out the federal code. I’ve discussed this on my blog before, something about entering the U.S. illegally is a crime, but being here illegally isn’t. How they work that out, I don’t know. A lot of parsing to do, but it won’t be today! Lots of discussion on my Facebook thread.
—————————————————————————-

I don’t have time for this (deadlines!). Paying work is a priority, but I simply had to post this. Check out this headline from ABC or AP or whatever:

Ignorance abounds! See the madness with your own eyes. An illegal “immigrant” is in violation of the law. Being in the U.S. illegally is a crime. An illegal immigrant’s status is lawbreaker. You see, illegal means not legal. Not legal means illegal. A broken law. You follow?

This is so dumb, it’s giving me a headache. Back to work!

By the way, the absurd headline reminds me of African-American Canadians. Remember them?

Update: Posts like this are incompatible with my goal to place my work in certain secular (and even some Christian) publications. It’s better to have a lower or at least politically correct profile. But still I write posts like this, and the archives are here to stay. (I was edgier back in the day.) I’ll let God sort it out.

By the way, read Byron York’s latest: “The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally — green card, work visa, etc. That hasn’t changed.”

So how is asking to see the documentation a violation?
——————————————————————-

I used to be really angry about the way politicians were running this country. I used to be really angry when people made assumptions about me based on the color of my skin. I used to be really angry when readers and other bloggers said and wrote nasty things about me because I had a different opinion, the incorrect opinion. And nothing made me angrier than when black readers said I should shut up and go away because I was dangerous or self-hating or stupid or ugly or all four.

The anger was fuel that kept me writing, speaking, and going against the grain. It was invigorating. I wasn’t contrary for the sake of being contrary. I truly believe, will always believe, that conservatism is better for the country, and that liberalism degrades.

I’ve mellowed in middle age. Thank you, Lord! I’m not nearly as angry as I once was. Yes, politicians are still ruining the country. People still make assumptions based on the color of my skin. People still say and write nasty things about me. What’s changed?

It’s simple. First, I started trusting God more than men. That’s what Christians are supposed to do, but being fallen human beings, we give other fallen human beings too much credit. These days, instead of keeping my faith in a box and pulling it out when reading and studying the Bible or talking about it with others or attending church, I wear it like a pendant around my neck. Second, I stopped caring so much.

Some Christians are happy about Obama’s election, regardless of his views on child killing,  for instance, because he’s black (half, actually). Too sad for words. I used to seethe just thinking about the level of ignorance among people who seem to care nothing about an individual’s values, only his race. But the seething dissipated, thank God.

When I look at a person, politician or regular Joe, the first thing I want to know is whether he’s a Christian, a Bible-believing Christian. (There’s a difference.) Character follows. Is it high or low? (If he’s a Christian, his character is high, yes? Not necessarily, unfortunately. We’re still sinners.) For example, does the person cheat on his/her spouse? If he’s a Christian, does he believe babies born during botched abortions should be left to die? Does the self-labeled Christian call himself pro-choice? Next thing I want to know is whether he’s conservative politically, especially socially. The color of his skin has no part to play in my assessment. If you’re a conservative Christian with high character, you’re golden.

What precipitated this mini-rant? Pat Buchanan. Reading his latest this morning got me riled up a bit. Just a bit. Fully rested from last night’s sleep, lying in bed at pre-dawn and browsing the headlines on the Droid before I got up, I read “Whose country is this?” and felt a twinge of nostalgia. This is one of the reasons I started blogging.

Buchanan writes about Arizona’s new law to deal with illegal aliens, as the federal government has abdicated its constitutional duty to deal with illegal aliens. He writes:

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

He has denounced Arizona as “misguided.” He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona’s sheriffs and police do not violate anyone’s civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst.
…
The state has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in. Even John McCain is now calling for 3,000 troops on the border.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk.

If Arizona does not get control of the border and stop the invasion, U.S. citizens will stop coming to Arizona and will begin to depart, as they are already fleeing California.

What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot control its borders isn’t really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.

The tasks that Arizonans are themselves undertaking are ones that belong by right, the Constitution and federal law to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Homeland Security.

At this point some of you liberals might be wondering why this makes me angry. Conservatives know, because they feel it, too. Here we have Barack Obama, a man who is a duly elected commander in chief of the greatest country on the planet, who swore to uphold the Constitution, which provides for protection of the states from invasion. And what does he have to say about Arizona’s burdened citizens? He called them misguided and announced an intent to protect illegal aliens’ civil rights. What about the constitutional rights of American citizens? Meh.

The implicit message is that Arizona is some kind of fascist state, overwhelmed law enforcement officers, dead rancher and border agents, and frustrated residents be damned. Arizona, Obama doesn’t care about you. He aims to protect the illegal aliens, not the people he actually has a duty to protect.

After the law passed, I watched an evening newscast. I saw an overweight, bespectacled, shirt-and-tie-wearing, office-working, no-accented Hispanic on the news implying, with a straight face, that the cops would stop someone like him and ask to see his papers. Har-har-har. In the old days, I’d have had the urge to throw whatever was in my hand at the TV.

Whose country is this? In our backward society, a taxpaying, law-abiding American citizen who complains about border-jumpers in our midst is branded a xenophobe. We live in a society where people can jump the border or overstay visas, in clear violation of our country’s laws, and our president turns not on the lawbreakers, but on his own people. We elected him to protect us, not the invader. How did this happen?

Whose country is this? In our biblically illiterate society, some Christians imply that others who want illegal aliens to be prosecuted and/or deported are un-Christ-like. Does the same hold for the murderer? The armed robber? The rapist? The tax cheat? Are we reading the same Bible? What if the lawbreaker were a Christian…should the law hold him to a different standard because he’s a Christian? Some illegal aliens call themselves Christians. How do they and their Christian advocates reconcile breaking the law and expecting special treatment with biblical teachings to obey the law?

Are immigration laws unjust? Is it unbiblical for a country to create immigration laws and enforce its own borders? I’m patiently waiting for someone to make the biblical argument. E-mail me.

If I hadn’t witnessed this ignorance firsthand, I would not have believed it.

George Bush lost me on illegal “immigration.” I was deeply disappointed that a man I voted for pushed amnesty for illegal aliens.” “What about the people waiting in line to become citizens the legal way!” I shouted. I took it personally. Bush pushed the bill so hard, despite grumblings from the base, I suspected Mexico’s president had something on him. I still do.

This is the best I can do as a rant these days. God is running this world the way he sees fit, even if it makes little sense to me. Nothing pleases God more than my trust and faith in him. The Bible says so. That doesn’t mean Christians can’t act. We are to act in the world and advance the Kingdom within it. But we don’t need to run ourselves ragged worrying about the world. One thing we know for certain: He wins. Keep that in mind as you read/watch our leaders protect the foreigner and the lawbreaker over the native and the law-abider.

For my sanity, peace of mind, and physical health, I’m off he-said/she-said politics and focused on topics that don’t make me angry*, that I enjoy, and that are pleasing to God.

*I blog about child killing a lot these days, and child killing makes me angry. I have faith it's a God-pleasing, life-saving anger.

Update (4/23): Governor Jan Brewer does the right thing. Law enforcement officers in Arizona are required to ask a suspect about his immigration status if there’s a “reasonable suspicion,” and it’s a crime to transport illegal aliens and to hire day laborers.

Glenn Reynolds: “Were I representing Arizona, I’d argue that the federal government is in default on its ‘protection against invasion’ responsibility, and that this empowers the state to resort to self-help.”
—————————————

I haven’t blogged about illegal “immigration” in a long time, but I’m still fervently opposed to it.

As the feds love reminding us, they are the enforcers of immigration law. The presence of millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., however, is proof the feds are not enforcing the law. According to the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. “shall protect each [State] against Invasion.” Considering the cost in terms of jobs and taxes and crime, the en masse immigration of millions of people who enter the U.S. in violation of our laws fits the definition of an invasion.

Border state Arizona has tried for years to stop the flow and alleviate the burden on its legal residents. Finally, all the pieces appear to be in place. Lawmakers passed a measure that requires–not merely allows–the cops to ask about immigration status where there’s a reasonable suspicion. (Source) The bill also criminalizes transporting illegal aliens and hiring day laborers.

Bravo.

The question is, will Republican governor Jan Brewer sign the bill into law?

A country has a right…a duty…to protect its borders. The federal government has abdicated its duty, so states must protect themselves.

(Image: National Geographic)

Addendum: Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu: “We’ve had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona. And that shouldn’t happen one time. In just one patrol area, we’ve had 64 pursuits — failure to yield for an officer — in one month. That’s out of control…Folks, your cops, your sheriffs cannot do this alone. We’re doing our best and we’re overwhelmed. We’re stressed and things are out of control. We need the help of troops that are Updeployed along the border, additional resources for our border patrol and a zero tolerance policy.”

PC or not, I laughed:

What a world we live in. Wearing a funny “illegal alien” costume, complete with orange jumpsuit, a green green card, and space alien mask, is tasteless. Actually being someone who jumps borders or overstays a Visa in violation of the law isn’t tasteless, I suppose.

Some Christians call me “un-Christian” for believing and saying out loud in public that illegal aliens are lawbreakers who have no respect for the rule of law and should be rounded up and deported. If I were a betting woman, I’d wager $100 that not one of these people call Christ-professing illegal aliens un-Christian for breaking the law.

(Calling a thing by its name is worse than being the thing even among Christians. Sad.)

I have no patience with hang-wringing Christians who’re “torn” over illegal immigration. Opposing illegal immigration and believing lawbreakers should be subject to the justice system aren’t the least bit unbiblical. I have no idea where they get the idea that saying anything negative about border-jumpers and visa-overstayers is wrong.

If you Christians think my stance on this issue is “unloving,” you’ll hate this: when I read about the Arizona (border state) rancher who held a group of trespassing illegal aliens at gunpoint until the police arrived, I wanted to give him a medal. That man had a right to defend himself and his family and protect his property.

This country has degenerated to the point where illegal aliens have standing to sue law-abiding citizens for exercising their own rights! Blood boiling stuff. Anyway, the criminals claimed that Roger Barnett violated their civil rights. It pleases me that a federal jury disagreed. Earlier this week, the jury found in favor of Barnett and against the illegal aliens, who should be sent back to Mexico immediately. (Source)

Unfortunately (an understatement!), the jury ordered Barnett to pay punitive damages for assault and “infliction of emotional distress.” Can’t win ‘em all. Some is better than none, though all would have been what we reasonable people call justice. I hope Barnett will appeal.

(Photo credit: Jack Kurtz/The Arizona Republic)

In 2007, I wrote this about Rosanna Pulido, head of the Illinois Chapter of You Don’t Speak for Me, a vocal group of Hispanics opposed to illegal immigration:

“Rosanna Pulido reminds me of me…She’s a woman, a racial ‘minority,’ a member of a so-called ‘disenfranchised,’ preferred, and protected group, [some of whom engage in] a myriad of disingenuous yet highly effective justifications to rely on skin color to get by in life and excuse the acts of badly behaving members of her racial group.”

I started writing for publication in 2002 and blogging in 2003, and I’ve had more than my share of nasty e-mails, 99 percent of which were ad hominem. Fortunately, I was not deterred by the “self-hater,” “race traitor,” “Aunt Jemima,” and “coon” epithets. Being called names made me more determined and more rebellious. Rarely did someone write to me attacking my arguments. When I did receive those e-mails, I read them carefully and learned how to strengthen my own positions.

I don’t blog as much about politics these days not because I’m intimidated. I’m just bored by it. There’s more going on in the world, and I want to write about it. The archives are here for the world to see, and I stand by every post.

Back to Rosanna Pulido. No doubt she’s received similar e-mail. It’s tough being a “voice in the wilderness” and having the guts to call a thing by its name. I can’t stand euphemistic talk or mealy-mouth attitudes or people who’re afraid to tell the truth.

I wanted to let readers know that the pro-enforcement, pro-Second Amendment, pro-life Pulido is running for Congress in Illinois.

Ms. Pulido, thanks for having the courage to speak up for what’s right. And don’t waste time thinking about the haters. They’re gutless.

Update: Michelle Malkin posts e-mail from haters. I’d say it’s typical. The well-reasoned stuff is atypical.