Immigration

The lawsuit brought by the general government in Federal Court against the State of Arizona is puzzling to say the least. Arizona's SB 1070 (the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act") is meticulous to stipulate that every aspect of the bill will comply with the United States Code regarding illegal immigration. So, how will the solicitors argue the case of the general government against Arizona? Will they object that Arizona has elected to enforce federal laws where federal agencies have chosen not to do so? It's difficult to imagine how any substantial part of Arizona's law could be found to be in violation of Federal Statutes in a fair court hearing. But in my view there is a problem with the Arizona and the Federal Immigration Statutes, both.

How can it be ethical to enforce by threat of violence, any law where the basis of that law is "legal status" rather than a violation of person or property? The existing immigration law can prohibit our citizens from inviting a non-violent person who might have the wrong "legal status", on to our property or to engage with them in mutually beneficial commerce. Sounds like the "land of the free" may have migrated from reality to wishful thinking.

The implication of our immigration law is that every person regardless of their status, age, etc. must consent to be a resource to be plundered by every level of government and that only those who allow themselves to be subject to government theft are worthy of being allowed to physically occupy any point in space that government claims as its jurisdiction. How else can this be interpreted but that government claims ownership of all property and all people within its territory? And since government claims to be the ultimate owner of everything and everyone in their jurisdiction, a logical objection to "illegal immigration" is that the immigrants will try to receive government benefits without paying into the system that provides them. So, naturally our citizens believe that "illegal aliens" are encroaching on benefits that they could have received otherwise. This is like the slave who objects to the beggar because the slave might have received the master's gift to the beggar for himself. We are in a bad way when we argue over the benefit of goods that were stolen from us in the first place. One solution to our current immigration difficulty is to stop all government theft and transfer payment schemes. Then with no dole for anyone to lust after, we could honestly welcome every peaceful and productive person to join us in a free market and create an increasingly prosperous and peaceful society. Our immigration policy could then be "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free", as it once was.

But, until we the people of the united States begin to resist the culture of public theft and redistribution we will accelerate in circling this toilet, and proceed down the sewer to socialism.