By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Two-faced federal immigration policy
Placeholder Image
Arizona is being slammed for usurping federal authority and over-exaggerating crime committed by legal immigrants.

San Francisco, meanwhile, has a sanctuary city law that allows underage illegal immigrants who are felons stay in this country including one such individual who ended up killing a father and his son and seriously wounding another son because he felt he had been disrespected while driving down the street. The San Francisco law, by the way, is a challenge to federal authority as are all self-proclaimed sanctuary cities when it comes to immigration.

Guess who got the administration so riled up about federal authority being undermined that they secured a temporary injunction against the non-federal law on immigration? It wasn’t San Francisco.

The double standard or, if you prefer, situational ethics inspired by pure politics, is not even on the radar when the national media frames the Arizona immigration law debate in terms of a non-federal government agency  overextending its authority.

How can Arizona be overextending its authority by enforcing federal immigration laws and San Francisco isn’t even though Mayor Gavin Newsom - who is now running for lieutenant governor of California – at one time ordered police not to follow federal law when they arrest illegal immigrants. The answer is simple. This isn’t about constitutional parameters or even a healthy debate on immigration. It is a one-sided attempt by those who now control the federal government to shove a specific immigration policy down the throats of those who disagree.

Federal laws aren’t being enforced to the fullest when it comes to illegal immigration. No one can argue that point.

It is also true that the federal government has interceded and challenged San Francisco’s sanctuary city law but certainly not on the level they have in Arizona. Where was the high profile filing of an injunction against San Francisco or indignant White House spokesman saying Arizona was stepping on the toes of federal authority? And why wasn’t Newsom ushered into the White House for a meeting with the president to try and settle their differences? The only plausible explanation is that there is no difference in their viewpoints.

That makes the administration’s argument over Arizona undermining federal authority politically motivated.

Something as important as immigration policy shouldn’t be shaped by politics as in trying to secure voting blocks for the next election. Each side is guilty of that to a degree.

Once you selectively unleash federal challenges in the courts only for one particular “undermining” of federal authority it becomes real clear what is going on.

The Arizona law – except for thin ice where it essentially prompts law enforcement to ask about immigration status out of fear of being sued personally if they fail to do so – simply reflects current federal law which the administration opposes.

If that doesn’t promote racial profiling with the hammer of personal financial damages if you don’t do so, then nothing does.

There is a need for an honest, wide open debate about immigration legal and otherwise.

California’s high tech workers displaced by foreign workers with visa that saved companies big money know that this is an issue about more than just immigrants who are helping fill “jobs that nobody else wants”.

The reason why there isn’t a serious discussion has everything to do with the Republicans’ and Democrats’ traditional ties to campaign money sources – big business.

They can ill afford to anger those feeding their addiction to getting re-elected at all costs which requires huge infusions of campaign money.

The most ironic part is that illegal immigrants – especially those that work in the fields – are probably right that they aren’t displacing too many American workers. Yet no one seems to get excited much about visas given to high tech workers that definitely displace American workers under the ruse of there being a worker shortage.

At the end of the day, immigration is about people chasing a buck. Immigrants – legal and otherwise – who want to make a decent living and raise their families, American workers who want the same, and business interests that want to reduce employee expenses or simply fill jobs they contend – right or wrong – American citizens won’t do.

No one has the high road in the current debate especially those running the federal government who are picking and choosing who to take on that “usurps” their authority.