|
|
Hartford Courant Sunday OPINION - Point and Counter Point July 26, 2010 The Hartford Courant asked Salisbury Republican Town Chairman Chris Janelli to write the conservative view on the Arizona immigration law for the Sunday edition OPINION Section. Unwelcome Law? Arizona Is Only Doing Job U.S. Won't Do 
Demonstrators protest against the new Arizona immigration law in front of the White House early last month as Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer met the same day with President Barack Obama to discuss the law. (Associated Press / May 31, 2010) By CHRIS JANELLI July 25, 2010 Polls show 60 percent of Americans support Arizona's controversial toughest-in-the-nation immigration law, which on paper is almost identical to existing, but unenforced, federal immigration law. The vast majority of Arizona's 6.6 million citizens want the estimated half-million illegal immigrants there caught and deported. With the complicity of the liberal media, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are framing the Arizona law as racist. It isn't. The Arizona law says that if someone is stopped for violating the law and there is suspicion that person is illegal, they can be asked to prove they are legal. The administration claims this will lead to racial profiling, which is driving the progressive response, such as East Haven's Democratic state Rep. Michael Lawlor, who declares the law a "disaster"; and Democratic U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, who calls it "unconstitutional." The federal government claims treating the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants as criminals would overwhelm the system, and that deportation would cost the government millions. Enforcing the law would create thousands of border protection and law enforcement jobs for American citizens. With the current economy, there are millions of Americans who would gladly fill jobs now held by illegal immigrants - particularly if unemployment benefits are not renewed. The federal government says Arizona's law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal authority to protect U.S. borders and American citizens. Article I, Section 8 and Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution clearly state it is the federal government's responsibility to protect its citizens from invasion and domestic violence; the 10th Amendment confirms this pre-emptive constitutional power. The Justice Department's lawsuit will focus on the constitutional question of states' vs. federal rights. The feds will argue pre-emption, that federal law trumps state law. Arizona will argue that states have the duty and authority to enforce immigration laws to protect their borders and citizens; particularly when the U.S. government fails. Every border state, including those with coastal borders, should side with Arizona. Make no mistake, Arizona has been invaded and violence is epidemic. Mexico's ruthless drug cartels brazenly do business in the border states, openly threatening, maiming and killing U.S. law enforcement officers and residents. With several hundred kidnappings a year, Phoenix is America's kidnapping capital. Regardless of the outcome of Arizona v. Uncle Sam, Obama's solution will be to ram a broad immigration bill through an accommodating Democratic Congress. Mass legalization of all illegal aliens will instantaneously create millions of thankful new Democratic voters. The assertion of states' rights is not without precedent, particularly in Connecticut. During the War of 1812, the federal government, claiming its authority "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," ordered Connecticut to call out its militia to defend the coast. Gov. Roger Griswold declared he was under a high and solemn obligation to maintain the lawful rights and privileges of Connecticut as a sovereign, free and independent state, and told the feds to take a hike. Today, with a population about half of Arizona's and about 115,000 illegal immigrants - one-fifth of Arizona's - Connecticut's progressive legislators won't get too worked up about illegal immigration or whether the once-great Constitution State should support Arizona in its fight with the feds. Connecticut is solidly blue with a progressive, 75 percent Democratically controlled General Assembly, which in 2007 voted to give illegal immigrant students in-state tuition at our public colleges and universities. Fortunately, the governor vetoed the bill. Don't expect Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to throw Connecticut's weight behind Arizona, joining the attorney generals in nine other states. He says illegal immigrants should be treated the same as in-state Connecticut students, calling illegal immigrant students "an investment that will repay itself many times over." Connecticut's residents, horrified by a looming two-year budget deficit of $7 billion, struggling to find work, stay solvent, pay mortgages and fund their children's education might think - and vote - otherwise. Chris Janelli is managing director of Bingham Brook Partners LLC; president and director of Bio Wellness Inc., a preventive wellness technology company; and chairman of the Salisbury Republican Town Committee. The Counter Point to Mr. Janelli's OPINION Immigration Law Is An Inhumane Overreach By JOSH PAWELEK July 25, 2010 After praying long and hard, I have decided to go to Phoenix to add my voice to the growing chorus of protest against Arizona's tough new immigration law. Barring an injunction from the U.S. District Court, the law goes into effect next Thursday. Dubbing this Arizona's "freedom summer," civil rights organizations and faith groups have vowed to resist the law's implementation and are calling on all those concerned about the humane treatment of immigrants to lend their voices and bodies to the struggle. The law's most controversial provision is known as Article 8 B. It requires police to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of a person if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that "the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." Unfortunately, Article 8.B does not define "reasonable." It is so vague that even my untrained legal eye can see that police officers, on a whim, will be able to stop, question and detain anyone they choose. This opens the floodgates for racial profiling, which has been cause for dismay among civil rights activists across the nation. With Article 8. B at its core, Arizona's law has the strong potential to result in separation of families, unnecessary incarcerations, erroneous deportations of legal citizens and lost productivity. It has struck fear and terror into the heart of Arizona's Hispanic communities. This law is an affront to the moral sensibilities of our nation. I am not in favor of open borders. Given the reality of drug smuggling, human trafficking and the potential movement of international terrorists, I recognize the need for tough, consistent and well-resourced border control. I also recognize that the Arizona legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer were frustrated by the lack of federal progress on immigration reform and felt compelled to act. But, in the end, the new law doesn't "get tough" on immigration. It gets tough on people already living in the United States. That is its moral failing. Some estimates put the number of undocumented people in the United States at 20 million. The vast majority of them have come here out of economic desperation. There is considerable evidence that in most cases, they take jobs most citizens don't want. There is clearly a robust market for their labor, otherwise they wouldn't come. We cannot intimidate, arrest and deport our way out of this situation as if such activities can somehow contain the larger economic forces at work. Undocumented immigrants work extremely hard, for long hours, with very little recognition and few rights. Like so many previous generations of immigrants, they provide the unseen backbone of our economy. The Arizona law completely ignores this reality. I am moved by the words of Moses who said "when an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be as a citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself." I don't turn to this scripture for legal advice, but I do seek moral inspiration from it. Our nation needs immigration reform desperately, but let us achieve it in a manner that respects the integrity of undocumented people and honors their contributions to our society. Let us achieve it in a way that doesn't tear parents from their children in the dead of night. Let us achieve it in a way that doesn't criminalize whole communities based on skin color, language and accent. Let us achieve it in a way that doesn't return us to our white supremacist past. Let us achieve it in a way that is grounded in the same love toward the alien of which Moses spoke. Arizona is better than its new immigration law. So is our nation. That is why, when the call went out for clergy and others to come to Phoenix, I could not refuse. The Rev. Josh Pawelek is minister of the Unitarian Universalist Society: East in Manchester and president of the Greater Hartford Interfaith Coalition for Equity and Justice. Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant
|
RSS
November 21, 2012 2012: A Time for Choosing The time is right for the GOP to woo Democrat voters October 27, 2011 Connecticut's # 1 in the Nation with Per Capita Debt Connecticut is 13.6% higher than the # 2 ranked state. October 16, 2011 The Mayoral Race in Bridgeport is about Connecticut What happens in Bridgeport in this November Mayoral election could be the match to set this state on fire for change |
|
Salisbury Republican Town Committee, P.O. Box 221, Salisbury, CT 06068 Paid for and Authorized by the Salisbury Republican Town Committee, Peter L. Becket, Treasurer |