Why make it easy for illegal aliens?

Should we make it easy for illegal immigrants to stay in this country, or should we make it easy for them to leave?

That is the question all Americans should be asking.

Notice that this question has nothing to do with whether or not you support legal immigration. Most everyone enthusiastically embraces America’s heritage as a “melting pot,” but that doesn’t mean the pot should be tainted with untested, undocumented ingredients.

Notice also that this question has nothing to do with race, so answering it should not be grounds for labeling someone a racist. Nonetheless, saying you want illegal immigrants to leave the country is widely being equated by radical leftists with racism.

It’s time to take back the argument from people who use emotion to brandish their opponents as evil, and to look simply at the facts.

Either we follow the law or we don’t, and if you want to make it easy for illegal immigrants to stay in this country, you need to acknowledge the basic effect of your policy — to teach disrespect for law.

Arizona made a collective decision that it did not want to make it easy for illegal immigrants to stay in the state or country. Its legislature and governor concluded that since illegal immigrants have no right to be in the United States, they also have no right to be in Arizona. This would seem to be a self-evident truth.

Yet the attorney general of the United States, and the president he serves, complained that Arizona was making it too hard for illegal immigrants to stay in the country. They figure that if it is easy for illegal immigrants to stay in one state; it should be easy in every state. Ultimately, Attorney General Eric Holder is suing to turn Arizona into a sanctuary state for illegal immigrants. By depriving the state’s law officers of their ability to enforce laws against illegal immigrants, they are ensuring that illegal immigrants will in fact flood Arizona instead of leave it.

What benefit does this have?

Only that it makes it easy for illegal immigrants to stay in the country. Therefore, the United States government is taking the position that its own immigration laws should be ignored. Ultimately, the Justice Department of the United States is representing the interests of foreign nationals against the interests of our own citizens. Perhaps that is part of the “fundamental transformation” of America that Barack Obama promised he would bring when elected.

Not surprisingly, a U.S. district judge appointed by President Bill Clinton has granted Holder’s Justice Department an injunction against most of the important components of the Arizona law, namely the ability of the state’s police officers to assist the undermanned Border Patrol in enforcement of federal law against being in the country illegally.

Nothing summarizes the mischief of this court ruling better than the following quote:

“Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked,” Judge Susan Bolton said in her decision.

Oh really!

First of all, every legal immigrant is required by law to carry their Green Card or permanent resident ID on their person at all times. Here is the relevant language from the Customs and Immigration website (uscis.com):

“A green card is issued to all permanent residents as proof that they are authorized to live and work in the United States. If you are a permanent resident age 18 or older, you are required to have a valid green card in your possession at all times.”

Therefore, no “lawfully-present” alien would have “their liberty ... restricted” in any way by Arizona’s law. In fact, Arizona was only trying to enforce the federal law that already exists, not flout it, challenge it or overturn it. Liberty, after all, comes with a variety of responsibilities. Having liberty ultimately means following the law, or suffering the consequences. Saying there are no consequences to breaking the law is another way of saying there is no law. And without law, or the just application of it, there is and can be no liberty, just the terror of despotism or the chaos of anarchy.

At a more practical level, we should ask, just what is this “restriction” on liberty that worries Judge Bolton? Apparently, it is nothing more than carrying a legally required identification card. Does this mean that if the Judge’s inane ruling is upheld that we U.S. citizens will no longer be required to carry our driver licenses or proof of insurance in our cars? Let’s face it, my liberty would definitely be “restricted” while the police are checking to see whether or not I have a driver license, especially if I don’t have one. But under Bolton’s faulty logic, it’s more important not to inconvenience me as a legal driver than it is to catch illegal drivers.

And don’t forget that under Arizona’s law, you can’t even ask for documentation of legal status unless a person is already a suspect for another crime.

To extend the comparison with enforcement of motor vehicle laws, using Judge Bolton’s logic it would mean that police could not ask for my driver license even if I had already been arrested for drunk driving or killing a pedestrian. Whether I am in custody or not, I cannot be forced to show my legal ID because my “liberty [would] be restricted while [my] status is checked.”

Clearly the judge’s logic is fundamentally flawed.

But what we have to remember is that the argument in favor of making it easy for illegal immigrants to stay in the country is not based on logic, but manipulation of emotion. The whole idea is to make you feel guilty for trying to apply the full force of the law against “innocent” human beings who “only” want to do what is right for their families. As a nation we have apparently forgotten that it is not up to the law to decide what is right, but rather what is just.

More evidence of how far the left will go to make illegal immigrants feel safe within our borders can be found in the internal draft memo by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that was revealed late last week and which details administrative options that “have the potential to result in meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.”

In other words, it is one more plan to force an unwanted, unpopular policy on the people of the United States without a vote of Congress.

In the words of the government employees who wrote the memo to send to USCIS Director Alejandro N. Mayorkas, “This memorandum offers administrative relief options to promote family unity, foster economic growth, achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”

“Reduce the threat of removal” apparently is government jargon for “give backdoor amnesty” to illegal aliens.

Of course, the agency has issued a statement saying that “internal draft memos” do not represent “official action or policy by the department.” Back in the 1960s, that was called “plausible deniability” by elements of the government that had gone rogue but didn’t want anyone else to notice.

But somewhere in the Customs and Immigration Service, there is at least one employee who actually thinks the agency should endeavor to “reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”

Come to think of it, isn’t that exactly what Attorney General Holder thinks the Justice Department should be doing?

Meanwhile, as the federal government strives to find creative ways to make it easy for illegal immigrants to stay in the country, at least one private group is working on innovations that will make it easy for these lawbreakers to find their way home.

The Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (known generally as ALIPAC) has proposed that the Department of Homeland Security should establish “safe departure” border checkpoints for illegal aliens to leave the United States “without fear or hindrance.” They would in other words be granted amnesty for their immigration crimes as an incentive for LEAVING the country, not as a reward for STAYING.

Wow, that seems like a no-brainer. But don’t expect it to happen anytime soon. There’s no doubt the folks at the Justice Department would sue Homeland Security if it ever opened “safe passages” on the border with Mexico.

The reason? Simple. It would obviously represent discrimination against Mexicans by making it easy for them to return to their home country while allowing other illegal aliens to remain safely behind while awaiting the inevitable blanket amnesty that will one day smother liberty and justice once and for all.