The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

Streetcar Line

Yes, States May Restrict Illegal Aliens

By on 6.10.11 @ 6:08AM

Obama Amnesty under fire in Bama, PA and Arizona.

MOBILE, Ala. — Here in Alabama, Gov. Robert Bentley has just signed the nation’s toughest immigration law, amidst the predictable cries from the Left that states don’t have real authority of their own to enforce laws against illegal immigration. The information the professional Left hasn’t yet processed is that the legal basis for its arguments continues to erode. The erosion continued earlier this week in a new, little-noticed action by the Supreme Court in a case called City of Hazleton v. Lozano — the Pennsylvania dispute that made Hazleton’s then-mayor Lou Barletta famous, and launched him towards a seat in Congress.

To understand the import of the Hazleton case, let’s first set the scene, which is framed by another high court decision from just two weeks ago. When the Supreme Court ruled on May 26 in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting that the state of Arizona did not exceed its authority in denying business licenses from companies that knowingly employ illegals, the Left interrupted its outraged squawking to try to minimize the case’s importance. On the one hand, the Left said the decision was an awful affront to federal executive power. On the other hand, it said the decision didn’t mean much. The reach of the Whiting case was limited, argued the immediate revisionists, because it involved only business hiring rather than broader immigration enforcement, and because it turned on a specific clause in federal law giving states enforcement authority through business licensing.

Aside from that specific clause regarding business licenses, they said, and aside from the subject of employment, states, and localities still are not free to enforce immigration laws to an extent greater than the U.S. president (through his appointees) desires.

Enter the Hazleton case. The city of Hazleton went farther than Arizona did. The city doesn’t merely target business hiring; instead, it also suspends the rental licenses of landlords who knowingly and recklessly allow illegals to dwell in the landlords’ property.

If one buys into the Left’s spin, one would think that Whiting would have little bearing on Hazleton, because the ordinance in the latter is so much broader. Surely, according to this logic, the Supreme Court would reject Hazleton’s law out of hand, just as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals had done last Sept. 9.

Think again. On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated the Third Circuit’s decision against Hazleton’s law, and remanded it back to the appeals court to reconsider specifically in light of the Whiting decision. In other words, Hazleton’s law still stands against landlords who knowingly rent to immigrants, at least for now.

While this is far from the final chapter in the Hazleton case, and while it does not represent a full ruling on its merits by the Supreme Court, it does mean that the Left’s spin is out of control. The high court, if it so wanted, could have remanded the case only for reconsideration of the business-hiring part of Hazleton’s law, not for reconsideration of the whole law. Instead, it sent the whole case back for review, with specific reference to its Whiting decision.

“This at least gives an indication that the Supreme Court believes its Whiting decision is applicable not only to employment but also to housing,” said Rich Samp, chief counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation, in an interview with me yesterday. The WLF had filed an amicus brief supporting the city in the Hazleton case, arguing that the Third Circuit ruling against the city “interferes to an unwarranted degree with the authority of state and local governments to exercise their traditional police powers — including the regulation of employment and housing within their jurisdictions.”

The WLF also argues that the Pennsylvania city really hasn’t put itself at odds with federal law anyway:

In recent years, Congress has adopted legislation requiring States to adopt practices designed to reduce the incentives for illegal aliens to remain in the country…. It also adopted numerous statutory provisions encouraging state and local governments (and their employees) to cooperate with federal authorities in enforcing the immigration laws…. It defies logic to suggest that Congress demands that States ferret out illegal aliens to ensure that they are not receiving welfare benefits and actively solicits their cooperation in enforcing immigration laws, yet simultaneously prohibits them from taking steps to prevent illegal aliens from seeking rental housing.

Samp and the WLF are right. What is evident in Hazleton and Arizona and now Alabama is anything but states or cities going rogue. Instead, the states and cities are merely asserting their own authority to implement laws passed by Congress that a presidential administration, against congressional intent, refuses to adequately enforce on its own. It is the national executive, not the local governments, that is going rogue.

It is in that light that the new Alabama law should be weighed — at least from a legal standpoint. I make no judgment whatsoever about the wisdom or advisability of any particular provision of the new Alabama law. (I myself am sort of a moderate on immigration policy, although I utterly oppose amnesty and its various spin-offs.) What merits defending aren’t the policy choices themselves, but the ability of the local governments to make those choices. A form of federalism is under assault from the Left, spearheaded by the Obama administration — but federalism merits preservation. State and local governments have good reasons to want to keep away illegal aliens; and even if their reasons weren’t good, those governments have every right, under our constitutional system, to make those judgments for themselves.

It is a derailment of the American tradition for a presidential administration to be less interested in upholding federal law than state and local governments are. It is an abdication of order that should not be countenanced. States and localities merit support, legal and otherwise, for their efforts to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

About the Author

Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (125) |

btims| 6.10.11 @ 6:31AM

Legal /illegal immigration doesn't matter much. NUMBERS OF IMMIGRANTS is what matters, since we haven't really enforced immigration laws in years and years.

Years ago, when we as a nation stopped really enforcing immigration laws (and the borders), we abdicated our independence and sovereignty. The "political class", which includes many republicans and conservatives, have made their choice - they have chosen to replace the American people with millions and millions of "newcomers" (mostly Latino, Asian and Arab/Muslim). As the native born white Americans die off over the next few years, they will be replace by Juan and Mohammed. They are new Americans.

Globalism/internationalism has won. The internationalists have felt for many years that Americans were too rich, too independent; now we are being destroyed or more accurately, de-constructed. It is almost complete.

Nancy in NC| 6.10.11 @ 7:11AM

I completely agree. My son in law was naturalized last July here in NC. Of the 125 or so, his was one of the few white faces or from European backgrounds. Most were from Africa or the Middle East. I wonder how many of those won the visa lottery or went through the same procedures to become a citizen. And furthermore, how many took the oath seriously.

Politicians have sold this country and the left has been their accomplice.

juanin20mill| 6.10.11 @ 3:27PM

Get involved! Sign up at NumbersUSA.com to send free faxes to your reps on immigration enforcement.

obii| 6.10.11 @ 7:31PM

Wow Nancy, wow! So in this day and age you still kid yourself that American citizenship is fit for only whites or pple with European background? I hate to break it to ya but America belongs to the world. everybody here is an immigrant whether your ancestors settled here in the 1800's or in 1980, everybody 'came' to America!
So Africa or Middle East, they have as much right to be here as u, as long as they are legal.
And by the way, I wonder if your inlaw took his oath seriously, hmmmm...

MAINER64| 6.10.11 @ 9:27PM

What Nancy was commenting on (the gist of which was apparently lost on yourself) was that this country was mainly founded and made great by white christian Europeans or their descendants. Massive 3rd world immigration is a fairly recently new phenomena and will literally and figuratively change the face of this country (and for the worst in my opinion; you may believe that this country become what it did by chance but I beg to differ; it is a direct result of the culture (white christian European) that set it apart from the rest of the world of which 3/4 is still a sewer).

obii| 6.10.11 @ 10:30PM

That was not the gist of what Nancy was commenting on. I stand by my comments and am not taking a word back.
Your comment has nothing to do with what I am saying. So white Europeans made this country great, so?
Dont stylishly try to sneak in condescension and bigotry, ok?

RWinks| 6.11.11 @ 2:10PM

Ah, obii, so Americans, among all the World's people, have no right to protect and preserve their culture, language and traditions. I get it, obii. Americans are evil, horrible people and deserve to disappear from the Earth.

wigglwagon| 6.11.11 @ 4:49PM

You do not have to take it back but you are still wrong. All she did was tell what was the ethnic makeup of a group being nationalized. That makeup is totally different today from what it was a hundred years ago. You are the one who brought condescension and bigotry to the discussion.

mike w| 6.11.11 @ 8:13PM

Since you are an ignorant smudge, I wouldn't expect you to take back anything you have written.

Clearly, importing millions of third worlders that don't share our culture and language is a bad idea. If that concept is bigotry then I guess I am a bigot.

To further show your pop culture education, you toss out the "nation of immigrant" bunk. People have been immigrating since Lucy popped out of the African bush a million years ago. American Indians are not a separate race that evolved in the Americas. They crossed the land bridge in waves of humanity, displacing others as they moved east and south. That's probably not something you have put much thought into.

Pelligrino| 6.11.11 @ 4:39PM

MAINER64, I agree with you. Wholeheartedly.

The success formula in the US is not happenstance. It is the rarest of forumla's on the earth, but the winningest: Christian faith, ethics, laws based on same. Work ethic. An education ethic. Entrepreneur ethic. Charity ethic.

Those coming here should not be coming. They should be societal copy cats. There are no copyright laws that preclude other peoples of the world from emulating the good, codified (in writing and accepted behaviors) norms the USA enjoys.

For example: What excuse does any Latin American country have for not being the "little Switzerland" of Latin America?

Coming to the USA or trying to come here (particularly when illegally attempted) betrays the decay and fecklessness of the origins.

There is nothing wrong with a culture standing up and aggressively defending its norms.

darcy| 6.11.11 @ 5:13PM

The Nationalization and Immigration Act of 1965, sponsored by Ted Kennedy who lied that the new law would have little effect on America's demographics, is nearly wholly to blame for the untenable, unassimilable mass of immigrants in our midst. At the very least, the 1965 Act needs to be repealed and a concerted effort made to design immigration policy that reflects more closely a goal to PROMOTE Western Civilization. As it is now, the left and liberals seem enthralled with the notion of undoing America, dismantling it from within, by welcoming with open arms people from every corner of the globe, many -- or most -- of whom have no desire to adopt Western Civilization -- with its Judeo-Christian roots, but instead are happy as clams to use our freedoms and welfare state to ENLARGE their footprint on our soil, and to act as subversives to bring the whole edifice down on itself.

The left -- and Chamber of Commerce-type Republicans -- are only too happy to see America's population increase by importing non-Westerners to the detriment of our national culture and cohesiveness as a people living under Constitutional government. Our DOI and Constitution presupposes a reverence and adherence to certain principles that are everyday attacked by the left and the "newcomers."

Very shortly, there will not remain enough "American-memory" to continue as a nation living under the rule of law, liberty, and basic human freedoms, so diluted will be the pool of citizens who still endorse, support, and promote traditional American values and the LAW.

In short, the left subverts our Constitution while simultaneously heralding the arrival of millions more non-Westerners who suck off of the taxpayer (in debt per household in excess of $500,000 as their share of the national debt) and further weaken the pillars that once made us strong -- AND FREE.

IT'S OVER. The handwriting is on the wall. Enjoy your leisure while you can; your children will be slaves.

sanjuro| 6.11.11 @ 7:26PM

I'm afraid you're right. Don't want you to be but the Federal govt has done nothing to prevent illegal MIGRATION from occuring.
Scream racism all you want OBII but I suggest you look at nations such as New Zealand. Try and immigrate there without a profession they desire. Ain't gonna happen. And they're pretty liberal down in kiwi land.

Mutch Moore | 6.12.11 @ 10:18PM

Darcy, your comments represent a real portent and read a lot like a Pat Buchanon book. It's already happened in France and U.K.

itwis| 7.12.11 @ 9:57PM

she didn't say that, stop taking things out of context, you must be a obummer loving koolaid drinker

PCC| 6.10.11 @ 12:18PM

I disagree. I support a "big gate, high walls" immigration policy. Legal immigration: good for the U.S., good for the immigrants. Illegal immigrants: bad for the U.S., and tough darts for illegals.

With 12 million unemployed Americans, and an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, I think the U.S. should deport every illegal immigrant it encounters.

Those illegal immigrants the government determines are otherwise productive and contributing to U.S. society, they should be put into a queue for legal immigration after they are deported, in line behind all those people from Latin America, Asia, Africa and Europe who are following the rules.

Actually, I admire the grit and determination of those illegal immigrants who have braved the challenges of coming to the U.S. come what may, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for their illegal status.

We're still a nation of laws, I think, and that should be their first lesson in citizenship.

Al Adab| 6.10.11 @ 12:53PM

You put your finger on it. We are (or once were) a nation of laws. Those who choose to immigrate, respect our society and laws and become part of us, are more than welcome. Illegal migrants, while I too admire their grit, represent a clear and present danger.

Pelligrino| 6.11.11 @ 4:00PM

AA, you and I normally agree here in this cyber place to opine. But...maybe not this time. Just maybe. "Grit?" Real grit is sticking it out right where you are. It can be Guatemala, El Salvador, or your rapidly disentegrating (crime up, violence up, gangs, etc.) suburb.

No spot on the globe today has any excuse for being a cesspool of unliveable conditions due to crime, gangs, drugs, human trafficing, No where. Maybe 100 years ago a region (and decent people hoping to carve out decent lives there) could sincerely claim the place "uninhabitable" due to official corruption, etc.

No more.

For many reasons.

So I have no sympathy whatsoever for the Mexican, Hondouran, Ethiopian, Vietnamese, or Zimbabawean knocking on my state/county's door to enter and live here whether legally or illegally.

Mexico could and SHOULD be the "success story Japan of the Western Hemisphere." Why is it not? Why is it not a peaceable economic juggernaut on the world stage just like Japan or South Korea?

True grit is lashing together the likeminded good people where you live and doing everything under God's sun to step-by-step, inch-by-inch roll back and end crime, gangs, drugs, corrupt police, crony politicans.

Those people I admire. Not those who high tail it out of harm's way.

Or?

Stuart Koehl| 6.12.11 @ 8:25PM

"Real grit is sticking it out right where you are."

You mean like the people who left Britain to found Jamestown Plantation in 1607, or the ones who founded Plimoth Plantation in 1620, or those who came to the Carolinas or Georgia, or Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire?

Apparently, you admire one type of grit, but not another.

The real issue is simple: previous generations of immigrants were committed to assimilation, while many of the present generation, legal and illegal, are not.

One reason why previous generations of immigrants were determined to assimilate was necessity--they had no other choice. In the absence of social welfare programs, they had to learn English, get a job, earn a living. They knew that, if they had a hard time, it was still easier than life back home, and their children would have it better still.

Solution to the immigration problem: no welfare benefits for immigrants or their children, until such time as they legally acquire permanent resident status. During the great waves of immigration in the 19th century, the government was very much concerned that those entering the country not become a burden. Proof of a skill or profession was essential for admittance. It would not hurt to go back to that model.

PJ| 6.12.11 @ 8:45PM

I agree w/you 100%. I may add that a 19th century immigrant may have had a sponsor for entry into this country whether or not he/she had a skill.

itwis| 7.12.11 @ 10:03PM

you hit the nail on the head, but it will never happen, it would be wrong for us to put our tax dollars on our own children, not giving our tax money to illegals and their anchor babies would violate their civil rights and we would be racist

Michael N| 6.10.11 @ 1:45PM

I agree that illegals aliens should be deported according to the rule of US federal law, but it is also expensive and a tax on the US system of immigration enforcement. The benefit of the state laws is it forces a large majority of the illegal aliens to leave of their own accord back to their homeland or to another state. For the states who enact the laws they receive an immediate economic downturn, but it will eventually payoff by reducing government spending. Arizona is currently feeling the pinch from a reduction of revenue, they are also seeing a reduction in domestic crime (including the 'non-criminal' crime that the left uses against the S-COMM program) as well as fewer demands on public services.

TrueBlue| 6.13.11 @ 6:32PM

My major problem with illegals is this... Even ignoring statistics, if their first act in this country is to break the law, how can we expect them to follow any of our other laws?

juanin20mill| 6.10.11 @ 3:20PM

Get involved! Sign up at NumbersUSA.com to send free faxes to your reps on immigration enforcement.

Alan Brooks| 6.10.11 @ 5:45PM

At least with Obama the illegal situation is beginning to change; as with Clinton, we could only do better than with the sterile, empty, double-minded and dynasticist Texas politics of the two predecessors; the two afterbirths of Reaganism, or rather, abortions.
Or say with Nixon: he could only do better than LBJ. Reagan could only have only been an inprovement on Carter-- to say the least.

Alan Brooks| 6.10.11 @ 5:58PM

I don't mean the Bushes were bad presidents such as LBJ and Carter were. Howeverafter the higher expectations built up by Reagan, what happened?: an insect from Kennebunkport was elected, not a bad president but merely a mediocrity, a nonentity. Then you compounded the error by electing his son for TWO terms. Geez, you are gluttons for punishment.
As for today, if you think Obama is himself an insect then for chrissakes elect a top-flight GOP guy or gal next year. Stop the games.

Cease the shit, please.

chuck| 6.11.11 @ 10:01AM

Okay Alan, for a long time I've heard you complain about the GOP nominees, and for the most part with good reason. Bush 1, a tax raising RINO, Dole: OMG, what a LOSER! Bush 2: Good on war on terror, sucked at almost everything else, McCain: combo of Dole, Bush 1, Kennedy.
So the question is, Alan, who would you want to see as the nominee? Who would you support?
Time to put up, or shut up.

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 11:23AM

""""""IF YOU THINK"""""".....OMG, what have you been smoking????????????

Alan Brooks| 6.11.11 @ 9:36PM

Someone with a high morality, such as Geo F. Will-- however good people cannot be nominated anymore because by the time they are finished being packaged for public consumption they are no longer good people.

Alan Brooks| 6.11.11 @ 9:42PM

Chuck, politics is celebrity politics now;
entertainment and nothing more.

Just One Question: how long before Weiner gets his book deal, and how much more will he make being famous-for-being-famous than he would have made if Weinergate scandal had never happened?

chuck| 6.11.11 @ 11:25PM

I agree with you on that, look at "client number nine" with his own show, CNN of course.
But you have to admit, scandal makes liberals famous, and scandals make conservatives disappear.
Mark Sanford, and the shirt-less guy from NY, what was his name?

summer brands | 6.10.11 @ 6:41AM

Sometimes, we can understand the phenomenon about the prevent of illegal aliens to administer countries and call for people to migrate to others countries legally. Right?

Alan Brooks| 6.10.11 @ 5:50PM

Don't know about the rest of the world, yet illegal immigration is a greater threat-- in the long run-- to America than al Qaeda. America is not an endless smorgasbord for anyone who wants to to come and feed off of--esp. since our unfunded liabilities are about $62 trillion.

Danny| 6.10.11 @ 11:16PM

I agree. I think US citizens can decide with whom they want to live. America is not for anyone, especially not for those who want to remake it in the image of their own alien culture. I could get more specific, but for starters, we should cut off all visas and access from Yemen, Somalia, and other hotbeds of terrorism or anti-American culture. If a country allows honor killings or genital mutilation, let its people stay there and practice it. Exceptions should be rare. Too bad we have to do this, but the risk to our culture by people who do not want to assimilate is too great.

Alan Brooks| 6.11.11 @ 9:47PM

The corruption of Mexico immediately makes you realize just how bad the situation is.

Alan Brooks| 6.10.11 @ 5:50PM

Don't know about the rest of the world, yet illegal immigration is a greater threat-- in the long run-- to America than al Qaeda. America is not an endless smorgasbord for anyone who wants to to come and feed off of--esp. since our unfunded liabilities are about $62 trillion.

mike w| 6.11.11 @ 8:15PM

"yet illegal immigration is a greater threat-- in the long run-- to America than al Qaeda"

Absolutely true.

Alan Brooks| 6.11.11 @ 9:49PM

How long now has Mexico been in a de facto state of siege? 10 years? 15?

Intelligent Design| 6.10.11 @ 6:47AM

Ejecting illegal immigrants is a matter of national sovereignty and national security. The fact that millions of illegals reside in the United States, consuming hundreds of $billions in public resources (for education, health care, and the criminal justice system) makes a mockery of the rule of law, and the meaning of citizenship. Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder have not only failed to uphold the rule of law, they are actively subverting the law. They are at war against the legislature, governor, and citizens of states like Arizona, and against all American citizens.

Let's suppose that 15 million people (no one knows exactly how many) have infiltrated the U.S. by walking across the Mexican border. Most came here to find work, but how many are members of drug gangs, and how many are actually Muslim terrorists? If only a very small percentage are terrorists , then there could be hundreds here now, plotting attacks against us. Perhaps we should bring home 100,000 troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and station 25,000 or more along the Mexican border.

Paul| 6.10.11 @ 7:12AM

Mr. Design, as usual you are right on, I always enjoy your posts.

I would add that we need to change the law that allows the anchor babies to stay. I live in MD, and in my town on main street if you see a Mexican woman, she is with child, pushing a 6 month old in the stroller, and holding on to a 2 year old. We do not need to import a generation of welfare receipents, we have enough of them here already.

One day there will be a horrible price to pay for having 30 million or so people in this country with no attachment to our flag, I don't know what it will be, but no good with come from this.

Ned| 6.10.11 @ 11:13AM

the price will be simple and clear-cut: in 100 years there will be no United States of America in any meaningful sense... Democrats will continue to enact wealth transfer and welfare handouts to people who legally are not entitled, until the whole system becomes so top-heavy with moochers it collapses.

I pity the coming generations for the loss of freedoms my grandchildren will witness.

I also intend that they know how to defend themselves, and are well armed. And, no, I'm no red-neck survivalist (not that that's a bad thing). I hold a graduate degree, and work in IT. But I can see what clearly eludes the brain-trust in the District of Corruption.

Al Adab| 6.10.11 @ 12:18PM

It won't be that long anymore, Ned. Future generations will curse our name for failing to preserve Liberty. It may take another 500 years before someone once again gives rise to a free republic. The dark age of tyranny is at the door, the barbarians are poised and unless we act strongly in the next two years to rebuild republican (not the party) government and free markets, to end the redistributionist insanity and preserve our society there is little good history will say of us.

juanin20mill| 6.10.11 @ 3:20PM

Get involved! Sign up at NumbersUSA.com to send free faxes to your reps on immigration enforcement.

irish19| 6.10.11 @ 12:21PM

I think 100 yr. may be an optimistic assessment. I'm afraid it may get bloody long before that.

Al Adab| 6.10.11 @ 12:32PM

Good afternoon Irish. I agree with your time line. Frankly if we continue down this road any longer there won't be 20 left. No money, no work, the collapse begins.

"This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper."

TrueBlue| 6.13.11 @ 6:41PM

As much as I disliked the newer Star Wars movies, it has a quote that is rather appropriate.

"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." Of course, I quoted that back when Obama was elected too...

Mutch Moore | 6.10.11 @ 3:20PM

Ned: I hate to break it to you, but, in far less than 100 years the Second Amendment and any right to keep and bear arms will be ancient history - as will America as we know it now. You're quite correct about the top heaviness causing the bottom to fall out. Its happening now before our eyes. Nevertheless, uphold freedom and sovereignty for your grand kids as long as possible. Die fighting and die happy. And I do hope NRA membership certificate hangs on your wall along with that graduate degree. May God Bless you Sir.

EvilleGenius| 6.10.11 @ 11:49PM

Exactly right.....there will be a horrible price to pay for our childrens children and their children to follow. We are losing our nation to the illegals who are changing the demographics of our nation and not in a positive way. Even Mexico protects its sovereignty better than the US thanks to the bleedin heart liberals, sanctuary cities, and politicians looking to convert illegals into undocumented democrats. If we want to stop this influx we should incorporate Mexcios immigration laws .

Mutch Moore | 6.10.11 @ 3:13PM

Another superb post by I.D. And for all those here who have begrudging admiration for "the grit" of illegal aliens - no, scratch that as rude - let's call them instead "undocumented immigrants," because of their determination to improve their lives even if it requires breaking the law; one wonders if such admiration could be reserved for Bernard Madoff?

The U.S. seems to find vast financial resources for all sorts of stuff but takes the stance that it is somehow excessively expensive to do mass deportations. Second offense illegals, and those whose native countries won't accept them back, should go to work camps here. Not unlike the Russian Gulag camps, but with real, not contrived, trumped up charges. The U.S. relinquishes a little sovereignty with each toleration of border incursion.

Alan Brooks| 6.10.11 @ 8:13PM

"Ejecting illegal immigrants is a matter of national sovereignty and national security."

Outright survival. But latinos are, generally, too pleasant; and latinas are very popular; every weekend I see guys dating them-- and talking about it sometimes:

"cuna", with an ~ over the 'n'.

Pelligrino| 6.11.11 @ 3:45PM

Intel. Design, agreed. Every day the national security disaster (something that, if the US remains somehow miracously viable, will haunt us for the next 50 years) that is our open, corrupt southern border imperils ALL OF US.

It is more than eggregious enough that this steals trusting (and naive) taxpayer monies to fund people who are 1) illegal, 2) don't merit the help -- it is unconscionable that our open borders (there is only limited, get-lucky control) usher in violent crime, gang members, idiot illiterates who will live their lives from crime, and, yes, the dedicated terrorists and narco bloodthirsty hoodlums.

One need only examine this lone issue to know that ALL our governmental leaders should be placed in stocks (think colonial days) and left to rot and die there.

I have openly wondered here in similar article commentaries why this issue alone is not the bigggest sore point for USA - Canada relations. These same criminal thugs and welfare addicts move thru the lower 48 into Vancouver, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Montreal.

Canada is also a wealthy nation but not like the USA. Hasn't Canada already reached their financial insolvency breaking point and wouldn't real Canadian citizens like to jettison (like yesterday) their couple million illegals who "came up" from the US's southern border?

Alan Brooks| 6.11.11 @ 9:57PM

The way I hear guys talking about cuna (with an ~ above the n), and "pusica", it appears cheap labor is not the only motive for allowing Mexicans in--
also cheap you-know-what.

Bob K.| 6.10.11 @ 6:54AM

Excellent analysis, Quin! And that is why Hazleton passed it's law. The Federal government was not enforcing it's own laws when it came to Immigration and the rule of law was being ignored by our country's leadership in Washington DC.

Brave men and women have finally stepped forward into this leadership vacuum and Lou Barletta was one of the first to do so. He was attacked in the press and the City was sued by the ACLU for doing so.

And thanks should also go to the lawyer in the case, Law Professor Kris Kobach and to the many people who contributed to their legal fund. The ACLU which makes a lot of money for itself in suits like this is quite upset. Someone should now sue them for Attorneys fees!

Nancy in NC| 6.10.11 @ 7:16AM

Every red state should pass legislation similar to Alabama.

The main responsibility of the Federal government is to protect its citizens. How dismally they have failed in this fundamental first principle. And how sad that so few of the citizens even give a fig.

Brian Mc| 6.10.11 @ 7:25AM

They are too busy waiting for the next subsidy check delivered by a post office that did just fine with a two cent stamp for two hundred years.

Give me federal powers and a DNR Agent. We will have rounded up half this State's illegals by the end of the month. An empty beer can for a fishing reel and not a word of English? Hmm, most likely an upstanding citizen...my apologies for the profiling.

Holkden Cowan| 6.10.11 @ 7:17AM

The Bizarre thing here is the nakedness of the way the left is trying to destroy the US by derstroying its demographic.

Vickie| 6.10.11 @ 7:22AM

La Raza is determined to take this nation "one birth at a time."

Citizens are determined to get this welfare horde off our backs "one deportation at a time."

juanin20mill| 6.10.11 @ 3:26PM

Get involved! Sign up at NumbersUSA.com to send free faxes to your reps on immigration enforcement.

Bob K.| 6.10.11 @ 8:11AM

Three things made the USA the great country it became: The Westward Expansion; The outcome of the Civil War which saved the Republic and the great Immigrations which followed the Civil War. Combined they made us the "Arsenal of Democracy"and it resulted in the salvation of Europe spread the hope of freedom everywhere.

Now we cannot come to terms with Immigration and it is destroying the United States and the hope of freedom worldwide!

wigglwagon| 6.10.11 @ 8:26AM

The Constitution only gives Congress the authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and to prohibit the importation of such persons as the states think proper to admit. That is what the Constitution says.

"Such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit" is the exact wording in the Constitution.

I did not go to Harvard Law School but that sure does not sound to me like sole authority over immigration rests with the federal government. If the states do not think it is proper to admit anyone, it sure sounds like Congress does not have the authority to over ride them.

Quin| 6.10.11 @ 11:31AM

Neither Arizona nor Alabama nor Hazleton, PA are establishing rules of naturalization. All they are doing is relying on the NATIONAL rules of naturalization in determining who may or may not live or work in their jurisdictions. There is no constitutional problem with that.

USSAlabama| 6.10.11 @ 10:15PM

Quin, I have a feeling that this one will stick. Alabama's law is just a little different from similar laws regarding illegal immigrants, just enough.

I'm proud of our new legislature, and Gov. Bentley may have been nominated by cross-voting dems, but he is, so far, doing what he should do.

shevrae| 6.10.11 @ 1:18PM

States and cities are not attempting to issue visas or deny those holding legal visas from pursuing anything - they are simply trying to provide disincentives to those who would profit from others breaking federal law. I don't see where they are in violation of the Constitution.

Mutch Moore | 6.10.11 @ 3:30PM

shevrae, the problem with your premise is that it is replete with entirely too much common sense for the black robed elitists in the federal Courts. For what it's worth, you make a mountain of sense and logic to most Americans I am sure.

Johnny Rebel| 6.10.11 @ 9:21AM

The reason that Washington went nuts when Arizona passed a strict illegal immigrant policy is this. Arizona hold a HUGE border with Mexico, if it is closed, this closes around 40% of the border to illegals. this is why Rhode island has a similar law BUT NO ONE CARES because they have no way to restrict the flow of immigrants, unlike Arizona. If you really want to see Washington go crazy let Texas pass a similar law, closing around another 45% of the border. If Arizona and Texas stop the flow of illegals this leaves New Mexico and Caliornia borders the only ones open, and these are SMALL areas compared to Texas and Az.

simon templar| 6.10.11 @ 3:59PM

Excellent observation!

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 3:32PM

True, but that resultant small immigration window explodes even more California's humongous budget defecit, and the probability of this state [with Waxman, Pilosi, Boxer, Brown etc] moaning/groaning to Obama/Washington for a federal government BAILOUT!!!!!!!!!

l5j6| 6.10.11 @ 10:16AM

I fear it's too late. Just look around and you can see. Virtually everything is written in Spanish these days. Schools are chock-full of kids who are immigrants or their parents are immigrants and the school systems insist on teaching the kids in their or their parent's native language. How can you really have an American school where the kids speak 20 different languages? The country is being de-constructed, as said above.

All immigration, legal and illegal must be either stopped or reduced, especially with theis awful economy we are living with.

juanin20mill| 6.10.11 @ 3:23PM

Get involved! Sign up at NumbersUSA.com to send free faxes to your reps on immigration enforcement.

obii| 6.10.11 @ 7:40PM

Is English the original language of America? While I dont think spanish should be put up there with English, just remember the original Americans spoke Cherokee.
Everybody immigrated into this country, whether in 1800 or 1980, we are all immigrants! As long as it is not illegal, live and let live!!

Danny| 6.10.11 @ 11:22PM

English is in fact the original language of the America you know. Cherokee is in reality NOT the language of this nation, but of the Cherokee nation, who just happened to occupy the same physical land-mass. Do you really want to go back to the country as it was before the English got here?

loulou| 6.10.11 @ 10:32AM

Quin Hillyer says he's "a moderate on immigration policy." What does THAT mean?

Al Adab| 6.10.11 @ 11:31AM

One of the enumerated powers, the reason for being, of the Federal Govt. is to protect the States from invasion. If the Fed fails or neglects to do so, what action might the States take? it would be logical to call out their militias or to tighten the laws involved. Should The States sue the Fed for failing to perform their explicit duty?

davelnaf| 6.10.11 @ 11:36AM

One of the biggest canards you’ll ever hear from the professional Left is its deep 'concern' for illegal aliens. If they really liked illegals—most of whom come from Mexico—its seems logical they would be making a lot of suggestions about how to make Mexico a better place so Mexicans wouldn’t be crossing the border all the time to get out of that country. But not a helpful peep comes from them about how to do this. The truth is the Left likes illegals because they help grow the size of government and sometimes vote illegally in our elections and always for Democrats. This makes these people the proverbial Salt of the Earth to Lefties and also very valuable.

l5j6| 6.10.11 @ 11:48AM

Mass immigration, whether pushed by leftists or so called "conservatives".....is really a function of big government liberalism.

The Beltway "political class" is literally replacing the American people with a new population, usually very poor, un or barely educated and therefore in need of govt social programs, thus ensuring long careers for the "educated, political class".

Oldefarte| 6.10.11 @ 12:15PM

Excellent article [as usual] Quin! As an Alabama resident, I'm not sure of the illegal immigration extent within this state, compared to that of states such as Texas, Arizona, California etc; but do know that the supplemental problems [costs/expenses to state/local governments for public education, medical-health care etc] that same causes are tremendous. In my area, my guess is that the most extensive problem exists in our neighboring county which contains numerous farms and agricultural entities which use illegals to work in their field crops. Whether considering any state or Alabama, the point with this issue is as Quin indicates is that this presidential Democratic administration is purposely ignoring its federal legal obligation to enforce its own immigration laws strictly due to it partisaned political purposes. This administration wants illegals to have free reign in this country so that their legal relatives-citizens will vote for any/all fellow Democrats and therefore increase its power base. This immigration benefit, alosng with all other governmental welfare related issues, is simply what Democrats are all about; and that is the quid-pro-quoism of providing welfare in return for votes. This administration does not care if it breaks the laws and legal/moral obligations to enforce same if they secure the votes of the benefit-recipients in return. This is nothing but the total political agenda of the Democratic Party, and the useage of labor union-style goon-squad tactics in providing same is what is known as THE CHICAGO WAY of politics!!!!!!!!!

juanin20mill| 6.10.11 @ 3:24PM

Get involved! Sign up at NumbersUSA.com to send free faxes to your reps on immigration enforcement.

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 11:29AM

Already do that. Have my reps' email addresses on my favorites listings. Periodically send them communications regarding critical issues[and usually get their form letter-replies several weeks later stating their positions] . Recommend everyone here do the same!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 6.10.11 @ 12:20PM

PS: In addition to Quin's thoughts on this issue, the extremely liberal legal wing of the Democratic Party/ACLU of Alabama has indicated its intent to file suit against Alabama over its passage of this immigration legislation!!!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 6.10.11 @ 12:56PM

PSII: As backup for my opinion, please read James Walsh's excellent editorial in Newsmax!!!!!!!!!

Al Adab| 6.10.11 @ 12:24PM

Ask the Romans living in Gaul about 350 AD what they thought of all those Germans crossing the Rhine and building towns around the countryside.

In 410 Alaric sacked the city of Rome.

Now ask the Texans what they think about the "colonias" built across their State and ask the federal government when it intends to fulfil its' Constitutional obligation to defend the States from invasion. The answers might enlighten.

fwb| 6.10.11 @ 12:43PM

Those who can read will note that there no grant of power in the Constitution to the fed concerning immigration. In fact, immigration as such is not mentioned. In Article I, Section 9, the fed is restricted from prohibiting the "Migration or Importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit" until 1808. Thus Congress under regulations of commerce with foreign nations might prohibit further traffic in slaves. More importantly one should note that it is "such persons as any of the STATES ... shall see fit to admit". Who sees fit? The states see fit. Thus we are given in black and white the knowledge that the States retained power over immigration with the feds merely have the power to prohibit some of what the States allow with respect to importing slaves. Even with this clause, the power to determine immigration is retained by the States. The federal side of things is merely a weak power to prohibit immigrationof slaves, not to manage immigration beyond that prohibition.

BTW, the United States are a Union. The United States ARE NOT a nation. The Framers specifically removed references to the US as a nation and the government as national during the convention. It was not until Lincoln spit on the graves of the revolutionary patriots and destroyed all they died for the people began to think of the US as a nation. The word nation with respect to a singular United States does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution for the United States. This concept of a single nation was invented in order to destroy individual states sovereingty. Continuing to think along those lines place the thinker on the camp of those who are working to destroy the Union.

Al Adab| 6.10.11 @ 12:57PM

Not bad fwb and I reiterate my above regarding the enumerated power to defend the States from invasion. What recourse do the States have when the Federal Govt. refuses its' obligation, its' reason for being? Are we up against that "alter or abolish" part that Jefferson used?

Ore Gone| 6.10.11 @ 4:58PM

Thanks for the comments. You don't often see your opinion in print but it is right on. The preservation of the union was the beginning of the Federalist state. The Feds as stewards of the unclaimed lands at statehood has become quite a joke.

ABNCP| 6.10.11 @ 12:52PM

Folks we are making this far more complicated that it really is. To solve this problem we need to:
1. Throw out this disaster of an administration in 2012.
2. Pass an airtight E-Verify law that applies across the country. Lose the jobs they will leave.
3. Take our troops out of Europe/NATO. Let the Europeans defend themselves. Put some of those troops, I would say about two or three Armored Cavalry Regiments, on the border to back up the Border Patrol. In other words secure the border.
4. Allow our law enforcement officers the freedom to use provisions provided in the new Alabama and Arizona laws.
If we do that by 2014 the border immigration/illegal alien problems will be pretty much history.

Oldefarte| 6.10.11 @ 2:56PM

Sounds like a winner to me!!!!!!

Slingshot| 6.10.11 @ 10:21PM

You're making a serious dent in the world's supply of exclamation points.

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 11:30AM

I give it my best shot!!!!!!!!

Pelligrino| 6.11.11 @ 3:22PM

Slingshot, you need not be concerned (or lose any sleep over it), their production and distribution are now ALSO subsidized!!!!!!!

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 3:35PM

Subsidized???????????????

Mutch Moore | 6.10.11 @ 3:41PM

ABNCP: Sorry to inform you, but your proposal is completely unworkable, impractical and simply not realistic. The reason? ... the whole idea employs excessive common sense and simplicity and is entirely devoid of the requisite complexity for government disfunctionality. Also, your idea would put huge branches of government (workers in the entitlement sections, i.e, food stamp admin., etc.) out of a job.

Nevertheless, your idea is a nice exercise in fantasy.

chuck| 6.11.11 @ 10:07AM

BTW, who the hell are we protecting the Euroweenies from?

wolflen| 6.10.11 @ 1:54PM

in the near future it will be written..."they bitched but now they speak spanish"

AgentRose| 6.10.11 @ 2:08PM

THE OATH OF OFFICE: “ I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "

Does this apply to the execution of laws of the United States?

Al Adab| 6.10.11 @ 2:51PM

The Constitution specifies that the Executive shall see that the laws be faithfully applied. So one of the enumerated duties of the President is to execute the law.

MTB| 6.10.11 @ 2:41PM

"It is the national executive, not the local governments, that is going rogue."

Exactly right, Mr. Hillyer. We have a president who is supposed to enforce the law but instead picks and chooses which laws apply to him and his administration and which do not. One thing's sure, if the majority of illegal aliens voted for Republicans, he'd be busing every last one of them out of the country as fast as he possibly could, regardless of the cost.

simon templar| 6.10.11 @ 4:12PM

Thank you MTB, bullseye!

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 11:32AM

Truth, the whole truth......!!!!!

juanin20mill| 6.10.11 @ 3:18PM

Get involved! Sign up at NumbersUSA.com to send free faxes to your reps on immigration enforcement.

thethinice | 6.10.11 @ 3:22PM

The biggest bogus argument of the left regarding the illegals is that it is impossible to deport them all and subsequently we must either do nothing about them at the very least or at the very worst grant a mass amnesty. People all that is required is to make it impossible for them to work and live here which is what is being accomplished by these various state laws being passed. At some point they will start packing their bags and heading back south. It's not too late as some suggest but it must be done now not later. We are supposed to be a nation of laws with the Constitution as our guide but the Pres and Congress are making us a nation of men subject to their whims going back at least 150 years. Know your history! The problem is only accelerating and that is what is so alarming about what is going on thanks to the Dems and the GOP.

simon templar| 6.10.11 @ 4:10PM

My friend this problem can be corrected in less than a week. Enforce the LAW on businesses that employ them, enforce the use of e-verify, punish those who break the law. They will deport themselves. The question then becomes, do conservative Americans have the will to fight for these enforcements or will they roll over to liberal shouts and rants? It really is that simple.

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 3:40PM

Even though more than a week would be required, but how about additionally seriously eliminating/reducing governmental welfare, whereupon the able-bodied recipients would be forced to seek menial labor jobs [ie agriculture, janitorial etc] now held by illegals, thereby forcing/necessitating their voluntary return home across the southern border???????

simon templar| 6.10.11 @ 4:06PM

Maybe we could start dealing with this issue by first by stopping ourselves from using the term, "immigration." This is not imigration, these are not illegal immigrants, these are not undocumented americans. These are illegal aliens who are invading this country by the millions, plain and simple, with the aiding and abetting of businesses who are beaking the LAW and a federal government that is failing to protect and secure its borders and failing to uphold the LAW. Why is this so hard to grasp? Got any ideas about that, Quin?

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 11:44AM

So true, ST! I'll chime in my two-bits worth to your inquiry, if I may. I don't begrudge any person with the backbone/courage to only want to work/make money and to return same to their indigent relatives for food, clothing and shelter purposes. However, our system is sevely broken and needs fixin'. I partially agree with contender Johnson's ideas regarding governmental monitorization of immigrants, documenting same, and allowing them TEMPORARY entrance for work purposes. However, our present/historical system is flawed in that this country provides governmental welfare to impoverished citizens which allows them to lazily choose to stay at home while collecting these benefits, and not have to work for their financial needs. This system rewards these people for their laziness through welfare. Correspondingly, farmers desperately need manual labor to pick crops etc and the one/only available source are these illegal aliens-immigrants that desperately need/want the money from same. If this country would seriously eliminate/reduce governmental welfare from the ABLE-TO-WORK element of the current recipients of welfare [and convert welfare to workfare], it should be able to force them out of desperation to go forth into these fields and EARN A LIVING. Just my humble opinion, of course!!!!!!!!

sanjuro| 6.11.11 @ 7:30PM

Exactyt it's NOT immigration, it's MIGRATION

darcy| 6.11.11 @ 10:14PM

This is exactly the case, OF: laborers are paid not to work in order to create a market for immigrants, legal or otherwise.

As usual, the taxpayer is made to pay for his own servitude; we become servants, slaves, and serfs when the federal government decides to use our fungible tax dollars to promote its goal of weakening/diluting "America" through the importation of alien peoples -- who once on the dole (thanks to liberal Supreme Court rulings) are given treatment under the law that is denied to native-born citizens. And I'm not talking about anchor babies.

cpestka| 6.10.11 @ 4:12PM

I live in Arizona, and can honestly say that for years we were told over and over that the illegals were just taking jobs that we wouldn't do, there weren't that many, etc. It is all a lie, because we now have teenagers who can't find summer jobs because illegals have them (you can't go to a fast food resteraunt and get an english speaker). We have schools bursting with teens who don't speak english, and who don't care, or activly hate America. Our E.R.'s are overloaded with illegals, and we are the kidnapping capital of the world...YEAH, illegal immigration has worked REAL well for us.

l5j6| 6.10.11 @ 4:58PM

I sympathize with you........as said above, it's probably too late. Mexican culture is everywhere in all 50 states, fueled by endless streams of "amigos".

It's all but over......nothing left but the crying.

Pelligrino| 6.11.11 @ 3:12PM

cpestka, please see my comments below (made just a few minutes ago) and weigh in. My comments are beneath those of Mark MacDonald. I would like to hear some 'unvarnished truth' on what your Arizona lawmakers and governors are tangibly doing for you good, law abiding folks in Arizona.

Here I hear "hot air" when I see Arizona pols on the TV, but I see no doing/actions/improvements. It seems like the tpical career policitians/laywer class: They are not the least bit interested in REALLY SOLVING the problem(s). Would like to hear your take. Thank you.

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 3:46PM

Even though not a resident, I'm aware of their current governor/legislators passing their state immigration, whereupon El Chosen One and his legal eagle Pardon Boy at Justice filed a federal lawsuit against Arizona because of same. I'm also aware that their previous [butch-gal] governor refused Arizona's conservatives wishes to pass same immigration legislation, and is now shouting to the heavens as homeland security chief about how secure our southern border is [what a CROC]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jimmydean| 6.10.11 @ 4:55PM

What you are forgetting and everyone else is that you are attacking legal American citizens and their families? My ancestors were attacked years ago and forced from their land. I will not let that happen to me and my family. I am a citizen here and I have the same rights as you. I have the right to have my family with me the same as you. So go ahead a try the bull**** law. I will fight you every step of the way.

Ore Gone| 6.10.11 @ 5:04PM

Everyone has an ancestor that was forced from their land. That argument holds no water. Taking advantage of a loophole in the constitution to create anchor babies that was never intended to be used in that regard is wrong. If you are a legal immigrant you have nothing to fear but if you are in violation of the law you need to pack your bags and go home or apply for citizenship.

Nite| 6.10.11 @ 10:12PM

I agree. Enforce the laws on the books. Eliminate the anchor baby law, which also anchors numerous family members. Use E-verify, punish employers, quit providing free healthcare except for US citizens, quit providing in state tuition to state colleges and universities, punish illegals who steal social security numbers. Deport all individuals who overstay their visas. Previously deported individuals who return go immediately to jail and that is where they remain until their home country assumes responsibility. If people want to migrate to the US, do so legally and you will be welcome. If anyone thinks I am too harsh, illegals going into Mexico for example is dealt with harshly. The US should be able to determine who is entering this country. Not all illegals are here to work. Some are here for terrorism. Illegals are simply breaking the states, and we can not keep it up.

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 3:51PM

Agree with most of your excellent points, but mass deportation of illegals would become a political nightmare [especially for R's]. An alternative solution would be to force the government to eliminate/reduce governmental welfare [or convert welfare to workfare], force recipients to WORK for their living and thereby replace the illegals in the farm fields etc!!!!!

Danny| 6.10.11 @ 11:07PM

Just a thought, from a non-lawyer who just had the thought: could a state argue that "immigration" and responsibilities to enforce it, is directed only at deciding who gets across the border, and their status once here. But once they are here, a state could make any law it wanted to concerning them, just as it can make laws restricting the rights of their citizens (driver's licenses, etc)

Mark MacDonald| 6.11.11 @ 1:26PM

Having lived on the border I can tell you that the situation is bad and worsening. The drug cartels are in open rebellion against the elected government and they have taken control of smuggling workers into the United States. States and localities haven't any option except to enforce existing immigration laws. Their fiscal viability and safety depend on it.

Pelligrino| 6.11.11 @ 3:05PM

This issue is at the top of the heap in telling ALL OF US that our government officials are ALL cretins. ALL OF THEM.

Give a real man a $1 billion budget and 32,000 workers (hint, hint: The nation has lots of unemployed men now the ages of 18 - 32) and this DAILY border fiasco of national security proportions would be OVER (tying in the National Guard and putting real boots up the butts of our corrupt, lazy, and ineffectual, bought off? current Border Patrol).

If a Rick Perry -- he's a prime example -- wants a sliver of credence (he really does not have any presently), he'd better get his butt in gear. Texas could lead the nation on this. Yet what is Rick Perry doing?

Yes, even Jan Brewer is mighty weak at the knees. "All talk, no do?" All bluster, nothing tangible.

Mr. MacDonald please keep reporting from that border zone if you are still near it or have close associations with those who do. The only honesty in this entire discussion comes from normal everyday citizens.

Oldefarte| 6.11.11 @ 4:00PM

The sole responsibility for immigration rests with the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and therein lies the problem. If same FG would get off its incompetent ars and DO ITS JOB, this problem would be solved. As El Chosen One asininely declared, maybe what's needed is a large moat stocked with alligators extended across our southern border??????????

Audace| 6.11.11 @ 2:56PM

Hey, what's the deal with US Visas being aggressively advertised on the web?

Yep, tis true.

When travelling abroad (where I've noticed the most is in Europe) and just using an internet cafe or a public library computer....up pops a very snazzy (official looking) VISA for USA ad. One is trying to look up a weather site or a news or transportation site, but up pops this ad just like one for a SONY product, an auto ad, or Coca Cola.

What' s is going on? I have thought it might be a scam. Get someone to give up personal info. But, no, it seems like it is a legit item.

I mean, we've got people killing themselves to get to the USA to study, to travel, to work, and for full-time (permanent) status. Do we need to adverstise? Who is making money off this?

Something is very fishy about this.

Note: This ad (and various versions of it) I've seen for over 5 years now.

I'm told our failures with visas often result from the weekly avalanche of applications. Okay, so if our government ICE/INS staffers are inundated....how can ads be helpful?

Johnny| 6.12.11 @ 12:45PM

This article and following comments enrage me. It only points out the obvious. This problem has existed for many years and should be easily solved by the individual states enforcing current laws and enacting stricter laws concerning the hiring and rental of housing to illegals. I live in Alabama and am very happy to say that we have finally, after 126 years, gotten rid of the demon cratic control of our state legislature. Maybe now we can do something to improve our state. By the way we have also recently passed laws curtailing the NEA control of politics and depleting the power of the union thug power here, but you won't hear much about it nationally for some reason.(Could be that most of us are conservatives.)

l5j6| 6.12.11 @ 5:39PM

I applaud Alabama but like others have said above, its probably already too late. Why kind of USA can we have when we are bi-lingual? Everything written today is written in Spanish along with English. When we have moooslim women walking around our neighborhoods dressed in full-on, black burkas?

These United States are over.

Stuart Koehl| 6.12.11 @ 8:34PM

You forget that the United States was always bi-lingual in one way or another. From the mid-19th to the mid-20th century, a huge swath of territory running from New York through to Ohio was known as "Germania", where large numbers of people spoke German as their everyday language. You can still find vintage newsreel footage of Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth speaking German on the dugout steps of Yankee Stadium. It took the impact of two World Wars against Germany to finally stamp out that unique subculture.

Similarly, the Southwest was always bilingual, since, in many areas, a plurality of the residents were descendants of the original Mexican settlers. Elsewhere, you could find pockets of French culture (Vermont and New Hampshire), Yiddish culture (mainly New York and environs), Rusyn culture (New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Ohio), and of course, Irish culture (one reason the Irish were despised--in addition to their Roman Catholicism--was their lack of English.

The main difference between then and now is the linguistic minorities had the good sense not to press demands that the state accommodate their language needs. Instead, they swatted their kids upside the head and insisted they learn English.

Bob K.| 6.12.11 @ 9:43PM

The Irish were despised for their lack of English?

You can't be serious!

Were the signs that they still complain about till this day during their Irish heritage week (known as St. Patrick's Day) that said "No Irish need apply" written in Gaelic?

They were the only Immigrant group to come to America with a knowledge of English! Hell, the Irish nuns in school used to crack my mother's knuckles because Polish was her 1st language at home and she had trouble with English in the early grades!

casquette lacoste | 6.13.11 @ 1:48AM

nice job!

AH Handbags | 6.13.11 @ 3:21AM

Very detailed info. I am very glad toReplica Watche read this article. Thanks for giving us nice articles.

insanity | 6.13.11 @ 10:53AM

nice post

More Articles by Quin Hillyer

More Articles From Streetcar Line

Make Room for a New Master

April 9, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Closed to the Public

March 26, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

The Labor Nominee’s Other Lies

March 19, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

Thomas Perez Should Be Blocked

March 12, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

The Coming Obama Crack-Up

March 6, 2013 | Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/10/yes-states-may-restrict-illega

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|114 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|126 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|114 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|4 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|72 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|21 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Alan O’Day, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 12:26AM

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 5.19.13

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 5.19.13

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy | 5.17.13

The Liberal Union Behind the IRS

Jeffrey Lord | 5.16.13

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn | 5.17.13

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg | 5.17.13

From Bimbos to Benghazi

Jeffrey Lord | 5.9.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn't Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman | 5.17.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.