The War on Arizona
by Patrick J. Buchanan
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
Not since President Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock and JFK sent U.S. marshals to the University of Alabama has the federal government seemed so at war with a state of the union.
Arkansas and Alabama were defying U.S. court orders to desegregate. But Barack Obama’s war on Arizona is not a war of necessity. It is a war of choice—an unprovoked war, undertaken not to defend constitutional or civil rights, but to pander to his party’s left and Hispanic voters.
New Mexico’s Gov. Bill Richardson, himself Hispanic, gave the game away. At the Boston governors conference, he assured colleagues, nervous over the administration attacks on Arizona’s immigration law, that “Obama is popular with Hispanic voters, and this is going to be a popular move with them nationally.”
Eric Holder fended off criticism of his Justice Department suit against Arizona that alleges the state usurped federal responsibility by saying he has not ruled out a second suit for “racial profiling.”
Rather than work with Arizona to secure the border and send the illegals home, the Obamaites are taking Mexico’s side against Arizona, and against the faithful execution of U.S. law.
In a shocking and telling episode in the Rose Garden, Obama stood by mute as Felipe Calderon attacked the Arizona law as “discriminatory.” The next day, Democrats in Congress, with Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano joining in, cheered the Mexican president’s slander that Arizona introduced “racial profiling to law enforcement.”
There was a time when such an insult to a state of our union, on U.S. soil by a foreign ruler, would have produced a diplomatic crisis, if not pistols at dawn.
Some of us recall Ike walking out of a Paris summit with Nikita Khrushchev rather than apologize for sending U-2s over Russia, and JFK, after the Bay of Pigs, retorting to Khrushchev that the United States did not need any lectures on intervention from people “whose character is forever stamped on the bloody streets of Budapest.”
Democrats cheer as Arizona is attacked by a Mexican leader whose country treats illegal entry as a felony and illegal aliens with a brutality no American would tolerate.
And what exactly is at the heart of the Arizona law?
Simply this: Being in this country illegally is now a misdemeanor in Arizona, as it is in U.S. law. And as a 1940 U.S. law requires resident aliens to carry their green cards or work visas at all times, Arizona will require police to request such identification if, in a “lawful contact”—a traffic violation or altercation—the officer entertains a “reasonable suspicion” the individual may be here illegally.
Is this really Nazi Germany? Does this really justify the hysteria? And if this is the Gestapo, why did Holder not make this feature of the law the grounds for his Justice Department suit?
Answer: Calderon and Obama notwithstanding, racial profiling is prohibited by the Arizona law. Nor is there any evidence racial or ethnic profiling will be condoned by Arizona. The law has not even taken effect.
Unlike San Francisco and other towns that declare themselves to be “sanctuary cities” and refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities, Arizona is not challenging or usurping U.S. law, but trying to assist the U.S. government in enforcing the immigration laws.
Why is Arizona under attack for simply trying to help enforce our immigration laws? Because the Obama administration cannot, will not or does not even wish to see those laws enforced.
The U.S. government is today derelict in its constitutional duty.
And this is approaching an existential crisis for America. For there are in Arizona 450,000 illegal aliens, a population of law-breakers in a single state approaching the size of the entire U.S. Army.
Though we have 15 million Americans unemployed, near 10 percent of our workforce, with a higher share of African-Americans jobless, we have 8 million illegal aliens holding jobs. And last year the administration handed out over a million green cards and work visas to foreigners to come and take jobs that would have gone to American citizens.
In communist countries in the Cold War, all understood that the government did not represent the people. The state was at war with the nation.
That idea is taking root in America—the idea that our government no longer seeks to represent us. And as one watches Obama and Congress take the side of a foreign leader attacking an American state, and the government refuse to do its duty and defend the borders or send the illegals back home, questions arise.
In this ongoing invasion of the United States that has brought 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens into our midst, whose side is the government on? Ours or theirs? What is the reason for the refusal to secure our border?
Why do Democrats insist that the illegal aliens be put on a “path to citizenship”?
Is the real objective the abolition of the old America we grew up in?
COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by robert m. peters on 13 July 2010:
The general government of these states united aids and abets the enemies of the states by refusing to aid the states as they are overrun by illegal aliens and undermined by the legal ones sponsored by the actions of the general government under the color of law. With their authority through the ratifying conventions by means of the Constitution, the states created the general government as their servant; thus, the general government is the creature and the states the creators. The states have become the stupid Dr. Frankenstein whose creation, the Leviathan, the monster, is coming after them, their property, their families and their very lives. Perhaps worst, with its alien allies, it is systematically destroying the traditions, customs and habits which make us who we are. Already, one of the main virtues which our ancestors of 1775 and of 1861 had, namely courage, is not to be found. Without it, there is not even the opportunity of remedy.
2 Comment by John Marino on 13 July 2010:
The states are finally standing up to the Federal Government. They have to regain what they lost in the War Between The States. I am glad that the nullification movement is coming out of the closet. I have been a student of history all my life. I now finally think I understand what nullification was all about. The states have a right to judge the constitutionality of Federal laws and actions.
3 Comment by MAP on 13 July 2010:
PB’s last column dealt with democracy. I fail to see what kind of a democracy it can be when our opinion on every issue is spoon-fed us from birth via the media and public ‘education’, now reinforced with political correctness. Then, if we have the audacity to actually arrive at a personal opinion, at variance with what we are told – such as on immigration or queer marriage – we are simply overruled and it is imposed anyway. I believe we operate under a form of government that is totally opposite in the extreme from what the states had originally agreed to and established. Tyranny under any name is still tyranny.
4 Comment by Allen Wilson on 13 July 2010:
Let the imperial beast push the issue. Let the beast run roughshod over Arizona, for in doing so, he will be tearing himself to shreds.
5 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 13 July 2010:
Along with Little Rock and UAla let’s not forget Kennedy’s invasion of Mississippi by armed federal thugs.
6 Comment by John Marino on 13 July 2010:
Lets be honest Clyde: Orvil Faubus, Ross Barnett, and George Wallace were just showboating politicians who were trying to put up a sham resistence for political reasons. I think they thought deep down that segregation would come to an end and it wasn’t worth a real fight. They learned that much from the War Between The States. Now however; the Federal Government has sunk the country and the states localities and indivigual people have to take over.
7 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 13 July 2010:
PJB: “And as one watches Obama and Congress take the side of a foreign leader attacking an American state, and the government refuse to do its duty and defend the borders or send the illegals back home, questions arise. In this ongoing invasion of the United States that has brought 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens into our midst, whose side is the government on? Ours or theirs? What is the reason for the refusal to secure our border? Why do Democrats insist that the illegal aliens be put on a “path to citizenship”? Is the real objective the abolition of the old America we grew up in?”
I’m sure Obama and his cronies take delight in the downward trajectory of the older European America.
8 Comment by Burke101 on 13 July 2010:
That idea is taking root in America—the idea that our government no longer seeks to represent us.
As the man once said, the government does not like the people, so it is electing a new people.
9 Comment by Craig Kincaid on 13 July 2010:
Of course Pat has it right. But I can’t help but wonder why now. After all, the level of enforcement and compliance has been little changed in the last 40 years and esp. since 1986. The last time I saw a near-revolt was California under Pete Wilson. Wilson wanted greater enforcement because law enforcement and corrections costs had soared. Well the feds picked up the tab and Pete laid down. Can’t this adm. figure a way to buy off AZ.?
10 Comment by RJ Rafferty on 14 July 2010:
Don’t be too hard on Clyde. He still hasn’t realized that the Civil War is over.
11 Comment by MAP on 14 July 2010:
#10. I view your comment as rather derogatory. I believe Dr. Wilson feels, as do I, that the issues for which the South fought against are still at work today, and they work to all of our enslavement. Consider the 14th amendment – ratified unconstitutionally – and the effect it has on many of our current problems, that is, if it is not wholly and directly responsible. In many respects that war is not over. It is a war against statism and tyranny.
12 Comment by robert II on 14 July 2010:
“Let the imperial beast push the issue. Let the beast run roughshod over Arizona, for in doing so, he will be tearing himself to shreds”
Well said Mr. Wilson. It cannot win this fight in either the court of law or the court of public opinion. The beast is cornered and will fight like all desperate creatures, but it cannot win because love is stronger than death and as Josef Peiper once wrote: “Only the Lover Sings.” These folks in Arizona are not haters of mexicans or hispanics, they simply love their country and want it respected. The Feds have now created a David and Goliath situation and folks in these parts still have faith in David.
13 Comment by Justitia on 14 July 2010:
@10 This country has never had a civil war. Seems one may be brewing, but I doubt it. No one believes in anything anymore.
14 Comment by Bryan on 14 July 2010:
At least for now Obama and Holder are attempting to suppress Arizona with law suits and not troops.
MAP #11
A former U.S. Senator from Mississippi said during the 1861-65 war(I paraphrase), “The principal we now contest is bound to reassert itself, perhaps in another time and in another form”. Well, here we are.
Unfortunately even the most strident critics of this administration will draw a blank look upon hearing the exact quote and who the originator was. They can’t grasp the parallel of the times, ignorant or deluded products of the American mythology taught in the public schools. This is particularly so of Midwest Republicans.
Interesting how Obama utilizes the Federal court against Arizona while ignoring and in contempt of another Federal court banning offshore drilling in the Gulf. Speaking of parallels doesn’t this remind you of another American president?
15 Comment by robert on 14 July 2010:
Has anybody noticed that Mr. Buchanan was right about free trade, immigration, the Wall Street Bubble,the culture war, the foreign policy adventures in the Middle East and so much else when he ran in 92,96, and 2000, yet he was the most vilified candidate Americans have put forward since George Wallace? I can’t figure out if he is hated for being a Virginian, a Roman Catholic,a traditional conservative, an excellent debater, because Bill Buckley labeled him an anti-semite, or just a good man living in pathetic times. We all would have been better off with Buchanan in the televised debates but there was simply no way the duoploy was going to allow that kind of free and open discussion of our nations most pressing concerns. God Bless Pat Buchanan.
16 Comment by KSmith on 14 July 2010:
It is unfortunate the Pat used the examples of troops to Little Rock and Marshalls to U. Alabama as somehow parallel to what is happening in the case of Arizona. Both Eisenhour and JFK were not acting purely for personal and political gain in what they did.
In the case of the Obama administration’s law suit against the Arizona law, the motivation is so outside of reason and so self-serving for Obama and company that it cannot be spoken. Obama and others who lure illegal immigrants with benefits properly belonging only to legitimate citizens and at the expense of those citizens have no reasonable explanation for their actions. So they create the strawman of profiling. What they hope to gain by their actions are larger numbers of dependent citizens to vote for more government handouts and govenment control.
17 Comment by Allen Wilson on 14 July 2010:
Perhaps Federal troops have not invaded Arizona yet because it is not a Southern state?
That’s too bad, because a federal invasion would be just what the doctor ordered. It would drive home a lot of ugly truths to a lot of people all over the union, and that would tear it to shreds.
18 Comment by David Smith on 15 July 2010:
Mr. Wilson, #17:
I think I agree. None of us has a crystal ball, but who is to say the feds won’t try invading? What if Arizona loses the lawsuit(s) or the people merely grow weary with them? They may decide that the lawless legal system is futile and more drastic means are necessary. The folks can only take so much.
We are indeed living in interesting times.
19 Comment by Matt Weber on 15 July 2010:
It’s more likely that the people will just roll over like they always do, and like they did 50 years ago. If the law is overturned from above, then that will be the end of it. We don’t believe in anything anymore, so naturally we won’t fight for anything.
20 Comment by Pete Marconi on 18 July 2010:
Nearly everyday, the local Gannett “newspeak” paper has continually run front page articles pushing (more like forcing it down the reading public’s throat) the “evils” of SB 1070. Basically, we are told that everyone with a badge is drooling at the opportunity to take “brown people” to jail on sight. The irony is that most people throughout the nation (even in such bastions of the left as New England) believe this and still support the law!
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us in Arizona Law Enforcement have recently viewed a mandatory, two hour training film by Az POST: The Peace Officer Training and Standards board that establishes uniform standards for all agencies in the state. In addtition, we are mandated to attend two hours additional training before July 30th.
While the training film was professionally done, it was redundant beyond all scope in one oft quoted area: RACIAL PROFILING. The term was repeated so many times in two hours, that officers have dicussed putting a new twist on the “get blitzed” quick game so popular in the 70s with the Bob Newhart Show-back when TV shows were reasonably entertaining. You know: everytime someone said “Bob” you had to take a drink! I think in the first 30 minutes I heard the term “Racial Profiling” 25 times.
Anyway, I think out here in the Wild West, us good guys with the badge u’ll just holster our six guns and do business as usual-following the law.
21 Comment by robert m. peters on 18 July 2010:
Mr. Rafferty @10
The war to which you refer was not a civil war.
Justitia at @ 13
I submit that we have indeed had a civil war, just not the one to which Mr. Rafferty refers. There was, I contend, a civil war in the aftermath of the War Against Southern Independence, particularly in the period called Reconstruction In my state, Louisiana various groups, militias, vigilantes operated, in many cases with terror, against the state-sponsored terrorism of the Republican Party, for which the federal army had essentially become a private army, often engaged but just as often behind the scenes, supporting the party militias of the carpetbaggers, scalawags and black Republicans, the last being the marionettes of their corrupt Republican masters.
I do not know if there has been any research on black Democrats during Reconstruction. The only time I heard the term it was used by my maternal grandmother to describe two black slaves, actually former slaves, who had been the body servants of masters killed in the war. They had gotten the bodies of their masters home and then returned to the Army of Tennessee in some capacity, however, with their freedom. She knew of them because they had walked home after the surrender of the Army of Tennessee in North Carolina with my great grandfather. Both, according to what my great grandfather had told his daughter-in-law, my grandmother, had become Democrats and had paid for that with their lives, killed by some Republican militia or vigilante group, perhaps even federal soldiers. My grandmother said that my great grandfather had said that revenge was taken for their being killed. My great grandfather, I was told, did participate in the so-called Colfax Massacre which effectively ended Republican control in the carpetbag parish of Grant. I would call that civil war.
Bryan @14
Indeed, the fault line which runs through American culture and the forces associated with that fault line are just as real and relevant today as they were in 1860, sans those who were subordinate members of Southern households in the form of domestic servants or slaves.
The issues of trade, of a national bank (Federal Reserve), of cheap fiat currency or a currency based on specie, of a consolidated and centralized Hobbesian state versus a union of constitutionally federated republics, of immigration, etc. are still with us. For me, most importantly, the South, be it ever so shrunken, weakened and fading, made up of a diminishing remnant, remains the enemy of “those people.” We seem to be the last stronghold, perhaps merely a feeble hold, of the West, that still claims some geographic integrity.
Allen Wilson @ 17
Given the Snow Bird immigrants into Arizona since WWII, I suppose that Arizona is not a Southern state, having been admitted to the Union long after the war was over; however, it was a Southern territory and had, among others, Company A of the Arizona Rangers. Arizona scouts fought with us here in Louisiana during the various campaigns, including the Red River Campaign during which they were attached to Tom Green’s Texas Cavalry. One hopes that somewhere in Arizona, the spirit of these Rangers still exists.
22 Comment by Sempronius on 19 July 2010:
It may very well be too late to save Arizona. If so, patriots are in their classic position: guarding the barn doors after the horses have bolted.
The best thing to do now is to abandon Arizona(and New Mexico) to their fate. Sort of like the abandonment of the province Dacia Traiana, roughly modern day Romania, by the emperor Aurelian. The French evacuation of Algeria also comes to mind. In exchange, we can arrange to herd all Mexicans-legal and illegal-dispersed across the country, into their new pen.
The benefits of such a policy would far outweigh it’s cost.
To modify a phrase: Give it (Arizona) back to the Indios.
23 Comment by Allen Wilson on 19 July 2010:
Mr Peters,
I wish more could be known about the settlement patterns and cultural history of Arizona Territory and Southern California up until the mid-twentieth century. This seems to be a little researched area of American and Southern history, as is their role in the war.