The Arizona Conflagration

History has shown that nearly every major event is preceded by some seemingly isolated event that eventually escalates into a major, engulfing conflagration. Forest fires and wars are good examples of this process and, if mishandled by the Obama administration, this may be the consequence of the new illegal immigrant control measures signed into law by the governor of Arizona last Friday.

One thing we can be absolutely certain of, however, is that President Barack Obama and the Democrats will use this issue as an opportunity to further divide the citizens of the United States of America. And let me make it perfectly clear — I am NOT anti-immigrant, nor am I anti-Hispanic, but I know full well that any support for controlling the borders of the United States will be decried by the left as being racist. That is the weapon of choice by the left because they cannot prevail in their arguments for their policies by relying on reason and fact. They prefer to use mud to totally obfuscate the heart of the issue which, in this case, is simply whether the laws regarding our borders and citizenship requirements are to be enforced or whether they are to be ignored, should doing so prove politically and/or economically advantageous to certain constituencies.

The polls show that 70% of the Arizonians support this new law and I doubt that they will go quietly into the night if the federal government attempts to contravene the will of the people.  And, based on the president’s comments before the bill was even signed into law, he has every intention of doing just that. The demonstrations against the implementation of these tougher law enforcement policies have already started and are certain to grow among the Hispanic residents of not only Arizona but all across the country. It will be a huge political issue in the fall elections, and it will be exploited to the limit by politicians on both sides of the aisle. Tempers will undoubtedly flare, and if the powers that be are not careful violence will erupt in the streets of Phoenix, Tucson, and Yuma. In fact, to a minor extent, it already has started in the form of rock throwing and pushing and shoving against the police by the demonstrators in Phoenix.  (Oddly enough, illegal immigrants violently demonstrating in the streets are branded heroic by the same mainstream press which decries Tea Party protesters as racist, violent and angry.)

Whatever the case, it won’t get any better when Al Sharpton shows up for his usual publicity-seeking campaign, as he has announced his intention to do.  And then we’ll likely see the counter-demonstrators from across the country begin to arrive on the scene in large numbers. It doesn’t take a lot of imagination to visualize this all getting out of control very quickly if some fringe element from on either the left or the right is provoked into making Arizona their battlefield of choice.

Make no mistake — this will become a dangerously volatile situation requiring great care to diffuse, but don’t hold your breath until the president acts to cool the emotions that will inevitably be fomented on both sides of the issue. He has already expressed his opinion that the Arizona law violates the civil rights of innocent Hispanics, further inflaming passions. With leadership like this, how much hope is there for a rational solution to our de facto “open borders” policy, which has endangered the lives and property of the legal citizens of states all along our border with Mexico? I just returned from spending several months within a few miles of that border and, as a result of the encroaching tide of drug-related violence and the continuing influx of illegal immigrants, tensions are high and will only be heightened by the demonstrations against the new measures. I say this not to disparage the preponderance of good Hispanic citizens living and working in the area that I was in, but simply as a cautionary fact.

Again, this brings me to my question: “What will it take to unify this country so that we can function as a cohesive citizenry must if a nation is to survive and prosper, or has any dream of such unification become a totally unrealistic expectation?”

If those at the highest level of authority use divisiveness as a means of achieving their political and economic goals, what hope is there for reaching common ground? Have we become an ungovernable people whose quality of life is to be forever compromised and darkened by the constant undercurrent of hostility from those with whom we disagree, regardless of which side we’re on?

Unfortunately, it appears that we are now at the point of political and cultural disagreement in this country such that former President Bill Clinton considered it necessary to warn the “Tea Party” movement against “incendiary” commentary potentially resulting in violence akin to the Oklahoma City bombing, while esteemed New York Times columnist Joe Klein accused Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin of seditious speech. In both cases, and many more similar pronouncements by the likes of ABC’s Cokie Roberts (comparing the filing of suit by fourteen state attorneys general contesting the constitutionality of the health care bill with the pre-Civil War nullification action by South Carolina), it is clear that the objective is to restrict the right of free speech by those opposed to the Obama administration’s policies and, dare I say it, insufferable arrogance. So, again, I ask: “To where will this lead us?”

In my opinion, we have lost all points of reference that normally tie a diverse population together for the “common wealth.” And so I ask myself upon what can we agree as a basis for creating a civil society in which there are strong differences but an even stronger commonality of beliefs and purpose, and the answer certainly doesn’t seem to be the Constitution, if one is to construe that to mean a strict interpretation of the words of the Founders taken within the context of the times in which it was written. And Judeo/Christian principles? Not a chance in this age of secularism that sexualizes even our children and the scourge of multiculturism.

We can’t even agree on the history of the United States as a force for good in the world, so where can we go to find a point of philosophical and moral convergence, or are we irretrievably doomed to deep and uncivil separation from each other?

This is the point at which the states found themselves in 1860 and, as a result, the fabric of that “more perfect union” was twisted and soaked with the blood of 600,000 men before the dust settled over a ravaged land. In truth, the fabric of our nation has never been fully restored and is now more torn than ever. We like to think that we are now somehow incapable of the kind of conflict that the adversaries commenced in 1861 and that we would never follow that path again. Perhaps so, but that would require the suspension of the law of fallen human nature. Only God is capable of accomplishing that feat, and then only for the willing, and I don’t see too much interest in pursuing that path to peace and reconciliation.

So, again, this gives rise to the question of whether it is really possible that we have lost the sense of a common heritage and culture necessary to hold a nation together in a civil, mutually supportive, society. With much credit given to President Obama, and so much fault being laid at the feet of Israel, it should be abundantly clear that we have at least lost a common view of the role that the United States should play on the international stage. In the absence of such societal “glue,” I see little hope of improving this situation in the future simply because of the demographic paradigm shift that is rapidly overtaking us, coupled with the failure to encourage and inspire adequate assimilation into our national heritage and values, including English as the primary language of every person seeking citizenship.

According to the Pew Research Foundation, it is estimated that the population will increase from 298 million in 2005 to 438 million by 2050 with immigration, both legal and illegal, accounting for 82 percent of the growth. It is also estimated that the Hispanic population will increase by a factor of three and account for just slightly less than one third of the total. The clear message here is that we had better get this right and settle the border issue now in ways that will welcome those who would come legally, seeking only our freedoms and opportunities, while at the same time preventing those from gaining entry by any means that would abuse our generosity and exacerbate our drug and associated crime problems.

This will never happen as long as the Obama administration views the Arizona situation as a crisis “not to be wasted” rather than the potential social disaster it represents if not handled with extreme caution. So far, this administration has not demonstrated its ability or desire to govern with such wisdom and even-handedness. Let’s pray that they acquire and engage these traits before it’s too late, but I have a gnawing fear that those very people view the coming Arizona confrontation as manna from heaven in this election year.

Share

Comments

  1. Remember the Alamo says:

    They have seen our “Come and Take It” flags, and have set about doing it.
    Davey Crockett, I apologize. We are no longer a sovereign nation.

  2. LILly says:

    Randy- I fear you are right but mainly because of the way the media is hyping this whole AZ law. They haven’t read the law (just like BO) but they are smearing it all over the place. This law basically states that AZ will be enforcing the Federal laws already in place!
    What I don’t understand is how can LEGAL immigrants be against this? They worked hard, they followed the law, they paid the price, took the classes, learned the language and became legal citizens of the US. How can they condone and support (& help pay for) people that try to bypass the law of our land? I would be so resentful that I’d be one of the first to back this law. I just do not get it! My grandfather came here legally and was proud of that accomplishment!

  3. Gail B. says:

    Question: Why make laws if they are not enforced?

    We have immigration laws. We’ve had amnesty; what good did it do? We have naturalization laws. We have criminal laws.

    What internationally gripes my constitution is the fact that the illegal aliens are screaming “CIVIL RIGHTS,” but how many among them are screaming, “WE KILLED THAT RANCHER ON HIS OWN PROPERTY!”

    If the Leftist Progressives were not so worried about the mid-term election, we might have a chance at getting our laws enforced. But, NO! The federal government ties our hands at enforcing immigration laws! Ever wonder how much we spent to get those laws in place and why we bothered to sign the paychecks for the lawmakers who passed them?

  4. Best analysis I’ve seen yet on this perilous situation.

    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    [For a light hearted take on our present peril]

  5. Gail B. says:

    Immigration is not in the U.S. Constitution.

    Naturalization is in the U.S. Constitution.

  6. Old Richard says:

    I am very angry !!!!! It’s not good for an old sailor to be angry.
    I spent time in my life defending the country I love because it is
    the country I love. When I see people coming into my country illegally
    and then bringing up civil rights ?? They are not civil and have earned
    no rights in my country. This no-account we have posing as president
    Has done nothing about this problem but the one before him also did nothing.
    This is not racist as some would have you believe. Law breakers come in
    every color of people known it is not the color of the skin but the act of
    breaking the law.
    I appauld Arizona for their courage and fortitude in doing what the
    federal goverment should have done years ago.
    Californicate is broke because of this very problem. God bless Arizona
    for “Just Saying NO”
    Old Richard

  7. Old Richard says:

    Sorry Randy;
    I just got off on a rant:
    God bless you for your input and for helping Jeff when he needs help.
    I only wish I could have your insite. You are 100% correct in your
    evalutation.

    thanks my friend and keep it up

    Old Richard

  8. Randy Wills says:

    To “Old Richard”

    From an old U.S. Army vet to an “old sailor”, you’re welcome.

    Randy

  9. Gail B. says:

    You forgot to say, “Sir.”

  10. Netclimber says:

    Randy, Thank you for your insight. LILly, A LEGAL immigrant who sincerely takes ‘The United States Oath of Allegiance (officially referred to as the “Oath of Allegiance” 8 C.F.R. Part 337 (2008))’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_citizenship_(United_States) wouldn’t and couldn’t object to Gov. Brewer’s action to protect the citizens of her state (even though THAT PROTECTION is the RESPOSIBILITY of the U.S. Government). Those LEGAL immigrants who do object to Gov. Brewer’s action may or may have not been sincere when they took their “Oath of Allegiance”. Perhaps there are some who were sincere but have changed their minds. How are we to know? It is easy to tell the difference between the two groups. Just listen to them … to know them through their beliefs IS NOT profiling. Just FACT. In AMERICA, is there only one state able to stand up and demand that their government protect them from all enemies, foreign and domestic? Should they have to ask? No, we shouldn’t.

  11. Scriv says:

    Here is a comment left a few months back on the same topic. Great comment, thought it might deserve repetition:

    http://americasright.com/?p=2548#comments

    Sullivan says:
    January 13, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    The United States has Immigration laws. As do all countries.

    Some countries’ laws are more stringent than ours:

    1. If you migrate to this county, you must speak the native language

    2. You have to be a professional or an investor. No unskilled workers allowed.

    3. There will be no special bilingual programs in the schools, no special ballots for elections, all government business will be conducted in our language.

    4. Foreigners will NOT have the right to vote no matter how long they are here.

    5 Foreigners will NEVER be able to hold political office.

    6. Foreigners will not be a burden to the taxpayers. No welfare, no food stamps, no health care, or other government assistance programs.

    7. Foreigners can invest in this country, but it must be an amount equal to 40,000 times the daily minimum wage.

    8. If foreigners do come and want to buy land that will be okay, BUT options will be restricted. You are not allowed waterfront property. That is reserved for citizens naturally born into this country.

    9. Foreigners may not protest; no demonstrations, no waving a foreign flag, no political organizing, no badmouthing our president or his policies, if you do you will be sent home.

    10. If you do come to this country illegally, you will be hunted down and sent straight to jail.

    Harsh, you say?

    The above laws belong to the immigration laws of MEXICO!

  12. Linda B. says:

    Thank you Randy and you have really hit the nail on the head.

    This is not about the immigrants legal or illegal. This is not about Arizona’s right to defend its citizens and to insist the U.S. Government fulfill its responsibilities. It is about “causing a crisis” to use it for political and economic reasons. The political ones being to add more voters to the democratic rolls and ensure the re-election of this faux president. The economic reasons are to provide cheap labor to industry and to over run this country economically and cause another “crisis”. Once we hit the critical “crisis” mode the faux president can then mandate military law for Arizona or any other state who might try to go against his vision of what America will look like. This is what Obama wants and it is coming to a head fast. At the same time we will be facing economic melt down like the European countries are currently facing. The reason for all of this is simple. Those who want power and control are not satisfied by seeking what they want in one country. They want to control the world – one world and one government.

    I can see no way our of this mess, but for prayer for protection and for a return of God’s blessings. When this nation was founded most of the people coming here did so because of the desire for religious freedom which they escaped in Europe. They wanted to establish a country that truly was based upon God’s laws and respect for the rights of the individual. This nation also began with the statement that we are endowed by our creator with rights. Now, the government endows us and it is not the same thing because governments are human and subject to all of the human failings an individual may experience. We are now seeing what happens when the hand of God no longer rests on this country because we are more interested in our things and in being right than we are in asking God for His help and assistance in resolving our differences. Men may not be able to resolve their differences, but God can touch the hearts and open the minds of all so true communication and brotherly love prevails. God, please restore your blessing upon this country and unite her again in love.

  13. Randy Wills says:

    To “Netminder”

    I fear that the “loyal Hispanic citizens” have been stampeded by the purveryors of race-based politics. Rather than frame the issue as simply a matter of law regarding controlling our borders, politicians, most notably the president himself, have made is an issue of “racism”.

    This is the lowest form of demagoguery immaginable by a president. Absolutely nauseating.

    Randy

  14. Can't take it anymore says:

    Obama’s reference to Arizona sounded eerily similar to his comments of ‘they acted stupidly’ in regards to the Cambridge Police Dept’s handling of the dufus professor. This president is a joke.

  15. Randy Wills says:

    My apologies to “Netclimber”, not “Netminder”

    My wife was saying “Come on Randy, we’ll be late” (for an appointment) as I made that comment, so, again, I got some part of it (it’s usually a misspelled word or two) wrong.

    Hey, I wonder how many times I can use that excuse?

    Randy

  16. JJ says:

    Can someone give me other examples of when states enforce federal law?

Speak Your Mind

*