On June 15, 2012, President Barack Obama announced that his administration would, (contrary to American law), no longer deport or bar from employment a particular population of undocumented young people, whose numbers are estimated at 800,000 strong. Forget for the moment that this move was crassly calculated, in anticipation of the 2012 Presidential election, to curry favor with Hispanic voters.

A mere 10 days later, in litigation the Obama administration had instituted, the United States Supreme Court struck down three provisions of an Arizona statute, known as S. B. 1070, which targeted illegal immigrants, while upholding only one of the law’s provisions.  Specifically, sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of the statute -- which made failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor, prohibited unauthorized aliens from seeking or engaging in work within the state, and authorized state and local officers to make arrests without warrants of persons who on probable cause were believed to have committed a public offense allowing for their deportation -- were ruled unconstitutional. The provision requiring officers to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify with the federal government a person’s immigration status passed constitutional muster. This provision was the most controversial one, because its critics contended that it was an invitation to racial and ethnic profiling.   

Hours after the Court handed down its decision, Mr. Obama's homeland security chief, Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor herself, abruptly suspended the so-called 287(g) program, under which local and state law enforcement officers were deputized to enforce federal immigration laws and  were provided access to federal immigration files in order to carry out such enforcement. The Obama administration's actions, combined with the Court's decision, have invalidated and rendered futile Arizona's efforts to combat illegal immigration within its borders.

The bottom line is that, not only will the United States government not secure Arizona's borders, but it will now bar Arizona state officials from doing so. The invasion of illegals into the state is sure to continue unabated, with the result that financially crippled Arizona will fall ever more deeply into insolvency. Illegals will cross the Arizona border as they wish; avail themselves of medical care and public education (at taxpayers’ expense of course!); take jobs from Arizona citizens without paying income taxes; drive without automobile insurance and a license; and otherwise demonstrate no loyalty whatsoever to the United States of America, much less any desire to assimilate to its culture.

S. Rob Sobhani, a former professor at Georgetown University, and an expert on  immigration, has written a marvelously readable book, entitled Press 2 for English: Fix Immigration, Save America.  He recounts in its “Introduction” encountering a small group of illegal immigrants who were standing in front of a Home Depot in Maryland.  Seizing upon the opportunity to converse with them, he wanted to discover whether they were developing a sense of loyalty to this country.  “Next week is the anniversary of 9/11.  Will that day be any different for you?” he asked. They shrugged their shoulders and nodded negatively:  “It's not important. It's an American concern.  Not for us.”  One could, I guess, paraphrase their words in the following way: “What happens to your country or your people is not our worry.  We're here only to reap its financial benefits, period.”  I find it difficult to read such stories without becoming  angry.

As outrageous as it may seem and as this story suggests, what is happening to Arizona is unexceptional.  Illegal immigration is wreaking havoc upon all of America.  The annual cost of this lawlessness is estimated at around $113 billion a year.  In addition, approximately 350,000 anchor babies are born each year with an annual price tag of $1.7 billion.  (Ask the physicians who practice at Parkland Hospital, in Dallas, Texas; they will tell you.)  Because of massive amounts of unskilled labor within the ranks of both legal and illegal immigrants, African-Americans are those who are suffering the most.  Their unemployment rate is at a catastrophic high of 17 percent. “So why not simply extend amnesty to all illegals?” you ask.  That would, says Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, cost the United States taxpayers a whopping $2.6 trillion, and would be an invitation to other illegals to make the trip. I am not sure that we could withstand the additional financial burden in view of the $16 trillion that has already been run up.

Yet illegal immigration, as many experts note, is only one aspect of the overall problem.  Legal immigration must be curtailed too.  We have millions of undigested people in this country with green cards, and at the present rate of immigration growth America is on target to have 200 million more like them by 2050. 

When I say “undigested” I mean precisely that.  In Alabama, ballots are currently printed in 13 languages; in California, 32; in Connecticut, 21; in Kentucky, 23; and the list goes on.  The number of Americans who speak no English at all has quadrupled during the past 30 years. We are fast becoming a Tower of Babel. The cultural costs, like the economic ones, are staggering.   

Diverse languages represent diverse cultures, and many within these cultural enclaves have not sufficiently assimilated to American life. Latinos are among the most notorious offenders.  Bilingual programs are proliferating, again at taxpayers' expense. On any given election day, one sees signs which read “Vote Aquí.”  Would the word “here” not be simple enough to understand?

As Lawrence Auster puts it in his classic little book on immigration, entitled The Path to National Suicide, “America's ability to perform this alchemy of souls is not infinite.”  Unrestrained and uncritical immigration from the Third World tears at the national fabric of social cohesiveness, and imperils the very basis of our national existence.

But back to Arizona. What does it mean when government prohibits a people from defending themselves against an onslaught of invaders?  What does it mean when the executive branch refuses to enforce existing immigration law? 

These questions, when considered in light of time-honored political theory, are not as puzzling as they appear. John Locke, on whose political thought the American founders relied for inspiration during their revolt from Great Britain, would have labeled our current state of affairs “tyranny.”  He argued that the government is dissolved when laws are not enforced by the executive branch. The primary purpose of laws, he believed, is to preserve property. So when aliens trample citizens' property rights with impunity, as occurs each and every day within vast areas of the states bordering Mexico, the underlying purpose of government ceases to validate it.

The ultimate question is “to whom may the citizens of Arizona appeal  in defense of their property rights?”  The answer is “to no one.”  In this situation, Locke was clear and explicit:  deadly force may be used.  And why not, I ask, since no peaceful recourse is left, and defense of one’s life and property are “natural rights”?   

Hardworking citizens of Arizona and the rest of America – I am referring to those who actually pay the taxes and defray the costs of the country – will have to decide what to do if and when Mr. Obama is re-elected and his devastating immigration policy continues.  The world will then bear witness whether Americans will again fight against oppression and tyranny on their own shores or allow freedom to slip away from them as abject cowards.

 July 1, 2012