Two highly significant issues are being prepared for presentation before the Supreme Court. One is the United States Government vs. the State of Arizona. The argument put forth by the Obama administration is that the federal government is given exclusive power to regulate immigration. The question then is what power does a state have to protect its own people when the federal government imperils the states citizens by failing to enforce its own laws.
The second significant item is the constitutionality of Obamacare. No case has actually been filed as yet but one is fully expected. At one count, 38 states had joined or were considering joining in a suit to argue the health care plan is unconstitutional. The issue here is the “individual mandate”. The plan requires everyone to carry insurance or pay money to the government for failure to do so. The crux of the argument lies in the characterization of that money. Is it a tax or a penalty?
If it is a tax, Obamacare is more likely to be found constitutional under the clause that gives the federal government to levy tax for the national welfare of the people. However, if it is a penalty, Obamacare is more likely to be found unconstitutional under the interstate commerce provisions which give Congress the power to regulate, but not to mandate interstate commerce.
The states will argue that the money is a penalty. The Obama administration will argue it is a tax. It would be interesting if President Obama were to be called to testify about his assertions to the American people that his plan would actually save money and therefore no new taxes would be required to pay for it. That won’t happen, of course.
From the San Juan Monitor, the local newspaper in a Texas border town.
An 18-year-old woman, whose name was not disclosed by police, was walking to a friend’s house about 6:30 p.m. Sunday.
A black van pulled up alongside her and three men hopped out, San Juan Police Chief Juan Gonzalez said. They snatched the girl, blindfolded her and took her to Reynosa [Mexico]. The kidnappers began calling the woman’s family demanding ransom money.
Once the abductors realized their victim’s family would not be able to pay a ransom, they dumped her in a random field. She had her cell phone, but police still had no idea where she was.
U.S. authorities did not contact their Mexican counterparts because they did not know whether they were corrupted or connected to the girl’s captors, Gonzalez said.
People that she came across didn’t want to help,” the chief said. “People are living in fear in Mexico.”
This happens to be a Texas story. Arizona is no different, except that some of the towns smaller than San Juan are overwhelmed. Instead of fighting Arizona, Obama should send a contingent of the U.S. Army to the border as President Wilson did in 1914.
They are not going home. They are migrating to other states where looser law prevails. This can only increase tensions between the states.
Arizona is not taking an ideological stance, the state is fighting for its very survival. The situation is not well understood by those outside of the state of Arizona. The problem is not one of having too having many migrant workers, the problem is one of halving too many violent thugs. The criminal element in Mexico is drawn to the northern border. That’s where the money is, in transporting drugs and wetbacks across the border.
Crime is everywhere and every kind. Law enforcement on the Mexican side is all but non-existent. The small towns on the Arizona side are overwhelmed. The unfortunate irony is, those who move out will be the best of the bunch. The drug traffickers will remain.
This is not the first time there has been serious trouble on the Mexican border. In 1916 border violence became such a problem that 15,000 State Militiamen were called into service to put down the violence led by Poncho Villa and his acolytes. But 15,000 were not enough. President Woodrow Wilson had to send 75,000 National Guardsmen under the leadership of General Pershing to restore law and order.