Arizonans have waited a long time for the deployment of the National Guard in our state. Their arrival represents a renewed national commitment to protecting our border communities from drug cartels and smugglers.
Scheduled to take effect only last week, enforcement of Arizona’s new anti-immigration law was largely enjoined by a federal judge in Phoenix. The court order will have a number of effects, both expected and unexpected. At once enlivening the lackluster Republican administration of Gov. Jan Brewer, it already caused many negative repercussions. Members of one anti-immigrant group, resplendent in Nazi uniforms, asserted that they would put down their firearms only when the federal government started adequately enforcing U.S. immigration law. One of the seven lawsuits filed against the State of Arizona was by an Arizona policeman who claimed that he would be damned if he enforced the law and equally damned if he failed to do so since the law, as proposed, allowed any legal resident of Arizona to collect money damages if he could show that any Arizona officer or agency failed to enforce the immigration law to the full extent permitted by the federal law.
Across the United States, discussions involving the state of Arizona’s recently enacted immigration enforcement law became very impassioned. Simultaneously, many Americans expressed concern surrounding the lawsuit filed by the Obama administration to prevent the law's implementation. Unfortunately, a very serious point was lost in the discourse.
Arizona Sens. John McCain (R) and Jon Kyl (R) Wednesday made the following statement regarding the United States District Court of Arizona’s decision blocking enforcement of certain provisions of the Arizona immigration law:
We are deeply disappointed in the court’s ruling today and disagree with the court’s opinion that the Arizona’s law will unduly "burden" the enforcement of federal immigration law.
While we are disappointed in the federal court's decision to issue a temporary injunction, it is often the case that a judge will initially approve a temporary injunction until they have an opportunity to hear and read arguments and legal research from both sides. Our expectation is that Judge Bolton will rule in favor of S.B. 1070 as we believe that S.B. 1070 is constitutional.
The documents released to the news media this past weekend by WikiLeaks add to the mounting evidence that the war in Afghanistan remains fiscally unsustainable and morally unjustifiable. The New York Times puts it bluntly: “The documents…illustrate… why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001.”
I don’t know how we can possibly reach any other conclusion: This war is not worth the huge investment, in blood and treasure, which the American people have been asked to make for nearly a decade.
Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, released the statement below regarding the release of classified documents posted on the website WikiLeaks:
I am extremely concerned about the manner in which these documents were leaked and with the recklessness of WikiLeaks in posting them. Our nation’s secrets are classified for a reason, and the release of classified documents could put our national security — and the lives of our men and women in combat — at serious risk.
The Obama administration is suing Arizona for wanting to enforce our nation's immigration laws, but they won't sue cities that violate our immigration laws by enacting sanctuary policies.
So-called "sanctuary cities" prohibit their law-enforcement officers from cooperating with the Department of Homeland Security to report illegal immigrants. Many sanctuary cities do not even allow their officers to report illegal immigrants who have been arrested.
Somewhere between Arizona and amnesty lies the answer to America’s immigration crisis. Once again, as we have experienced throughout the development of the American idea, the faith community emerges as the prophetic witness of a solution that reconciles the rule of law with compassion for the suffering. From the abolitionist movement of the 1800s to the civil rights struggles of the 1960s, the faith community arises in our generation to address our current polarizing issue, immigration reform. On this occasion, evangelicals stand poised to present a strategy that the vast majority of Americans can embrace, a Just Integration Strategy.
A number of high-profile evangelicals — Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention and Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel among them — have come out in support of what Dr. Land calls “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Their support of President Obama’s plan has naturally resulted in front row seats at presidential speeches, visits to the White House and testimony before Congress. Heady stuff.