Reform? or Abolish? What is the Real Goal?
A couple of points for commentators and advocates who are happily parroting the lies of the msm (Heather MacDonald at City Journal sets the record straight) to vilify the new Arizona law and, purportedly, to demand reform of our federal laws.
1.) The Arizona law was carefully written to mirror federal immigration law, which had already included the requirement, for example, that legal immigrants carry papers on them at all times and specifically does not permit arbitrary fishing expeditions for illegal immigrants, whether they are driving down the road or out for ice cream with their family. (Shame on you, Mr. President, for creating this myth.) This leads inexorably to the question: is the real objection here to the existence of any kind of immigration law?
2.) Foreign Policy magazine points out that, despite what you might think from all of the wailing and breast-beating, neither the United States nor Arizona has particularly harsh immigration laws. On their list – which inexplicably does not include Mexico – of the top five, they name Italy and Switzerland, but not the US. Again, is it possible that what advocates find harsh is the mere existence of borders and a very reasonable immigration law?