You could also argue that California and its cities have no room to talk, using the very same arguments that people are making against the Arizona law.
California passed prop 8 and limited the rights of homosexuals. Therefore, they shouldn't be telling Arizona that its wrong when it limits people's rights.
Which is funny - because I see no reason to ban homosexual marriages, and that probably has to do with the fact that I view marriage in a sociopolitical sense, and not a religious sense (the closest I would get to any particular religion would be Deism, if anything. Apart from that, I'm more of a mild-mannered Agnostic. "I don't want to talk to God, I just want to see His face."
(My faith is better served - and derived - elsewhere. I don't need a two thousand-year-old book to tell me how to live a moral and ethical life, and I seem to be doing just fine without it.)
Since I'm essentially Libertarian, that explains why I don't have any trouble with homosexual marriage. Or pretty much any other arrangement of marriage, really,
when it works for all participants. And damn the government - they'll just have to rewrite (or better - scrap) the Internal Revenue Code to accommodate everything.
26CFR is probably the biggest abrogation of the people's rights anyhow. Scrap it, go to a Flat Tax (7-10%) or an NRST (3-7%,) and make the cuts needed to live within that budget. It should be doable - most of the unneeded socliast programmes (long-term social welfare,) all of the government "pork" (why do the Feds pass money to the states? The states already collect taxes...) and the Federal programmes that don't do anything (National Endowment for the Arts, anyone?) can be chopped first. Congresscritter pay can be sharply reduced, and no retirement benefits.
Then, cut various Federal bureaucracies - especially since they also infringe on people's rights. IRS and ATF can go first - they're the biggest problem of all.
But, I digress.
I support what AZ is doing, simply because they're doing what the Federal government does not or can not. They're simply making what is
already illegal at a Federal level illegal at a
State level, which gives them the easier ability to do something about it, and do so directly.
It's easy enough to carry documentation already that will show you belong here (passport, positive ID + birth certificate,) and LEOs can then call the issuer of those documents and verify them. If this means that I have to carry a copy of my birth certificate, I'll fold it into my wallet right next to my DD214 (which I still carry.) I just can't carry the Long Form - White County Health Department had the big fire in 1975, and my Long Form was destroyed. But, it's no trouble to confirm anyhow - just takes a phone call.
They want to check me, I hand over my CA DL, my SSAN card, my DD214, and my IN birth certificate. They can then call whoever they like. It doesn't add anything significant to the load in my wallet, and it doesn't mean I have to go drop $100 on a passport (haven't had to have one of those in years.)
If you're visiting, you'll have a passport - just carry it with you. Resident alien? You've got a green card - carry that. Both of those may be readily verified with minimal effort that day or the following day.
I am normally for limiting the size and power of government - I'm more Libertarian than anything else. However, one of the duties of a government to its citizenry is to secure its borders against threats from without - and the current problem of illegal immigration is a threat - and, apparently, to both our security and our economic health. Which gives two very good reasons to secure the border.
What to do with illegals?
- If they're Latino, drop them off in Tierra del Fuego. Maybe into the Straits of Magellan - monkey-on-a-string from 8,000 feet, about a mile offshore. Gets damned cold in the water there, you'll warm up if you swim faster.
- If they're Asian, airlift them into the Sea of Japan. Er - the Sea of Japan, as I recall, does have a shark problem. Swim fast!
- European? Airlift them into the North Sea, same deal. You'll stay warmer if you swim faster...
Harsh? Perhaps. But, they were taking their chances just coming over here without following the rules - and it's probably better than their country would treat us if we went there illegally. This gives them a fighting chance, but doesn't make it easy for them to come back.
Yes, it's a risk. No, it's not certain death (drop life rafts separately in the North Sea and Straits of Magellan, if you like. Give them more of a chance. Food in the life raft? Geez - these guys want
everything! I know that the Coast Guard-approved emergency lifeboat food bars aren't bad, and will fuel you if not fill you up. They can have some of those.) But, it's not going to be easy to try to come back here - and it
should not be. Dammit, I'm tired of coddling lawbreakers - when just the act of coming up here is breaking the law, I don't see any reason why you should be coddled for anything else.
If you come up here illegally and then start committing crimes, we drop you
five miles offshore in one of the above locations, and - wups! - forgot to drop the life raft. Damn, I knew we forgot to load something on this plane before we took off... Hey - quitcher bitchin'! You still got the parachute, didn't you? No sense paying to keep them in prison, then dropping them somewhere more convenient for them than for us.
I figure if we've got to make the trip, we may as well decide where you're going. And we're not going to keep you in prison before you go - you get your trial, you get your status verified, and then you get a little beach vacation. Good luck - you're going to need it...
Malum prohibitum vice
malum in se. Illegally crossing the border into another country borders on
malum in se in the first place - doing so and then starting to commit crimes (murder, kidnapping, distribution of narcotics - kidnap for ransom, and other crimes against the person) most definitely becomes
malum in se, and thse are acts that damned well
should be punished.
You've all heard me discuss the difference between
malum prohibitum and
malum in se before. We could simplify the legal system greatly if we could get rid of most of the
malum prohibitum statutes currently on the books. It would require some training of the public at large (for instance, an awful lot of driving regulations are
malum prohibitum - but most of them have also resulted from having decreased competence in the American motor vehicle operator. Since many states also now issue DL literature and testing in languages other than American English, the problem has gotten considerably worse. Throw in the state-funded translators, and we have a problem!
(Sorry - but if you're going to be here long enough to require a driver's license, you're also going to be here long enough to require a working knowledge of American English. A "working knowledge" of a language means: 400-600 words, essential grammar, and ability to express past/present/future tense. This isn't rocket surgery or brain science people - you can pick up a "working knowledge" of most languages after about a month's immersion...)