Baron, while I realize that this topic is outside the scope of farriery, it is also one that may prove important enough to warrant an exception.

Arizona has signed into law a formal position defining illegal entry into the state as a criminal offense.

While to some this may seem a silly redundancy to federal law, it is arguably not. Many believe that our federal laws view illegal entry into our country as a crime. Federal law defines illegal entry into our country as a civil misdemeanor, not a criminal violation. The specifics are defined in Title 8, section 1325 of the US code. The difference is more than significant. Opponents to immigration enforcement will cite the 14th amendment (part 1) to the constitution as the basis for their argument. It is a ridiculously flawed argument but one that successfully persists nonetheless.

President Obama was quoted on Friday, April 23rd, describing Arizona as 'misguided' and said the new Arizona law will, "Undermine basic notions of fairness...". He further suggested that Arizona has acted in an 'irresponsible' manner.

The Presidents comments, and his order that the justice department review the new Arizona law with an eye towards 'possible civil rights implications' is a direct challenge to states rights to be self governing.

The analogy to the states rights conflict of 1861 is unavoidable. That same challenge resulted in a civil war that lasted four years and left over 400,000 Americans dead.

If just one more state were to adopt similar legislation, it could ignite a firestorm in this country not seen in 150 years.

Arizona just drew a line in the sand and told our federal government, thanks but no thanks, we'll take care of it ourselves.

Is Texas next?

While people may argue and debate endlessly the myriad issues of social and economic problems within our country, no other single topic has the inherent risk of war that state sovereignty can represent. Some may argue that this issue is no more significant than state law governing abortion, gay marriage or any other civil/social law deemed popular by some, unpopular by others. It is different. In other areas of state law , rarely do we see direct confrontation with federal law or rules. The Arizona ruling has historical precedent and lays the groundwork for state secession.

I'm wondering if people realize just how important this new Arizona law is and what it could mean to the nation.

Cheers,
Mark

Mark_Gough wrote:
I realize it. health care legislation, the coming climate TAX and a number of other issues has this country as divided as it has every been. The only reason it hasn't blow up is that the divide hasn't been along geographical lines.

If it comes to it, I'm siding with the south.

Save your Dixie Cups, the South WILL rise again!!!!!

Mark, while an important issue, to be sure, I'm afraid I must enforce the guidelines. (You know, the old "slippery slope" thing....) Thank you for pointing out the possible consequences of the legislation.

Baron Tayler