The Immigration Policy of Absurdistan: Legal is Illegal

Imagine for a moment that a pack of strangers – ranging from hooligans to plain homeless – illegally entered your home and started raiding the pantry, stealing your possessions, stuffing up the toilets, and sleeping on your bed. When you call the police to come down and remove them, you are told they cannot assist you because they lack the power to profile the unwanted guests from other members of the household. As desperation sets in, you join with your neighbors to chase them out. Much to your chagrin, lawyers for the intruders impel the courts to issue a ‘cease and desist order,’ obstructing efforts to deny the intruders anything, including the twinkies in the pantry. Moreover, teams of advocates for these brazen burglars begin to record the contact information of those locals who desire to stop the illegal entries.

Sound absurd and perverse? Does it remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Welcome to the reality of our immigration system.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a legal system that allows any affluent organization to immediately halt efforts of state governments to deal with their illegal immigration problem; encumbering those laws in years’ worth of frivolous legal proceedings. There is something fundamentally perverse when the man entrusted with enforcing those laws can malevolently supplant the core laws governing our sovereignty – and face no threat of legal action.

Here are just a few recent news tidbits that exemplify the reprehensible and dyslexic actions of various branches of government toward our vital immigration laws:

Georgia: Ever since Arizona passed its modest law (SB 1070) to deal with their insurmountable problems with illegal immigration, many other states, including Georgia, have passed similar laws. Yesterday, US District Court Judge Thomas Thrash enjoined two provisions of Georgia’s HB 87 immigration law, at the behest of the ACLU. One provision would have authorized police to check the immigration status of those suspected of committing a crime and cannot produce documentation. The other provision would punish those caught transporting illegal aliens while committing another crime.

The good news is that the court upheld the mandatory E-Verify provision in HB 87; however, Judge Thrash had no other choice, in light of the recent ruling from the Supreme Court upholding Arizona’s E-Verify law.

Judge Thrash issued the injunction on the assumption that the ACLU would succeed in the argument that HB 87 is preempted by federal law. He added that “the apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia.â€