To a degree I am all for enforcement of the laws on the books. The laws were written in order to protect the rights of the community. However, just because it’s a good idea does not mean that it is feasible or even practical. Likewise many of the laws “on the books” are not practical to enforce. Example, in England you are not allowed to die at Parliament, if you do then you are entitled to a state funeral, weird. Immigration laws are great because they seek to better the country by limiting access to resources to those who are citizens, but at the same time…can these be enforced without violating human rights? How do you not racially profile in southern California, Arizona, Texas, or any other state? Would you deny emergency healthcare to an illegal alien? If your son or daughter married an illegal alien…should the children (your grandchildren), born on US soil, be citizens? If Mexico were communist like Cuba, could they just step on US soil and be allowed to stay? Should we not support our democratic neighbor to the south? Volkswagen and other US imports pit stop there before coming over to the US, why are we so hostile, and/or why are they even coming; how can we help a country better itself and have its citizenship stay within its borders. Is the US help just limited to throwing supplies and goods at a population? Is that how we help others, giving fish but never teaching how to fish? Weak.
Yesterday I read an article in the Orange County Register regarding “rule of law” cities. Apparently, cities that declare themselves as a rule of law city simply enforce the laws on the books evenly for everyone within the city limits. From all the information I have read, it seems that this declaration means is that immigration laws will be more strictly enforced in an effort to “blank.” The reasons offered are different, fight crime, raise property values, create jobs for citizens, etc. I think it’s a way city council can blame a group for the woes of the city and be law abiding.