just think of the prosperous difference it would have made and how we wouldnt be worried now.

but no… they were turned into tin hatters and conspiracy theorists. a term that did not exist before the 60s, as it was created to negate the information historians, and analysis, and others who were very emphatic about who, what, where and what connections and ideas would lead to.

now we are trying to reverse in less than 5 years a 100 year march from the cultish early commune societies in the US in the 1800s, like moses harmon, and such (including a similar liking for lucifer as alynsky.. ie same ideas, different people, new ignorants to play), and the terrorist feminist who also took up harmons ideas.

5 years to undo 100 years of cultural manipulation…

of course we no longer even have the ability to stop them even logically…

what would you do with them if you did round them up now that you let them make tribbles?

we had chances…
now we have to live through it..
no preventing it..

even if it doesn’t end that way, we are going to have to get to the other side by going through it.

back then we could have gone around it.

this will allow a whole new set of voters for 2012..

The bottom line is that it’s a federal, not a private sector, responsibility to make our borders secure and to maintain internal security. If the good citizens of Arizona and other states had evidence that this was being done–or even attempted–at the federal level, they would probably not mind pitching in at individual (i.e. employer) levels. But this is not the case, and making private citizens responsible for enforcing laws on which the government abdicates has led, at least in Arizona, to citizens’ expecting responsibility from a lower government level. That will continue.

Easy answer: NO. We are not a banana republic. State enforcement officials are empowered by their state constitutions and do not answer to any other authority.

It is the President’s job as executor to enforce “enumerated” powers as given by the U.S. Constitution. Obviously, he must have capability to do that. He and his agents enforce federal law.

Can you think of any federal law which would require non-federal enforcement? Taxes, commerce violations, and crime involving passing state lines are covered by the IRS and FBI. Civil rights have the EEOC.

What constitutes “enumerated” powers is disputable. Hopefully, “enumerated” powers are very limited and will not require a horde of federal enforcers. But questions abound. Do they have to be explicity named in the Constitution? And what can be included in each, say for example, the commerce power, which was named as the foundation for health care.

And what about emergencies and quasi-emergency situations exactly like the immigration problem? A federal government can come in very handy at times–something General Washington discovered during the Revolutionary war. But then, we should never forget the Reichstag fire.

On the whole, our North Star is the idea of a very limited federal government. But if such is not your idea or cup of tea, then you’ll see the federal government as the answer to all of life’s problems.

Maybe the new Narrative should be, “Let Arizona be like Switzerland.”

Federal immigration law requires that an employer “must verify that an individual whom they plan to employ or continue to employ in the United States is authorized to accept employment in the United States.”

Therein lies part of the problem. Employers should have to collect and transmit to an appropriate agency identification that purports to prove a prospective employees citizenship or green card status. They should not have to verify citizenship.

If they fail to do so and are caught, it should be a felony and there should be mandatory and serious jail time.

Adjust legal immigration levels so as to allow the needed degree of immigration for the economy’s needs.

That, plus real enforcement with real consequences is the way to control illegal immigration.

Question: How far must private citizens (such as construction contractors) go in enforcing laws of any kind? Isn’t this what their taxes supposedly pay others to do?

I’m not sure how private citizens came into play here but if that private citizen is an employer federal immigration law requires that they “must verify that an individual whom they plan to employ or continue to employ in the United States is authorized to accept employment in the United States.”