[Three Border Patrol agents are assaulted on any average day at or near the US border. One Sheriff's Deputy was shot with an AK-47 rifle just the previous week by illegal drug smugglers near Arizona-Mexico border. One rancher was shot dead earlier by illegals. Someone is kidnapped every 35 hours in Phoenix, Ariz., often by agents of alien smuggling organizations. And one-in-five American teenagers last year used some type of illegal drug, many of which were imported across the unsecured US-Mexico border.]

Arizona has stirred a fierce debate just because the state wants to check suspected illegal immigrants if there is a reasonable suspicion about their status. What is wrong about it? And why should law-abiding, citizens and lawfully living residents be scared of the law?

[Arizona, the nation's busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.]

However, many critics, including the United States Attorney General Erick Holder, and even President Obama think it's unconstitutional, without even reading the law. The Arizona law is just about a dozen pages, nothing to compare with the hefty 2000+ page healthcare bill that was passed without lawmakers reading it.

Obama soon after the Arizona bill was signed by the Governor criticized it as "irresponsible" and said his administration is examining whether it would violate civil rights. Great! Violation of all American rights by those violating your own laws doesn't mean anything, Mr. President?
Obama went on to say that "the federal government must act responsibly to reform national immigration law -- or open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe."

Well, Mr. President, the federal government has not done anything to stop breaking of the laws at the border, and on American soil and now you criticize Arizona that is trying to enforce some sanity to protect legal residents and secure the borders!

Even the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has now admitted that she hasn't read it. However, they are all blasting it from various platforms the government might file a suit against it.

The situation is becoming serious as the White House is also opposing the Arizona law (obviously without reading it) and several groups, organizations and even Los Angeles and San Antonio City Councils have decided to boycott Arizona for the state's ‘crime' to enact a law to re-iterate that it's illegal to come, stay and work in this country without proper documents. This is the height of ignorance, bias and sheer politics. Those who oppose the Arizona law are defenders of violators of the national laws and should themselves be hauled up for supporting illegal acts.

Several other cities have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including California cities such as Oakland and San Diego. A nonbinding resolution was approved by San Francisco city supervisors urging a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asked sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer said the boycotts are unfortunate and misguided, primarily because the law mirrors a federal requirement that legal immigrants carry immigration papers.
"It's already the law in the United States, and I have a responsibility to stand up and protect the people of Arizona and we will do that," Brewer said last week.

Charges that the law will lead to racial profiling are "just pure rhetoric," Brewer said.

"I find it really interesting that we have people out there that are attempting a boycott in favor of illegal actions in Arizona. That to me is just unbelievable."

The Roman Catholic clergy is also supporting illegal as most of them are their followers and pay as they pray at Catholic churches.
The American big business wants them to work in their factories, farms, construction projects; the Democratic Party wants them as their voters. All these factors combine to ignore the national interest and defend illegal acts of border crossing that result in enormous economic, social and cultural problems.

According to agency reports this proceedings of the House Judiciary Committee is interesting - and also worrying:

"Ever since SB 1070 was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, the Obama administration has threatened to challenge it with a federal lawsuit. But during a hearing, Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder if he had read the statute.

Poe: "Have you read the Arizona law?"

Holder: "I have not had a chance...I've glanced at it, I have not read it...."

Poe: "It's ten pages. It's a lot shorter than the healthcare bill, which was 2,000 pages long. I'll give you my copy of it if you would like to have a copy."

(Later) Poe: "You have some concerns about the statute -- and it's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you hadn't even read the law."

Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, implies the administration had not done its homework before reacting to the Arizona law.

"There is an obligation on the part of the President of the United States and the Attorney General to actually have all their ducks in a row, to fully understand what is in a piece of legislation, before they even suggest that the people of the United States are going to take on the state of Arizona," says Mehlman.

He adds: "It is clear to anybody who has read SB 1070 that it simply implements federal law that the federal government itself is refusing to implement."

The Arizona law will take effect on July 29. Several lawsuits seeking to block its implementation are pending in federal court.
However, some polls have shown strong popular support for the Arizona law, and it seems some other states may follow up with their own versions.

The critics of the new law have started a barrage of allegation to make the law something like a monster out to grab every immigrant, racial profiling and violating civil rights.

Some critics have gone to the extent of comparing Arizona to a Nazi state, a Police State and called names. They call the Arizona law an extremely tough act; even President Obama has called the new law "misguided."

However, the Arizona law is neither racist, nor has any remote trace of being Nazi. All it does is give the authority to the Police to check the immigration status of a person they have reasonable suspicion of being in the state and the country illegally - and that is a crime.

The critics of the new law are clearly acting against the interests of the state and the nation by shielding illegals and defending the crimes of crossing the national borders illegally. In other words they are defending criminals and should be ashamed of themselves.
Pity, there is no law to prosecute defenders of law-breakers and opponents of those who defend US laws with their threats of lawsuits, boycotts and disinvestment etc.

It's appalling that even the Mayor of Phoenix, Phil Gordon said the measure would be "economically devastating," and called on the City Council to sue the state to stop it from taking effect. The Council had rejected that idea, yet the mayor said he retained legal counsel to prepare a lawsuit to file on behalf of the city. Wow!

The Arizona law has ripple effect elsewhere. A Texas Republican lawmaker, Rep Debbie Riddle of Tomball, said she will push for a similar law in the January legislative session. Republicans running for Governor in Colorado and Minnesota expressed support for the crackdown. "I'd do something very similar if elected," former Rep. Scott McInnis, told KHOW-AM radio in Denver.

The critics deliberately confuse the issue with racism, civil rights, discrimination, and migration in general. No defending the indefensible; that stand and tactic have to change, and a majority of the people want it. The borders have to be secured and order restored at all costs. Period.