There’s a cycle. American citizens see their communities destroyed by mass immigration. They pass a small restriction. The media calls them Nazis and demands sanctions as if the community were harboring terrorists. Eventually the courts throw it out and rule that American citizens are not allowed to affect policy on important questions like immigration. The media celebrates and debates strategies to ensure they won’t be able to vote on something like this ever again. And we call this freedom and demand it be spread to the rest of the world.
A celebratory story in the Los Angeles Times hails the decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (of course) to award illegal immigrants with driver’s licenses.
In its unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Arizona’s effort to block the driver’s licenses violated equal protection requirements of the U.S. Constitution and that the Dreamers are likely to suffer irreparable harm by the state policy. State officials said they are reviewing the ruling, but pledged to continue the legal fight against issuing licenses.
Those in the Dreamer movement were ecstatic. “We’re very happy, an important and terrific decision,” Dan Pochoda, the legal director for the ACLU of Arizona, told the Los Angeles Times. “The plaintiffs were significantly harmed by this ugly, vindictive policy.”
[Court backs Arizona on immigrant driver's licenses; Dreamers rejoice, by Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times, July 7, 2014]
Needless to say, the “dreamers” are already planning to move the goalposts again because they want “our parents to have the same rights as us.” So much for “innocent” children who don’t share the crimes of their sires.
The court ruled that states “enjoy no power to the classification of aliens,” and that this is a federal responsibility. Of course, the federal government favors the invasion so Arizona acted in response to federal government essentially telling a certain class of illegals that they were entitled to the rights of citizens. However, the court ruled that Arizona’s policy “appears intended to express animus toward DACA recipients themselves, in part because of the federal government’s policy toward them. Such animus, however, is not a legitimate state interest.”
Got that? Only the federal government can regulate immigration. Of course, they won’t and deliberately dump the costs on the states. But the state’s actually trying to deal with the breakdown of immigration law enforcement is not a “compelling state interest.” In contrast, the Supreme Court says “diversity” is a compelling state interest that can be used to justify racial preferences against whites and Asians. Compared to such an elevated purpose, evidently the American court system is simply protecting states from having to deal with something as petty as the collapse of law enforcement.
The contemporary American experiment in “self-government” is not really a form of administration, but an increasingly complicated con game in which Americans who believe in the Constitution, the rule of law, and some idea of a common good are the suckers. The law only applies to certain people. The votes of only certain people matter. Heads we win, tails we lose, and by the way, if you notice this — you’re a racist.