Welcome back. It continues to be a great conversation.

“All men are created equal…”

Yet everyone knows that no two human beings are exactly alike in any respect. They are different when they are born. They plainly exhibit different natural skills. They acquire different tastes. They develop along different lines. They vary in physical strength, mental capacity, emotional stability, inherited social status, in their opportunities for self-fulfillment, and in scores of other ways. How can they be equal?

The answer is, they can’t, except in three ways. They can only be TREATED as equal in the sight of God, in the sight of the law, and in the protection of their rights. In these three ways all men are created equal. It is the task of society, as it is with God, to accept people in all their vast array of individual differences, but treat them as equals when it comes to their role as human beings.

The Founders distinguished between equal rights and other areas where equality is impossible. They recognized that society should seek to provide equal opportunity but not expect equal results; provide equal freedom but not expect equal capacity; provide equal rights but not equal possessions; provide equal protection but not equal status; provide equal educational opportunities but not equal grades.

Alexander Hamilton said:

Inequality would exist as long as liberty existed…. It would unavoidably result from the very liberty itself.

Nevertheless, there are some who insist that people do not have equal rights unless they have “equal things.” The Founding Fathers were well acquainted with this proposition and set forth the following principle.

The proper role of Government is to protect equal rights. Not Provide equal things.

–The 5000 Year Leap, A miracle that changed the world

As for your statement:

“It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged…”

I don’t mean this next question to be condescending, so please don’t take it that way. Have you taken the time to read the law?

Resent comments from public officials concerning this law, as noted in the above post, have shown them to be ignorant of the law itself. If the people spearheading this effort to discredit the law haven’t read it, how is it possible to debate anything? Yet, the accusations fly viciously. Bigot, racist, anti-immigration, anti-Mexican, anti-human rights, etc…

Please, be more specific so that I can address your concerns. What in the law is unconstitutional? What sections do you find objectionable?

As I pray, Attorney General Eric Holder has learned, it is unrealistic to attempt to debate the merits without stating the actual substance of the law.

It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless, of course, they keep adding more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.

As for the undocumented workers, as Ronald Reagan said “It’s the Economy, Stupid”. When the economy is good we say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when we are in a down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. This too will pass. The real problem is the narcosis/drug and people smuggler that’s what the focus should be on.

Don’t you find it funny that no one ever voted for Governor Brewer, it’s all about politics, do not be fooled.

This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

I agree 100%. But, I must clarify, we are a Nation of Laws, not men.

John Locke wrote:

The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.For all the states of created beings, capable of laws, where there is no law there is no freedom. For liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others, which cannot be where there is no law.

Forgive me for being blunt here… but, when someone enters this country illegally, it is a crime. This is not a undefined or a new term.

illegal immigrant n. an alien (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa.

And as you stated,

“the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.”

The Liberty (security and property) of the citizens of Arizona (CA, TX, etc.) are threatened. The drain illegal immigration has on institutions such as school systems, health care, jobs and the depression of wages, law enforcement and the criminal justice system are just a few examples. The taxpayer funded institutions that are reeling from this huge migration into the United States are the ones that are primarily suppose to be servicing the low income people of this country. In turn, causing low income families to compete for increasingly limited funds, resources and basic survival necessities.

As reported in 2009 by ABC

“Phoenix, Arizona has become the kidnapping capital of America, with more incidents than any other city in the world outside of Mexico City.”

The ABC News investigation came on the heels of reports of gun battles near the U.S.-Mexico border between Mexican soldiers and drug cartel hitmen that killed 21 people.

The Federal Government has ignored the boarder problems for decades. Instead of holding Mexico accountable for its immigration policies they pander and collaborate with a country that uses this country to abdicate their responsibility to their citizens.

Your passionate explanation of why “the majority is not always right”, is quite accurate. But the miracle of the United States form of government is the ability to change the leaders to reflect the will of the citizens every two, four, or six years. The founders believed that if a direction taken by the leaders was in conflict with the Constitution and Natural Law (withholding the right to vote, equal access, etc.) these actions would be corrected by subsequent elections of more virtuous public officials. As history shows, it may take generations but the result is: to further freedom of the citizens by the citizens.

I am a bit confused by your statement:

“…if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!”

The majority of the day, at least in light of this legislation, shows overwhelming support for LEGAL immigration and enforcement of the law.

By ignoring the rights and sovereignty of American citizens, you threaten the very basis upon which this country was formed. Millions of immigrants cherish and value American citizenship, why should that honor be diminished by those who come illegally? We can not be the beacon of hope to the world, if the apathy, of the people, destroys the sovereignty of the nation.

The task that has fallen to us as Americans is to move the conscience of the world, to keep alive the hope and dream of freedom. For if we fail or falter, there’ll be no place for the world’s oppressed to flee to.
— Ronald Reagan

20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

…and considering the vagueness of these lines, I ask:

-How does reasonable suspicion come to “exist?”
-What “reasonable attempt” may be made to determine the immigration status of a person, besides “verifying with the federal government?”

Just something to think about. Of course, though, I hope it doesn’t become the problem many of the liberal opponents of this bill predict it to be.