By way of law and order and in an effort to protect its citizenry, the state of Georgia has enacted an anti-illegal immigration law similar to SB 1070 proposed by the state of Arizona.
Georgia’s measure seeks to “empower police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects… punishes people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants in Georgia or use fake identification to get a job.” The law also “requires many businesses to use the federal E-Verify program to ensure their newly hired workers are eligible to work in the United States.”
It wasn’t long ago that Barack Obama complained about the state of Arizona passing a similar illegal immigration law. At the time, the President claimed that Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration abused individuals by unfairly asking for identification even from parents taking children out for an ice cream cone. The president warned:
“If you [don’t] have your papers and you [take] your kids out for ice cream, you could be harassed.”
Despite the deaths of innocent citizens at the hands of marauding interlopers toting guns, not double-scoop ice cream cones, and in an effort to protect aficionados of frozen creamery from undue persecution, the Obama Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against the Arizona immigration law.
Therefore, it was not surprising when the “Anti-Defamation League” together with “Mexico and the governments of several Central and South American countries filed court papers…in support of efforts to halt Georgia’s tough new immigration enforcement law.”
In addition, the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, the “Southern Poverty Law Center and several other civil and immigrant rights groups also filed a federal class-action lawsuit … asking a judge to halt the measure pending the outcome of their case.” The line of reasoning is “that the measure – also known as House Bill 87 – is preempted by federal law and is ‘unconstitutional.'”
The opposing groups argue that the Georgia law “establishes a ‘show-me-your-papers’ police state, encourages racial profiling, endangers public safety and betrays American values,” which up until recently included respect for the law and made it a priority to ensure the well-being of American citizens.
In essence, the lawsuits petition the American legal system to back off upholding its own laws by demanding criminals be allowed to infiltrate American borders, steal jobs and earn wages without proper identification.
In its brief, Mexico argues in support of halting the law, citing that “HB 87 substantially and inappropriately burdens the consistent country to country relations between Mexico and the United States of America.” Apparently, Mexico believes that Georgia’s effort to help identify and address illegal perpetrators, gun runners, drug cartels, and banditos who’ve been known to shoot and kill American citizens, Border patrol agents, and ICE officials is what “burdens … consistent country to country relations between Mexico and the US.”
Mexico also parroted the discrimination concept introduced by Barack Obama when he said the Arizona immigration law was a “poorly conceived law” that would “try to make it really tough on people who look like illegal immigrants.” Mexico said Georgia’s immigration law would interfere “with the strategic diplomatic interests of the two countries and [is] encouraging an imminent threat of state-sanctioned bias or discrimination.” Sound familiar?
State officials in Georgia reacted to the opposition by filing “court papers…seeking to dismiss the lawsuit,” maintaining the “law is constitutional and predict it will survive the court challenge.” In an effort to do the job the federal government won’t do, “Proponents say the state needed to act to curb illegal immigration because the federal government has failed to secure the nation’s borders.”
Illegal immigrants, who shouldn’t be in Georgia in the first place, and whose presence burdens “the state’s taxpayer-funded resources, including public schools, jails and hospitals,” spoke out accusing supporters of Georgia’s new law of “burdening the state’s taxpayer-funded resources, including public schools, jails and hospitals” – a comment that makes about as much sense as Obama’s Arizona lawsuit/ice cream argument.
The state of Georgia decided the responsible thing to do was to enforce the immigration law. However, if the suit that seeks to prevent Georgia from doing so succeeds, it would set a disturbing precedent that would enable foreign countries to dictate and decide what sovereign American states can and cannot do to control the problem of illegal immigration.
Nevertheless, Clinton appointee U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash will ultimately decide, and has indicated that he “might rule from the bench …on the plaintiffs’ request to halt the law” on the first day of the hearing. The way Judge Thrash rules will determine whether Georgia, on behalf of the United States of America, wins or loses a battle against the unrelenting influx of illegal immigrants, the dictates of foreign countries, and the insane demands of liberal organizations that are oblivious to the safety and security concerns of America.
In the end, Judge Thrash holds the power to decide whether ice cream-eating illegals in Georgia get to celebrate the defeat of the rule of law and join their unlawful brethren in Arizona, who already enjoy Obama-sanctioned ice cream cones without being harassed for identification.