Permit your Commander to revisit the highly emotional debate on immigration here in the United States. With the recent passage of new immigration legislation in the State of Alabama, four local church leaders are suing the state saying that it criminalizes acts of Christian compassion.
Please take a look at the highly critical editorial in today’s New York Times.
Across the country state after state is confronted with massive costs associated with current immigration laws which are enforced in various degrees, and cases are totally ignored too often. It is apparent that the states are trying to address their individual problems, but there is little or no direction coming from Washington. Our federal elected officials do not want to address this subject, because they fear the loss of votes from the minority communities in their districts back home.
Clearly our federal government panders for votes and has repeatedly failed to address the escalating costs to states due to erratic enforcement of immigration laws. Clearly we cannot continue to pay the rapidly rising costs associated with lax implementation of immigration laws as they now exist. When the federal government does not enforce the existing federal laws, why wouldn’t one support elected state officials passing legislation that protects its citizens?
Federal immigration laws are clearly out of control and our borders are not secure despite what our federal officials contend. Americans across this country are crying for stricter immigration legislation and enforcement.
Emotion must be removed from this debate and a resolution sought that not only contains a level of compassion, but is also financially sustainable and provides for secure borders.
Did you notice that the New York Times article didn't suggest just how states should come up with the funds to support the cost of illegal immigrant residents (i.e., health care, welfare, food stamps, etc.)?