One more thing...

I have time to kill before I take Nolan to karate, and I'm still thinking about the AZ immigration topic, so I thought I'd share my thoughts here.

I recall vivid and very animated discussions with Ryan on his back patio in MS concerning a topic that touches on this same issue (in my opinion) and that is the hot-topic term "racial profiling". Expecting any Latino-looking American to be able to produce proof of citizenship and/or residency status with no reasonable suspicion of participation or involvement in a crime is nothing more than abridging the rights and freedoms of any American that might be considered "Latino" in appearance. That, it seems to me, is the big problem with the AZ legislation. It was also the root of my problem with the issue of racial profiling during the heightened security checks at airports across the land in the post-9/11 world.

Terrorism is a serious and real threat in America today, no question. So is illegal immigration. Many curbs and impediments have been made over the years to make the possible solutions to these problems and threats very difficult to employ, I will also admit. However, the "goal" of both the terrorists and the chronic illegals and anti-American elements that support them within the country are bent on the same goal... to end the America that has always been, and to institute an America more to their liking and tastes.

Simply taking the most expedient route to the solutions that might present themselves to these threats is NOT ALWAYS the best answer, however. By selectively targeting for examination, questioning, or detention ONLY those of certain specific ethnic, racial or religious origins we are ACCOMPLISHING the goals these radicals and terrorists have set for themselves to accomplish. If we forgo the fundamental freedoms that this nation was founded on and grew to greatness with simply to achieve a possible degree of safety or security that otherwise might not be there and ONE innocent citizen suffers because of it, then we have failed utterly in our defense of those freedoms.

When Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" I don't think he meant that the patriots needed to suffer as a matter of course. In other words, our freedoms define us and when they are lost, we are lost. Jefferson also said "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression." If we ignore the rights of the minority, we relinquish the rights of the majority, and our system of government and society fails as well.

To sacrifice freedom and liberty in even a few cases is to allow our founding principles to fail in the name of expedient justice. Freedom is never free, but in this country it is guaranteed to all citizens, and those bearing and paying the price of that universal freedom shouldn't be limited to those defined by race or creed. If freedom does have a price, then we ALL pay the price equally. That is the beauty of our society, not it's short-coming.

Let me take it a step further...

If Obama/Reid/Pelosi are wrong for compelling all Americans to carry the mandated amount of government-approved health insurance, why is it okay to mandate that Americans of Latino origins in AZ be required to "prove" their status as Americans without reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime? Insurance only works if the cost incurred by the few is offset by the contributions of the many, so as to ensure coverage for all there is a legitimate claim that all need to be contributing, right? I'm as "white" as the day is long, yet I could go to AZ and never face the prospect of having to prove my residency status while someone equally as "American" as I am (a Puerto Rican, for example) would only be smart to make sure his status was clearly and readily able to be determined on demand by local law enforcement. How is that any more "fair" than my being compelled to contribute to an insurance fund regardless of whether or not I wanted to?

Why is the marginalization of those holding a "conservative" political view in modern American politics "wrong", but the marginalization of anyone in this nation because of "less-than-ordinary" appearances (for lack of a better term), be they ethnic, linguistic, religious or otherwise, perfectly acceptable in the eyes of those that feel safety and security are more important than basic and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? This is an extreme statement, I'm sure... but this whole topic makes my head ring with the phrase "slippery slope". How far down the slope are we willing to risk sliding before safety and security are no longer worth the price that needs to be paid?

It all boils down to this (for me, anyway): There simply MUST be another way for us to secure our borders and/or fix the immigration issues that DOES NOT cause the nation to risk even ONE incident of civil rights abuse or neglect. I'm not asking for additional rights that need to be guaranteed for illegals or criminals... I'm asking that we don't step on the rights of existing law-abiding citizens to find short-cuts to our safety and security goals.