The ACLU and the Overturning of the Constitution
An appeals court has ruled that Arizona citizens can in fact vote on binding propositions. Recently, Proposition 200 was voted on in Arizona which required proof of citizenship to receive government benefits which illegal immigrants are not entitled to under law. The ACLU and the Mexican government argued on behalf of those trying to throw out the proposition. They lost on the appellate level however the promise to appeal “to the Supreme Court and even the UN.”
Skipping past the issue of illegal immigration for a moment, at what point was the Declaration of Dependence signed? When did the constitutionality of Arizona voter propositions become a matter of international “law”? When Americans travel to Europe, they have to pay for health care, why is it all the sudden different when people illegally cross a US boarder that they become de facto citizens entitled to all the benefits including voting? At what point did all local laws and propositions of the United States require approval from the UN General Assembly? The ACLU is trying to overturn a democratically initiated policy by subjecting all US policy decisions to UN deliberation.
Let’s be honest, if you grant welfare and free health care to illegal immigrants you are only encouraging people to come over here and do nothing. It’s one thing to cross the border to work; it’s another to cross the border for free government money. One could see Mexico’s position; they want that money flowing back across the border (as it does) to the family members back home.
The ACLU here is actually arguing that it is illegal to deny government benefits to those who come here illegally. The irony is that in so doing they are only ultimately going to bankrupt that very system by imposing large numbers of people on it and creating a huge incentive for people to cross the border every time they have a cold. If the ACLU doesn’t like the immigration law they should change it and we can have an intelligent discussion on that issue. What is unacceptable is arguing that US sovereignty has been abolished by the World Court.
International “Law” was never meant to impose domestic policy on sovereign nations, but the ACLU is looking to impose these very standards on the US because they can’t win at the polls. The voters have spoken and the ACLU is attacking democracy in response out of an apparent contempt for the people who want their laws enforced.
In effect, they are trying to rewrite the Preamble of the Constitution as follows:
We the Elite of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Bureaucracy, establish Secular Humanism, insure global Tranquility by silencing hate speech, provide for the common defense if that’s of with France, demote the Welfare of those we consider privileged while securing our own wealth, and secure the Benefits of Socialism for ourselves because there will be no posterity, do impose and establish this Living Constitution for the United States of America, so help us Kofi Annan.
See other posts on the ACLU at StoptheACLU
Also see the latest at OTB
Great job John! I love to see the ACLU lose.
Comment by Jay | August 11, 2005
How very right you are. The ACLU seems determined to destroy everything of value in America.
Comment by Fitch | August 11, 2005
The court ruling went well, but I’m not at all confident that things are going to change here in Arizona. Our governor was and is vehemently opposed to Prop 200, and she is doing everything she can to see that it doesn’t go into effect. I’m sure there are many battles still to be fought before we adopt a sane policy toward illegal immigrants.
Comment by Bob | August 11, 2005
The scary thing is, I have no doubt that SCOTUS would be very receptive to the idea of using international law. I believe they already have refered to foreign laws, so international law, isn’t much of a strech.
Comment by NYgirl | August 13, 2005