D.A. King has been an invaluable and dogged opponent of illegal immigration both in Georgia and nationwide for years, and his important work paid off again recently in the Peach State.
King filed a complaint with Georgia's new Immigration Enforcement and Review Board against a misguided ordinance in Atlanta that allowed the city to recognize a Mexican ID card for city government transactions.
In 2004, Atlanta began recognizing the card, known as the matricula consular. It is issued by the Mexican government to Mexican citizens in other nations.
But U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are conducting legitimate business with the city of Atlanta already have or are entitled to get valid state- or federally issued identification. So in Georgia and elsewhere, it is often illegal aliens who present the cards as identification. Georgia law, however, specifically forbids the use of the matricula consular as valid ID at any agency that handles public benefits.
That is perfectly appropriate, because it is not the place of any government in the United States -- whether at the municipal, state or federal level -- to confer the slightest legitimacy on illegal immigration. As such, Atlanta erred in recognizing the matricula consular for purposes of city government transactions the past eight years. While the city did not go as far as some other cities around the country in creating a sanctuary for illegal aliens, it was at a minimum encouraging the problem of illegal immigration.
But now, after King took up the matter with the Immigration Enforcement and Review Board, Atlanta properly has reversed course. The city has repealed the ordinance in question.
King's was the first complaint the board has received since its creation by state lawmakers last year. It is good to see the panel get off to a productive start.
Nevertheless, Georgia's and some other states' get-tough approach to unlawful immigration has angered apologists for illegal aliens. They say the states ought to leave immigration enforcement to the federal government.
That would be a sensible enough position to take if the Obama administration were not so determined to avoid enforcement of major portions of federal immigration law. But respect for the rule of law is on life support in this administration. And so the states are left with no choice but to step up to the plate -- if they want to avoid some of the catastrophic costs associated with illegal aliens using a range of taxpayer-funded benefits.
Georgia was justified in taking up this fight, Atlanta was right to do an about-face -- and King remains a vital part of the battle.
Your editorial concerns about immigration policy and enforcement are clarifying and helpful. Your unwarranted blast at the Obama administration about immigration enforcement is neither helpful nor accurate. Deportations are at the highest level ever. Enforcement resources and personell have never been greater.
There is plenty to criticize Obama for beside one of the few areas where he has exceeded expectations.
Hack writing deserves to be called out.
Hey Con- nuck, don't they have news up there in that Socialist utopia you claim to have found?
Why don't you post that comment on a newspaper in Arizona?
Also, why don't you post directions for your fellow travelers who comment here so they can join you up in utopia and escape America?
conservative said... Hey Con- nuck, don't they have news up there in that Socialist utopia you claim to have found?
Why don't you post that comment on a newspaper in Arizona?
Also, why don't you post directions for your fellow travelers who comment here so they can join you up in utopia and escape America?
Con couldn't find anything to write about the article, views, perspectives, comments, ideas, resolutions,....anything? So Con makes a personal attack on nucanuck.
Thanks for the comment nucanuck!
con-man, I'm hoping America can rebound from your type of thinking. You seem to champion the economic disparity that is tearing America apart. You belittle others with shallow prattle. You rarely enunciate or defend what you believe in, but rather denigrate others. I would imagine that I have accomplished far more than you in life all while creating jobs for others.
If you have done anything positive with your life, why don't you tell us about it.
CON-nuck, I have heard it all before, I'm use to it and it doesn't bother me in the least. I rejoice because I know personal attacks and false accusations is all you leftist have.
you wrote......"You rarely enunciate or defend what you believe"
With all that I have written, largely in agreement with the RIGHT side of the paper, you don't know what I believe? Are you obtuse? You must have some idea and you must not like it, why else would you constantly address me in your comments?
I am going to quiz you so that you will know what I believe and then later give you the correct answer. Just one question for now for I don't like long comments.
Q1. Does Conservative believe that the Constitution limits the power and scope of the Federal government as plainly stated in the document? Only chose one. YES or NO
Need a hint? The correct answer is probably the opposite of your belief.
con-man, we can't know the anonymous names on this board, but we form mental personality pictures from comments. I picture you as well enough educated to have secured a middle management job that you never liked, probably government, then worked to retirement with an OK pension, some savings, and house paid-off. You were never a risk taker, or an idea person, instead you re-act as things happen. You are not racist, you just don't want to spend time with other races. You like Israel, but you don't want a jew for a neighbor. You are not a generous person, but you do give to your church. You are not a happy person, but then you never were.
That's the picture I get from your postings.
CON-nuck, you wrote to me..........."You rarely enunciate or defend what you believe"
The first question was - Q1. Does Conservative believe that the Constitution limits the power and scope of the Federal government as plainly stated in the document? Only chose one. YES or NO.
The correct answer was - YES. How did you do? Were you surprised? Now that's the law and besides I want the powers of the Federal government limited. Lets go to Q2.
The 10th Amendment states "The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This gets to the nub of limited Federal government.
Q2. Does Conservative believe the plain words of the 10th Amendment and want them obeyed or does Conservative want to take these rights from states? Only chose one. YES or NO
Looks like I hit the unhappy part on the head.
Wash your hands.
Immigration policy is clearly a federal matter, not a state one.
CON-nuck, you wrote to me......"You rarely enunciate or defend what you believe"
The second question was - Q2. Does Conservative believe the plain words of the 10th Amendment and want them obeyed or does Conservative want to take these rights from states? Only chose one. YES or NO
The correct answer to Q2 is - YES. How are doing? Is my answer the same or opposite of you? This is the law of the land. I can't help it if Lieberals don't share this belief.
You don't know what I believe about 47 million people being on food stamps? Could you really be clueless?
Q3. Does Conservative believe it is Constitutional for the Federal government to give 47 million people food stamps funded by other people's money. Also, does Conservative even believe 47 million people are incapable of providing for their own food. Only chose one. YES or NO.
CON-nuck, you wrote to me..........."You rarely enunciate or defend what you believe"
The third question was - Q3. Does Conservative believe it is Constitutional for the Federal government to give 47 million people food stamps funded by other people's money. Also, does Conservative even believe 47 million people are incapable of providing for their own food. Only chose one. YES or NO.
The correct answer to Q3 is - NO. Are you shocked? Are food stamps in the Constitution? Is the idea that I would be opposed to being taxed to provide food to able bodied people or to people with assets totally foreign to you? Anything about 47 million people in America receiving food stamps from hardworking people with bills to pay in this economy trouble you? 47 million!!! 47,000,000!!!
I'm just getting started, so pay attention when I begin with your "You rarely enunciate or defend what you believe"
You forgot to do something.
Namely present an objective analysis of your posts as regards content.
Of course, your ranting in this thread is not an example of you enunciating or defending your beliefs. It's just you asserting them.
There's a difference.
Can you tell what it is?
con-man, you have wrapped yourself in the Constitution in an endeavor that leads no where. Try directing your thoughts and efforts toward constructive solutions to our real problems instead of retreating into the words and thoughts of others.
Or login with:
New Account