Is That a Threat?

Two reports were released Monday. One was from the Center for American Progress. The other was from the Southern Poverty Law Center. The reports addressed the efforts by state and local authorities to augment and enforce national immigration laws. Both reports take a dim view of recent efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. Both reports also sought to warn states and local governments of the legal strain and financial pitfalls that they can expect should they pass such legislation.

Attempts to curb illegal immigration, such as the recent case in Farmers Branch, Texas where the city has passed a law declaring that anyone who knowingly rents to illegal immigrants is guilty of harboring, have engendered protracted legal fights. Farmers Branch has already lost the first round and is preparing for the second. Legal fights cost money. According to the Center for American Progress, $9 million has been spent so far by five cities defending their immigration ordinances. As new laws and ordinances are passed, new suits will be filed and more money will be spent defending them. State and local governments have been put on notice that they will have to keep spending to defend themselves and their laws.

There are many issues that surround immigration reform. Where politics and insults have failed to stem the growth of immigration reform movements, economic pressure has been brought to bear in the threats of boycotts. In Farmers Branch, a new strategy is being developed by those who oppose efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. They will seek to impoverish the city through endless litigation.

Those who support liberal immigration policy claim they are simply trying to inform communities of the legal consequences that can be expected should those communities try to enforce immigration law, just as those who organize boycotts claim they are merely trying to make communities aware of the financial costs of such policies. What they are really doing is threatening those communities.

A lot people have become disdainful of the democratic process. Many do not trust voters. Some hold voters in contempt. Others are simply too impatient. They are the ones most apt to turn to the courts to achieve their political goals. They are the ones who, if they cannot persuade the public to adopt preferred policy, will coerce them to adopt it. That is precisely what the Immigration Reform Law Institute and Center for American Progress are trying to do. They are trying to coerce Farmer's Branch into changing its laws.

Liberals might see themselves as reformers and progressives, but they are not. They are elitist and heavy handed. Their confidence in their beliefs and sensibilities is absolute. They know what they want and they will do whatever they feel is necessary to achieve it. If they cannot get the results they want at the ballot box they will bribe, coerce, and threaten. They will harp on rights and freedom but you will rarely, if ever, hear them speak of liberty.

The controversy in Farmers Branch and other communities seeking to crack down on illegal immigration begs the question: how can you have the right to rent an apartment or have a driver's licence when you do not even have the right to be here?