Not necessarily LOTS of laws, but at least some minimal guidelines for human interaction, to define what is, and is not, acceptable in that culture.
Society as a whole begins to fall apart when the citizens of that society, that culture, lose respect for the rule of law.
So.
Here in this country, we have intentionally fostered a culture in which we have undermined ourselves, teaching our children, and our citizenry as a whole, that the rule of law is a secondary concern. Less important, in the grand scheme of things, than avoiding giving offense to people, or picking someone out based on incredibly obvious common factors solely because those factors are based on ethnicity.
Now, stay with me here; I'm sure many of you are wondering what, precisely, I am blathering about this time.
How many of you would agree that knocking over a liquor store is bad?
Most of you, at least, right?
Stealing purses is clearly wrong; rape, murder, shoplifting; these are all obvious instances of theft, and they are obviously wrong to most people.
But they are predicated on no different a moral base than that used by the redistributionistas.
"I need this, therefore it's mine."
Really? What about the actual owner of the property? Might they not also need it? More importantly, don't they have it because they earned it?
What makes it wrong when you steal an old lady's purse, hmmm?
The right of property ownership is fundamental to any society; indeed, society itself cannot exist without protecting that right in some fashion.
But it's more important simply than that; the right to property ownership is fundamental in and of itself; you cannot sustain your own life without the means to sustain that life, and as your right to your life is the most basic human right there can be, inherent in every person, the right to sustain that life by any means which does not infringe upon other people's right to their lives is paramount. Without the right to own, protect, and use property, you cannot sustain your life. I repeat to underscore the importance of this; the right to own property is essential to a society, and inherent in every human being.
Which is why stealing an old lady's purse is wrong; when you do so, you infringe upon her right to her property; you infringe upon her right to sustain her life; you are attacking her, directly, in a way whose ramifications you can never fully understand. Unless you're Miss Cleo.
So, ok, purse-snatching is wrong.
What, then, makes it "right" when the government does it?
Wait, wait, he didn't just say what I THINK he just said, did he?
Yeah, I did: stealing - even by the government - is wrong.
There's a difference, see, between a tax that's used for something which benefits everyone, and a tax that exists to hand money out to people who didn't earn it. When you take money from someone by force - just try not paying your taxes, and see where that gets you - and give it to someone else who has done nothing to earn it other than bleat that they "need" it, you are stealing from the rightful owner of that money, the wage earner.
You are doing so as blatantly as a purse-snatcher, and you are as morally wrong to do so.
And thus, we have created in this nation a curious moral dichotomy; a citizenry which on the one hand, comprehends that it is wrong to steal from old ladies, but on the other approves wholeheartedly with that same theft provided it is our government doing the snatching.
Income redistribution is one of the underlying principles of communism; this is because Marx, and his followers, believed that you could control people forever if you could teach them that they didn't have those inherent rights, that right to their life (thus the draft, often a plank of Congressional Democrats,) or that right to their property (thus welfare, Medicare, Social Security, all longstanding platforms of Democrats at all levels.)
This is because they knew that handouts are addictive. If you can get something for free, why pay for it? Of course, nothing is FREE, but at least you didn't personally have to WATCH the old lady getting mugged to give you your TANF check. you can instead sit back and enjoy the fruits of someone else's labors without any effort at all - and when presented with the option to vote for someone who tells you to get up off the couch and get to earning your own way, or someone who promises even more free stuff, you will almost invariably vote for the guy with free candy.
Hey, kids will get into the white panel van of a total stranger for a lollipop, and the ones who never have the chance grow up to be voters who do the exact same thing. When you sign on with income redistribution, you're agreeing to let the molester have you, as long as he's nice about it.
So what does this have to do with anything?
When you have a citizenry that does not understand the rule of law or its value, they are easily swayed by the argument that some laws ought not to be enforced.
...They instead ought not to be laws, if they're not worth enforcing; there should be no such thing as a law on the books that isn't necessary and proper, nor one that isn't enforced because no-one likes it.
In this country, we have so lost sight of the notion that laws are LAWS, that we have sanctuary cities; places where, despite the laws governing immigration, the local officials simply decide not to bother with enforcement, and let people BREAK THE LAW to come here, and then never, ever do anything about it.
Let me be perfectly clear.
Arizona Senate Bill 1070 doesn't "criminalize" illegal immigrants.
The meaning of the word "illegal" is "against the law," which means that people who are here illegally are criminals BECAUSE THEY BROKE THE LAW.
Arizona Senate Bill 1070 also doesn't violate your Constitutional rights; your right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure doesn't apply if you are caught breaking a law.
In SB1070, it specifies that officers of the law may check your immigration status if they become suspicious about you during the course of a lawful contact - specifically meaning that they already have to have stopped you for breaking the law or behaving suspiciously in some other way. Despite the media blathering endlessly about jackbooted thugs who will stop everyone and pester them for their papers, the FACT is that federal immigration law says that a foreign national within our borders is required to carry proof of their immigration status ON THEIR PERSON AT ALL TIMES; failure to do so is a CRIME.
There is no such thing as a non-lawbreaking "undocumented" worker, because BEING undocumented is ITSELF illegal.
SB1070 requires officers to do what they were formerly only encouraged to do, namely, check those documents that foreign nationals are required to carry as part of the privilege of being in the United States.
In answer to the ever-popular assumption on the part of left-wingers everywhere that any attempt to deal with unlawful violation of our borders is "racism" against Mexicans, SB1070 specifically makes it illegal to use racial profiling, and further specifies that Driving While Mexican is not a sufficient reason either to initiate a lawful contact, OR to check immigration status.
But I'm gonna say something that everyone here will likely hate.
I don't care; it's still true.
If you're white, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're black, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're a member of a native tribe, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're European, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're from India or Pakistan, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're Russian, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're Asian, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're Jewish, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're Arabic, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
If you're African, you almost certainly didn't immigrate here illegally from Mexico.
In fact, the reason enforcement will inevitably be skewed towards Latinos is because the only major ethnic group which DOES immigrate here illegally from Mexico is Latinos.
Which means, if you're not more interested in Latinos, along the Mexican border, than you are in anyone else, you're a fucking idiot. You're not being "multicultural," or "tolerant," or "non-judgmental," you're being a FUCKING IDIOT.
Let me be more to the point.
Illegal immigration is illegal. It's right in the name, see?
The largest group of illegal immigrants, by far, that anyone has to deal with in Arizona, is Latinos.
Therefore, they will be arresting large numbers of Latinos for being illegal. Not because they have it in for the Latinos, but because that's who the lawbreakers ARE.
In other parts of the country, other ethnic groups are the problem; Africans, Central Asians, and Arabs come to several different places in the country as primary ports-of-call, and they get here just as illegally as the folks who swim the Rio Grande do.
They just mostly don't do it in Arizona.
Now, Arizona has a law which requires that the existing federal immigration law be enforced within the state of Arizona, and since the federal government isn't bothering, requires that state officers do the job the federal government takes exorbitant taxes every year to perform.
They will be given additional training, to avoid discrimination; that's mandated in the law as well.
Our government's response has been to loudly denounce Arizona's demand that after years of the federal government's ignoring the problem, they be allowed to enforce the existing law themselves; to allow - and cheer for~! - the president of the nation which sends us the greatest supply of criminals to publicly denounce Arizona as racist; to allow our ATTORNEY GENERAL, for God's sake, who publicly admits he has not read the law and does not know what it contains, to likewise denounce it; and further, to refuse to enforce the federal laws openly.
Refusing to enforce the law is itself defiance of that law, and it ought not to be portrayed as any other thing; it's wrong, it should be illegal if it's not already, and frankly, President Obama should be impeached for allowing this travesty to continue.
We don't need immigration reform. We need the rule of law in our nation respected, and those laws enforced; this is the PURPOSE of the federal government in the first place, to provide for protection of our rights as a citizenry; it is the job of the states and the local authorities to guarantee those rights individually.
Arizona is doing so; as such, they are a legitimate government.
And the only way to deny that is to deny the rule of law - which means you're not much of an American.
