Sunday, February 26, 2006
Arizona's Border Commitment
The Arizona House voted to spend 5 million in state surplus to pay for border patrol by the National Guard.
Protecting the border falls under national jurisdiction; however, Arizona has taken the duty upon itself to help protect the border. Arizona is paying to protect the border from illegal immigration, which will inevitably impact the entire nation. Yet, because of the seriousness of illegal immigration’s impact on the state of Arizona, they have decided to protect themselves.
I do not bring up this issue to discuss illegal immigration. I have already discussed the impact of illegal immigration in a previous opinion piece. What I would like to highlight is the state’s (and their citizen’s) desire to protect the interests of the state. This is an interesting example of a state operating in the best interests of the state without (or despite a lack of) federal assistance.
Perhaps if more states became more self sufficient governments this great nation would take a step towards a smaller federal government. While a smaller federal government tends to be a “limited government Republican issue,” Republicans and Democrats have both increased the size of government in my life time. Personally, I prefer to give money to my city where I can see an immediate impact as opposed to giving my money to the state. Similarly, I prefer to give my money to the state to more closely impact my area as opposed to giving my money the feds.
This step by Arizona is not a federal policing issue, it is a state’s rights and state’s responsibilities issue. More states should learn from Arizona’s example and do what it takes to protect themselves. Personally, if I live in a dangerous neighborhood I will take extra steps to defend my house and family. I will make an effort to protect myself so I will not have to rely on the municipal government to protect me. On a larger scale, the state government is taking extra steps to protect its “houses and families” without waiting for the federal government to help. Should states be able to rely on the federal government for such protections? Yes. But if the government is not meeting its obligations, then a state should make up the difference – just like I would do for my own house.
This is even more poignant given the meltdown between federal, state and local government during hurricane Katrina. Perhaps, rather than seeing this act by Arizona as an act of “anti-immigration,” view it as a proactive step to avoid their own Katrina. Think about it. What are the biggest issues facing your state? Is the federal government helping you? Is your state helping you? Who knows what will eventually happen with Arizona’s recent vote; but nevertheless, it does raise an interesting debate about doing what it takes to meet the needs of your constituency.
Protecting the border falls under national jurisdiction; however, Arizona has taken the duty upon itself to help protect the border. Arizona is paying to protect the border from illegal immigration, which will inevitably impact the entire nation. Yet, because of the seriousness of illegal immigration’s impact on the state of Arizona, they have decided to protect themselves.
I do not bring up this issue to discuss illegal immigration. I have already discussed the impact of illegal immigration in a previous opinion piece. What I would like to highlight is the state’s (and their citizen’s) desire to protect the interests of the state. This is an interesting example of a state operating in the best interests of the state without (or despite a lack of) federal assistance.
Perhaps if more states became more self sufficient governments this great nation would take a step towards a smaller federal government. While a smaller federal government tends to be a “limited government Republican issue,” Republicans and Democrats have both increased the size of government in my life time. Personally, I prefer to give money to my city where I can see an immediate impact as opposed to giving my money to the state. Similarly, I prefer to give my money to the state to more closely impact my area as opposed to giving my money the feds.
This step by Arizona is not a federal policing issue, it is a state’s rights and state’s responsibilities issue. More states should learn from Arizona’s example and do what it takes to protect themselves. Personally, if I live in a dangerous neighborhood I will take extra steps to defend my house and family. I will make an effort to protect myself so I will not have to rely on the municipal government to protect me. On a larger scale, the state government is taking extra steps to protect its “houses and families” without waiting for the federal government to help. Should states be able to rely on the federal government for such protections? Yes. But if the government is not meeting its obligations, then a state should make up the difference – just like I would do for my own house.
This is even more poignant given the meltdown between federal, state and local government during hurricane Katrina. Perhaps, rather than seeing this act by Arizona as an act of “anti-immigration,” view it as a proactive step to avoid their own Katrina. Think about it. What are the biggest issues facing your state? Is the federal government helping you? Is your state helping you? Who knows what will eventually happen with Arizona’s recent vote; but nevertheless, it does raise an interesting debate about doing what it takes to meet the needs of your constituency.
