Arizona Illegal Immigration Law Blocked and"Faith-Based" Citizenship

A federal judge blocked the most contentious (i.e. important) aspects of the Arizona immigration law this week. The justification, pushed by groups such as the ACLU and the League of United Latin American Citizens, is the same racial profiling tripe I've dissected previously. The vitriolic opposition to SB1070 derives from the following principle:

If a non-white racial group breaks a law more often than whites, the given law should not be enforced, else the proper enforcement of this law will be considered unjust racial profiling.

The trite and almost laughable grousing from the left ("but they'll have to carry ID cards", as if we don't already) is merely a stalling tactic for their ultimate goal: complete amnesty coupled with an entirely open border. By seizing control from states and centralizing immigration reform in the federal government, an entity most subservient to the institutional left and their prevailing PC zeitgeist, nothing will ever happen. Obama will give a bunch of abstruse speeches filled with seemingly patriotic bromides, yet continue to move the goalposts until the proper demographics and social landscape have surfaced. Then, open borders for everyone!

But let's briefly consider the Right's opposition. While the left hurls an unremitting stream of racist invectives, do conservatives put forth a better argument? Jan Brewer, the resolute Arizona governor steadfast in her defense of this law, has expressed the idea below:

The governor, who hired lawyers to defend the law in court, hopes the court will act quickly, saying illegal immigration remains an ongoing crisis. Arizona has more than 400,000 illegal immigrants, and its border with Mexico is awash with smugglers who funnel narcotics and immigrants throughout the U.S. The law's supporters say the influx of illegal migrants drains vast sums of money from hospitals, education and other services.

But when the left finally capitulates on the racist issue, their more nuanced efforts at immigration inundation will succeed. Why? Because the Right's continuing refusal to appeal to HBD undermines the romantic, open-world approach that the left is slowly adopting. For example, see Obama's "faith-based citizenship" speech from early July:

President Obama spoke today about the need for comprehensive immigration reform, arguing that "immigrants have always helped to build and defend this country" and that "being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It's a matter of faith." He continued that "we've always defined ourselves as a nation of immigrants," adding that America has also been a "magnet for the best and brightest."

When the left lionizes Hispanics as paragons of Catholic family values, how will social conservatives respond? Sure they can appeal to cultural tradition, but the fluidity of the 20th century cultural landscape somewhat undermines that supposition. Basically, one can't formulate a cogent rejoinder without appeal to race realism.

To be honest, I'm not comfortable with national pride premised on a random collection of individuals. After all, what objective principle justifies one caring more for his national/intra-racial peers than for his foreign ethnic peers (obvious example alert)? My general political philosophy is pragmatism and the notion that one can not disentangle a nation's character from its founding peoples. Of course, these two positions are premised on HBD, an argumentative tool wholly ignored by the mainstream Right.

Obama's utterly inclusive and quite ambiguous definition of American-ness reflects his abject blank slatism as well as his desire to undermine American whites demographically and eventually socially and politically. By couching citizenship in these amorphous terms, he's basically saying, "Mexican fence jumpers are essentially American, so you're basically not allowing Americans into their own country." With a reflexive appeal to assimilation and a cowering Right afraid to face issues of race, Obama wins.

Finally, and only obliquely related to the AZ law, what exactly constitutes "faith" in America? After all, the despondent view of America disseminated by the left (and their libertarian counterparts) leaves little for justifying pride.