Imagine for a moment that a pack of strangers – ranging from hooligans to plain homeless – illegally entered your home and started raiding the pantry, stealing your possessions, stuffing up the toilets, and sleeping on your bed.  When you call the police to come down and remove them, you are told they cannot assist you because they lack the power to profile the unwanted guests from other members of the household.  As desperation sets in, you join with your neighbors to chase them out.  Much to your chagrin, lawyers for the intruders impel the courts to issue a ‘cease and desist order,’ obstructing efforts to deny the intruders anything, including the twinkies in the pantry.  Moreover, teams of advocates for these brazen burglars begin to record the contact information of those locals who desire to stop the illegal entries.

Sound absurd and perverse?  Does it remind you of Sodom and Gomorrah?

Welcome to the reality of our immigration system.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a legal system that allows any affluent organization to immediately halt efforts of state governments to deal with their illegal immigration problem; encumbering those laws in years’ worth of frivolous legal proceedings.  There is something fundamentally perverse when the man entrusted with enforcing those laws can malevolently supplant the core laws governing our sovereignty – and face no threat of legal action.

Here are just a few recent news tidbits that exemplify the reprehensible and dyslexic actions of various branches of government toward our vital immigration laws:

Georgia:  Ever since Arizona passed its modest law (SB 1070) to deal with their insurmountable problems with illegal immigration, many other states, including Georgia, have passed similar laws.  Yesterday, US District Court Judge Thomas Thrash enjoined two provisions of Georgia’s HB 87 immigration law, at the behest of the ACLU.  One provision would have authorized police to check the immigration status of those suspected of committing a crime and cannot produce documentation.  The other provision would punish those caught transporting illegal aliens while committing another crime.

The good news is that the court upheld the mandatory E-Verify provision in HB 87; however, Judge Thrash had no other choice, in light of the recent ruling from the Supreme Court upholding Arizona’s E-Verify law.

Judge Thrash issued the injunction on the assumption that the ACLU would succeed in the argument that HB 87 is preempted by federal law.  He added that “the apparent legislative intent is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, mistrust and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia.”  Really?  No kidding!  It’s amusing how the opposition always claims that there is no way to possibly deal with the immigration problem without offering amnesty or physically removing every last alien.  Well, Judge Thrash actually admits that such enforcement laws might scandalously prompt the illegals to leave, without the false choice between amnesty and mass deportation!

It is very likely that the Supreme Court will strike down the inane preemption argument against state laws authorizing law enforcement to check immigration status.  Sadly, these states might have to wait another year or two just so their law can begin to take effect.  In the meantime, the unaccountable ACLU can use its unlimited funds to encumber other efforts to deal with the illegal invasion.

Indiana:  Last Friday, US District Court Judge Susan Barker blocked two provisions from Indiana’s watered down anti-illegal immigration bill, again, at the directive of the ACLU.  One provision would have authorized police to issue warrantless arrests of aliens who already have immigration court removal orders against them; the other would have made it a crime for anybody to accept matricula consular cards as a valid form of ID.

Utah: In March, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed HB 497, a watered down version of SB 1070.  This bill would have required police to check the immigration status only of those arrested for felonies or class A misdemeanors.  In May, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups issued an injunction against HB 497 at the request of…. you guessed it, the ACLU.

Maryland: In April, the Maryland General Assembly passed their version of the Dream Act, offering in-state tuition rates at Maryland colleges to illegal aliens.  A small group of local activists shocked everyone by successfully garnering more than enough signatures for a petition to put the Dream Act as a referendum on the ballot in the 2012 election.  Concurrently, Illegal immigrant activists, led by the publicly funded CASA de Maryland, have received a copy of the contact information of all the petition signers from the Maryland Board of Elections.  They are now using that information to intimidate the activists, and demand that they renounce their signatures.  The ACLU also plans to file suit challenging the online website that promoted the petition drive.

Nationally: While pro-criminal organizations are able to subvert the will of the people and block states from enforcing federal law, Barack Obama is preventing the federal government…. from implementing federal law.  On June 17, Obama’s ICE Director John Morton issued a memo directing the federal immigration enforcement agents to grant amnesty to those illegals who would qualify to stay in the country under the Dream Act – a law that was rejected by members of both parties in Congress!  While this is unfortunately not a new occurrence for an administration that has a repugnant penchant for circumventing Congress through administrative fiat, one would think that it would obviate Obama’s federal preemption argument.

In other words, Obama is able to preempt the governmental body with real plenary power over immigration; the legislative branch, by vitiating the laws passed by Congress.  Yet, activist judges, who are obsequious to the whims of pro-criminal organizations, are able to void state immigration laws on the premise that they are preempted by Obama’s executive branch which has made it federal policy not to enforce congressional immigration laws.

Today, Senate Democrats are holding a hearing in support of the Dream Act in order to give Obama cover for his criminal behavior.  We must tell our members of Congress to support Rep. Lamar Smith’s bill to override Obama’s executive power grab of immigration law.  Rep. Smith will introduce the Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation [HALT] Act (like the name?) next week.  The bill would prohibit the administration from granting parole, issuing deferred action, cancelling deportation orders, or promulgating any other form of amnesty.

Most of us unsophisticated Americans can’t fathom the veracity of these arguments propagated by the wizards of smart in the legal agitation business.  The average American cannot comprehend why a president can succeed with his insouciance toward illegal immigration, while states that desire to enforce our core laws are overpowered by the ACLU and the courts.

And it’s not just the Neanderthal conservatives who think this way.  In Maryland, perhaps the most Democrat state in the country, one-third of the petitioners against the Dream Act are Democrats, helping propel the most auspicious petition drive in Maryland history to a stunning victory.

Illegal immigration is one of those bread and butter issues that resonate with the commonsense intuition of non-elitist Americans.  Republican presidential candidates must take heed of the national landscape and political dynamic of the immigration issue – and promise to make enforcement a priority of their administration.  Not only is immigration enforcement good policy, it is good politics.  Fortunately, most Americans still have an affinity for our laws, even if their interpretation is sullied by out-of-touch elites.