The Supreme Court this week seemed to look at the Arizona immigration laws as a question of whether or not the States can enforce Federal laws. How about we flip that around. Can the States REFUSE to enforce Federal Laws?
In California marijuana is legal, but Federal law still prohibits it. State and municiple law enforcement do not enforce federal anti-marijuana laws (and California still has not fallen into the sea). We all know the issue with immigration. What if some state and some municipality allowed people to live and work without the stupid laws we all know and tolerate as if they were necessary.
Suppose we had places like Mexico within the US where people can sell things from their houses, put up signs, sell stuff on the street. Drugs may not be legal but no one is looking to arrest anyone. It isn’t that they look the other way, or they are corrupt, but they don’t want to stop commerce, they trust their people. They are tolerant of their neighbors.
Hey, there are places like this all over America. And the people are off-the-books, living in a cash economy. Police are hardly tolerated because the mind-set of the Police is not that of a supportive neighbor but rather the Police are seen as people who arrest pretty much anyone they talk to. So no one wants to talk to them. There is very little police presence except when that rare disaster happens.
Suppose these areas of the United States began to grow because people who can’t pay their student loans need to eat. In these areas life is normal, happy, neighborly and busy. In fact, the standard of living in these areas is getting better and that of the little towns of white America is stagnant while we try to absorb welfare couch potatoes.
No one sits on the couch in these places. There is no un-employment, no social workers, no one wants to be on the Federal map. They are off the grid, so to speak, because they want the security of America, the uncorrupt government, but they do not want the rules and regulations.
Copyright 2102 Kent Johnson
