Fourth-generation Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was found murdered March 27, slumped over his all-terrain vehicle, a murder victim. Authorities traced the suspected killer’s footsteps to the Mexican border 15 miles from Krentz’s ranch. The killing shocked Arizonans, many of whom were already fed up with problems created by illegal immigration. Less than a month later, state lawmakers passed and Gov. Jan Brewer signed a new immigration enforcement statute. The law takes significant steps toward doing in Arizona what the federal government hasn’t done, which is enforce current federal laws against the flood of illegal immigrants coming into this country from Mexico. Arizona has since become the target of boycotts, and, as we recently learned from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview with Ecuadorean television, will soon become the defendant in a federal lawsuit filed by President Obama. The Obama suit will charge that Arizona’s statute is unconstitutional because it usurps federal immigration enforcement laws.
Meanwhile, critics insist that Arizona’s law is unneeded and reactionary, as seen in a recent New York Times article, “On Border Violence, Truth Pales Compared to Ideas.” The Times reported that FBI crime statistics showed crime declined in Arizona between 2000 and 2008 and inferred from that data that there is no connection between increased illegal immigration and crime. “Krentz’s death nevertheless churned the emotionally charged immigration debate points to a fundamental truth: Perception often trumps reality, sometimes affecting laws and society in the process,” wrote Times reporter Randal C. Archibold.
