On Leadership
Video | PostLeadership | FedCoach | | Books | About |
Exploring Leadership in the News with Steven Pearlstein and Raju Narisetti

Gen. John Batiste (Ret.)
Military/Corporate leader

Gen. John Batiste (Ret.)

A retired U.S. Army Major General, John Batiste is president of Klein Steel Services, Inc, based in Rochester, New York.

'In the absence of orders, attack!'

Q: No matter what you may think about the wisdom or legality of Arizona's immigration law, its proponents have succeeded in putting immigration enforcement back at the top of the national political agenda. Is this an example of "leading up," providing leadership on an issue where you have responsibility without authority?

Protecting our borders is an inherent responsibility of our Federal Government. The failure to secure our borders with immigration reform has serious security and economic implications.

Unfortunately, the failure of our Federal Government to act puts the onus on states like Arizona to take charge of their destiny. We will all be impacted by this failure to act. In the absence of action by our Federal Government, states are left with no option but to seize the initiative to make something, anything, happen.

A great commander once taught me that "in the absence of orders, attack!" and "that it is far better to ask forgiveness than for permission." How can one possibly fault the leadership of the State of Arizona? Why is the Federal Government considering wasting scarce resources in a protracted court battle? Why not solve the real problem?

Where is the leadership to energize the administration and Congress to achieve immigration reform before it is too late?"

By Gen. John Batiste (Ret.)

 |  July 13, 2010; 3:18 PM ET
Category:  Political leadership Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Trying a little tenderness | Next: What constituents want

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



"After immigration papers what is next? Police checking religious affiliation? Political preference? Where does it end?"

There is a HUGE difference between checking someone's legal status and checking their personal preferences. That is an illogical conclusion to jump to and an unfair exaggeration of the situation.

Until you are faced with the complex responsibility of fixing a situation that you may not have authority over, but which the Federal Government refuses to correct, don't be so quick to judge their actions. Right or wrong, I commend the AZ government for taking a chance and stepping up to fight a problem that most politicians hide from.

Posted by: lnhunt | July 19, 2010 2:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The funny thing is the United States flooded Mexico with immigrants until we got Texas.

Either we are right now or we were right then. The point is this we are the United States not Mexico.

Perhaps people should research how Mexio deals with it's immirgration policy with Guatalama

http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/21/lets-adopt-mexicos-fair-and-respectful-immigration-policy/

Posted by: khornbeak | July 13, 2010 10:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Arizona law is a good thing in my book because it forces the feds to confront the issue of their inaction. The laws we have on the books are not working. The feds' solution is to ignore federal law. This is wrong and destructive. Either the laws need to be enforced or they need to be changed. Leadership is required. Perhaps our next president will exercise some leadership on this issue.

Posted by: ZZim | July 13, 2010 8:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why is it that we, the United States, is having this discussion about a foreign country that has absolutely NO respect for the sovereignty of the United States?

Fools. I have an ides... let’s let Arizon adopt mexico’s immigration laws and then see how they howl?

Good for Arizona! At least they have the balls to enforce the law and prohibit illegal activity (& follow through).

Criminy! Y’all don’t have a clue what is going on in our border states.... just what your cocktail press informs you.

Posted by: 4Jaxon | July 13, 2010 8:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Arizona has codified national law into its state code. That is all its done. Sanctuary cities like San Francisco have violated the Constitution by supplanting federal law. They should be sued by a future GOP President's Attorney General.

Posted by: sperrico | July 13, 2010 8:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

What is upsetting about the AZ approach is the prelude to a police state. If AZ is so upset about loose borders and immigration, why didn't its congressmen propose legislation the way most states do? There is a disconnect with AZ behavior. After immigration papers what is next? Police checking religious affiliation? Political preference? Where does it end?

Posted by: citizen4truth1 | July 13, 2010 7:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why you ask? It is because the Dems need the votes. they know the majority of Americans have already turned against them so they are figuring to recruit a whole new base to vote for their third world policy's.

Posted by: PennyWisetheClown | July 13, 2010 7:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"In the absence of orders, attack!" This foolish commentary sounds like it was written by a role-model for gangs.

Posted by: revbookburn | July 13, 2010 7:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This fellow wrote, ". . .puts the onus on states like Arizona to take charge of their destiny."

What an idiot he is!!!

What about the name THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA says that any separate state has a "destiny" disunited from our Union?

What would the general call a unit under his command that believed he was failing his leadership duty and decided it had a right to take its "destiny" into its own hands?

The answer? Mutiny. Dissertion of duty. Treason.

Let's not mistake that Arizona's justification for defying the United States Government is similarly intolerable behavior and must not be allowed to stand.

What next, my strange general? Shall Arizona's governor order guns trained on federal troops because the President of the United States does not give orders that the governor likes? Something similiar took place at Ft. Sumpter many years ago.

Have we not learned a lesson from History about the meaning of America? When will we finally give up the sad notion that for us to "win" that others must "lose?"

It's a lesson that Arizona's law flunkes completely.

Posted by: edarden4u | July 13, 2010 6:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company