Democrats & Liberals Archives

Arizona's State-Sponsored Racism

“Hey, you there, you’re brown, and I’ve seen you go to that mosque down the street, so you must be a terrorist!”

“Hey, you there, you’re Japanese! You’re probably sympathetic to the Empire of Japan! We’re going to round you, and everyone like you up, and put you in internment camps, just for safekeeping.”

“Hey, you look Jewish, so we’re going to kill half your family in the street, and then take the rest of you to a concentration camp to be cremated alive in a giant oven!”

This seems to be the same reasoning used to design Arizona’s new anti-humanist immigration law. Not that there isn’t a problem of illegal immigration, but this “solution” is more akin to blaming the rape victim than actually solving the problem.

The problem of illegal immigration is serious, and it is a problem that cannot be fixed with a Band-Aid. If Arizona truly wanted to do something about illegal immigration they might have devised a law that mandated that an individual, found to be here illegally only after being arrested for an actual crime, be brought to an immigration processing center for deportation. The way the law works now, having brown skin and “dressing a certain way” is enough to provoke an arrest.

“They will look at the kind of dress you wear. There’s different type of attire. … There’s behavior things that professionals are trained in across the board. And this group shouldn’t be exempt from those observations as much as anybody else.”
-Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA

Of course this will not stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country; that is a matter for the Federal government. Better enforcement—perhaps by creating more jobs in the realm of police, border patrol, etc.—along with more thorough investigations of companies suspected of employing illegal immigrants, and harsher penalties for doing so, might help stave off the flow coming into the country.

But racial profiling is not the answer.

Yet again, stereotyping, fear mongering, and ignorance have overshadowed humanist principles. Here are some solutions that, in my opinion, make more sense than pulling over “Mexican-looking” people without any probably cause:

1. Abolish naturalized citizenship. Everyone must take a citizenship test in high school to become a citizen. This stops people from coming here simply to give birth, and it will force people to work to earn their citizenship. People can no longer sit on their high horse and look down on immigrants (legalized ones who complete their citizenship process) for not being “real Americans”.
2. Immediate, conditional amnesty. Set up a schedule for illegal immigrants to report to immigration centers to sign up for citizenship and begin paying their taxes. This might seem counter intuitive to my first point, but it is the only way to deal with those who are here in a humane, sane, ethical manner. If, after a set time, you are found not to have done this, then you get deported.
3. Pass into law serious penalties for any employer found employing illegal immigrants. These fines and penalties must be incredibly severe, monetarily mostly, and perhaps criminal, if required.

We look around and wonder why the situation has gotten so bad, and it is because nobody has done anything. Racial profiling, however, is not a fix. It is not a solution to the problem of illegal immigration; it is just a way to satiate those who are filled with hate and fear, and have those feelings justified. It is a political tool to help gain votes by making it look like “something” is being done. All this new law does is legalize the marginalizing of a group of people. It makes the very same people who think that waving guns around will solve every problem seem like they are the sane ones, when, in fact, this is a completely insane reaction to a very serious problem. A problem that could be fixed, but those who govern us do not have the will to deal with.

Why are those people who despise supposed “government overreach” not screaming at the top of their lungs about a state government sanctioning racism? Why do these same people not call for tougher penalties on businesses employing illegals—the same people who are out of work, and could use these jobs? Why are the people doing all the screaming seem to revert to the comfortable bliss of racism? “Get rid of Muslims, round up the Mexicans!” What’s next, get rid of the Jews because they’re the same bankers and lawyers screwing the country?

At what point do we finally get to leave ignorance and stupidity behind, and begin to tackle this country’s serious problems with logic, reason, and a modicum of intelligence?

Posted by Michael Falino at April 27, 2010 1:24 PM
Comments
Comment #299630
1. Abolish naturalized citizenship. Everyone must take a citizenship test in high school to become a citizen. This stops people from coming here simply to give birth, and it will force people to work to earn their citizenship. People can no longer sit on their high horse and look down on immigrants (legalized ones who complete their citizenship process) for not being “real Americans”.

Don’t you mean abolish birthright citizenship? Naturalized citizenship is the process that immigrants today take to become citizens.

Also abolishing birthright citizenship means amending the Constitution because birthright citizenship is enshrined in the 14th amendment.


Regarding immigration law, I think illegal immigration is only a symptom not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is that our legal immigration system is far too restrictive. We need to expand the avenues by which people can come here legally so they don’t have to resort to illegal migration.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 27, 2010 3:45 PM
Comment #299631

Michael
I broadly agree with your argument against racial profiling. However I have some issues with your two proposals.

Your first proposal discriminates against the young. It applies a different standard of citizenship to them than it did for their parents. Unless you’re going to make everyone take your citizenship test (which in principle I agree with) you should not expect young people to fulfill a standard for voting higher than that for older citizens. I am a recent high school graduate, and thus would keep my citizenship and voting rights. My younger brother, who is still in high school, would have to pass a higher test than me to have the same rights. Please explain how this is fair. Furthermore you run into problems of unequal education systems which give those who attend good schools, or can afford tutors an advantage over those who cannot.

I think it would be good to ensure that all voters have a minimum level of civics knowledge. However I do not think that applying such a standard in an age and education-dependent time is a good idea. Perhaps applying such a test for voting registration would be preferable. That way you would not apply a different standard to those of different ages or education levels. (your proposed test, presumably given in the senior level of high school, would eliminate high school dropouts from the electorate as well)

Your second point does in fact directly contradict your first, since illegal immigrants would be given citizenship without taking the test that native-born Americans do. I support some form of legalization, but not if it means an illegal immigrant gets an easier path to citizenship than my younger brother. Besides applying the civics test to illegal immigrants as well, I would also eliminate those with serious criminal records. But again, I agree there should be a path to legalization.

Posted by: Calvin at April 27, 2010 3:55 PM
Comment #299632

Warped, you are correct. I misspoke. I did indeed mean birthright citizenship. Thanks for the correction!

I do also know the problem my suggestion has with the 14th amendment, but this might be one circumstance where an amendment to an amendment is a good idea.

I was wondering today, after writing my article actually, what happened to our immigration policies and practices of the 1800’s and early 1900’s. Why was everything done orderly and correctly then (at least for the most part), but it cant’ be done now? Is it the volume?

I happen to believe that the number 1 & 2 reasons, respectively, for illegal immigration are rampant employment of illegal immigrants, and the fact that most illegal immigrants come from countries so poor and so destitute that these people have no choice but to come here.

So many people who hate illegal immigrants are incapable of reversing their situation, and wonder what it might be like if you could not afford to even buy bread for your children. What might they do to feed their family?

Posted by: Mike Falino at April 27, 2010 3:56 PM
Comment #299633

As I mentioned, Calvin, my opinions were very broad and simplified. But I do believe them to be a good foundation for moving forward.

As for discriminating against the young, I agree. Unfortunately there is not a clear way to deal with this. If the parents are illegal, do they get kicked out, leaving the kids alone? Do we shove these kids into our hideously broken foster system?

Posted by: Mike Falino at April 27, 2010 3:58 PM
Comment #299637

Michael
I agree with the general ideas you put forward. As I said, I think there should be a path to legalization and citizenship. Of course breaking up families is almost always a bad idea. I would simply apply the same standard and, rather than applying a test only to the young, find a way to apply it to everyone. (old/young, legal/legalized) As I said, requiring a test for voting registration might be the fairest way to go about it. But again there are issues with those from privileged backgrounds having an advantage over those with poor educations, etc.

Posted by: Calvin at April 27, 2010 4:21 PM
Comment #299643

From all that I have heard of this bill it does not allow racial profiling, although I won’t say it won’t happen. IMO Arizona had to do something and maybe this will get the feds to get off their overstuffed behinds and address the matter of illegal immigration. This could be the prime for the pump.

Posted by: MAG at April 27, 2010 4:36 PM
Comment #299649

I’ll make this short and sweet.

I disagree that profiling and racism are one in the same. That’s a broad jump I just can’t make.

Really? You want to compare being pulled over and questioned for drivers license/birth certificate to that of injustices and attrocities of internment and concentration camps? Come on now. That’s as inflamatory and devisive as anything on Rush or Fow News. More often than not, such dramatic rhetoric is used to mask lapses in logical reasoning, rather than truly illustrate injustice.

As for fixing the problem… I am conflicted as to what to do. My perfect solution would be to open the borders and quit worrying about it. But that perfect solution is only applicable if we could do away with healthcare, unemployment, welfare, and all other government assistance programs. Truly allow immigrants and natural born citizens to both sink or swim on their own. Then whether they succeed or fail, that would be entirely up to them…

Since those programs are truly here to stay, I would work for the best means of enforcing the laws already in place, and anytime someone is apprehended and citizenship is in question, they be taken to immigration and naturalization office for review.

Lastly, just for your further consideration… When your birthright citizen were to fail the exam, where would you deport them to? They have no other country to return them to…

Posted by: pessimest at April 27, 2010 5:08 PM
Comment #299654

Good point about the failing of a test, pessimest. That is an interesting point. But, you’re point brings up a larger point; what is the point of citizenship? What, really, does it mean to be a citizen?

Is it simply some vague notion of being “proud” to be born, by accident, within some arbitrary boundaries?

One of the big problems of “citizenship” as it applies to America, is when “Americans” cry that the constitution only applies to American “citizens”. The constitution is a humanist document affirming the rights of all human beings—although we all not no so intended at the time, we know accept its truer purpose.

Posted by: Mike Falino at April 27, 2010 5:47 PM
Comment #299656

Method 3 is the proper means of dealing with the illegal immigration problem, though I would opt for criminal charges over fines. The first time a wealthy couple gets 90 days in jail for employing an illegal as housekeeper, or a construction company owner gets a $10K fine for using undocumented workers, the jobs would dry up and the border would be swamped in the other direction.

Denying birthright citizenship and any sort of voter registration exam are both clearly unconstitutional. I’m ambivalent about amnesty, I think it can only be done in conjunction with a workable plan to prevent the problem frm recurring.

Illeagal immigration, however, is a red herring issue. We are concerning ourselves with a few million jobs being taken by immigrants at $5.00 an hour while tens of millions of jobs are being sent to China, India et al, at $0.50 an hour. Until we start preventing those jobs from being sent overseas, by a combiation of tarrifs and domestic content laws, the economy will only continue to worsen.

Posted by: Brian DuBuis at April 27, 2010 6:28 PM
Comment #299659

Agreed! The major labor issue in the country is the fact that corporations (our glorious marvel of American ingenuity) are allowed to make money off non-American workers simply because it costs less…

Posted by: Mike Falino at April 27, 2010 6:46 PM
Comment #299662

Falino, this article reads like Right Wingnut Paranoia diatribe, only from the Left.

Arizona is dealing with a problem which the federal government has FAILED to address for centuries. One of the first and foremost charges of the federal government is to protect and defend American borders. What else was Arizona to do on behalf of its law abiding residents who have for decades been negatively impacted by the illegal migration from the South?

Their new law can, and may by some, be used to implement racist motives and acts. But, the acts of a few cannot be construed as an indictment on the law’s justified intent to halt illegal behavior. I hate racism and have fought it all my life. And those who misuse the Az. law for racist motives should be indicted for civil rights violations. The law itself however is not racist, it does not target a race, it targets a class of criminals, REGARDLESS of race.

Change the law that makes defines the crime, or enforce the law that defines the crime. Az. has chosen enforce the law the federal government has failed to. I can find no fault in that. If I had illegal immigrants crossing our acreage home, I would prefer a law enforced to halt that behavior to bringing out my rifle and enforcing the sanctity of our private property rights, and my daughters and wife’s safety, myself.

Illegal immigration is a complex problem, which has been ignored by Congress and the Executive, to the point of people taking the absence of law enforcement into their own hands. I can find no fault in that either.

In very many ways, from the Bernie Madoffs and Wall St. mortgage securities dealers to the criminally insane filling our nation’s streets, our society is in a spiral toward lawlessness brought on by a plethora of unenforced laws and regulations. The people of Az. have taken a stand against this spiral, and I can find no fault with that. And I am very much a liberal when it comes to social issues, almost across the board.

Your article fails to appreciate and consider all the parties affected and their concerns over long ignored illegal immigration problem. In short, it is a one-sided prejudiced view from the Left, and one sided prejudiced views are a blight upon our nation whether they come from the Right or the Left.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 27, 2010 7:08 PM
Comment #299663

You were asking about the difference between then and now…those immigrants of the past came here, in reasonable enough numbers to assimilate into our nation, and our nation needed tham to become citizens. The ones over the last six decades did not even want citizenship, they merely wanted make enough money to feed their families, and then go back home South of the border. After coming here several times, it became easier to just stay…then begin families…etc. Spread over time the numbers might not have meant so much, but being hit with the possible acceptance of ten to twenty million, our system could be rent asunder.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 27, 2010 7:15 PM
Comment #299664

DRR, I finally can say I agree with your comment.

Posted by: MAG at April 27, 2010 7:16 PM
Comment #299666

A decade ago there were lots of Polish illegal aliens and they were treated poorly. It is not race; it is status.

Life just ain’t fun for an illegal alien. One reason is that all of them are law breakers.

In the medium run, the problem of illegal Mexican immigration will moderate, since birth rates there are dropping like a stone. When that big source of illegal immigration is shut off, the problem will be easier to handle.

Posted by: C&J at April 27, 2010 7:25 PM
Comment #299669

Mike, there is a lot more to the this than you might be ready to hear. We already have stiff penalties for illegal entry and illegal re-entry and illegal entry after deportation and so on and on and on. You sound as though you think this is a one time deal for most of these individuals.We catch em and just send them home. Not so Mike.I can tell you this from experience. A huge number of the illegals are costing us 30 to 35 thousand a year per individual incarcerated for 5 to 15 years depending on the number of re-entries. The Federal Government has yet to do anything effectual about this crazy behavior and Mexico has taken no action to slow it down. I’m a liberal and I hate racism and everything that appears to be prejudice but this law does not fit that category. These people are dealing with a major problem in their own back yard and that is at least a start. A large percentage of these illegals are also involved in criminal activity. If you or your Representative have a better plan than get off your butts and make it happen. Your judging this from a whole set of cultural values that don’t apply in their country. This is not profiling it is good policing to investigate a suspects status. I applaud their efforts to empower the state to do what the Feds are ignoring. I bet you don’t live in Arizona do you. I have seen the changes in the last 12 years. Its appalling. how this problem has changed the state along with Texas and New Mexico. Purchase a home and take your family there and you will change at least some of you uninformed rhetoric. This is not Nazi Germany so I kind of resent your comparisons.

Posted by: R Macklin at April 27, 2010 9:47 PM
Comment #299674

In following this debate, it seems to me that those who are pushing the lie that Arizona’s new law will automatically result in civil rights violations fall into specific groups:

1) those who are here illegally,
2) those who have friends or relatives who are here illegally,
3) those who have an agenda of pushing for open borders with no immigration restrictions,
4) those who blindly and uncritically follow any “progressive” idea

I am sure you will let me know if I have left anyone out.

Posted by: Jim Buckley at April 28, 2010 12:13 AM
Comment #299682

Jim Buckley-
Try:

1) Legal Aliens, who are indistinguishable from illegal aliens in appearance, and who may have a poor command of English.

2) Naturalized Citizens, for whom the same might be true

3) Anybody who looks poor and hispanic from a distance, who now potentially faces harrassment just for that.

But of course, none of this counts because right-wingers on a tear about an issue are automatically correct, and never do anything wrong or foolish.

Your people have this fantasy idea that if you just change the laws and the government to your liking, that somehow that will solve all of these problems.

You know what my solution is? Make legal immigration cheaper and easier, and give immigration officials the staffing and manpower to do their jobs within our borders. right now, if I’m not mistake, in costs nearly a thousand dollars to start the process of becoming a citizen. We’re creating the market for illegal immigration. I propose destroying it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2010 8:35 AM
Comment #299683

That may be the single least helpful, and factually inemic entry I’ve seen here since the trolls left us for greener pastures.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 28, 2010 8:39 AM
Comment #299684

Sorry, Stephen, you snuck in there before I pressed ‘send’. I was referring to 299674.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 28, 2010 8:41 AM
Comment #299685

I say fine every entity, be it a corporation, an agra-business or an individual that hires an illegal, and make the fine 10% above the amount they expected to save by hiring the illegal to begin with, plus the costs associated with going to court to collect the fine. As soon as ‘legal’ Americans find out that doing something ‘illegal’ is going to cost them more, border jumping will stop.

Posted by: Marysdude at April 28, 2010 8:48 AM
Comment #299687

People entering the country illegally are breaking the law…it’s as simple as that. Unfortunately, the federal government is doing nothing realistic to stop it, so it falls on the states. All this jabber about “Racism” is nonsense. If a guy robs a bank, are we going to just let him walk away because he happens to be Hispanic? If the police are looking for an Hispanic bank robber, does it not make sense for them to be checking suspicious-looking Hispanics, rather than chasing blonde, Nordic-looking folk? That’s not “racism”, that’s simply common sense. We have 20 million illegals in the US…if 20 million people massed at the border and started marching into the US (try to picture that), would we not call out the National Guard to stop them, or the Army? And we would be justified in doing so. Just because they come in a dozen at a time makes this no less of an invasion. If the invaders happened to be brown, or green, or purple with pink polka-dots, would that make it OK to just let them do it? Sorry, I don’t think so.

Posted by: capnmike at April 28, 2010 9:21 AM
Comment #299688

The left’s understanding of this problem can be summed up in MSNBC’s statement about the law yesterday, “Arizona has passed a law, criminalizing illegal aliens”, duh. Do you think?

The AZ law is almost identical to the Federal Law. Like everything else, the Democrats are willing to risk the security of our nation, for political advantage at the voting booth. The democrats are looking to loose a lot of seats this November; what better way to combat this loss than to gain millions of illegal Mexican votes.

The rest of the states should follow suit and pass similar laws. If someone does not do something to protect our borders, citizens will be forced to take control and we will have a border war on our hands. BHO and Holder’s justice department are trying to find a way to make this law illegal. Who is BHO the president of; the American citizens or illegal Mexicans? If Mexicans can come across the border unchallenged, then terrorists can also cross the border. How would you like to wake up one morning and hear on the news that one of our major cities had been blown off the map by a tactical nuke? It will happen if we don’t do something. It is about more than immigration; it is about the security of our nation.

It is interesting about the slams on the Tea Party and violence in recent months. The left has followed the leadership and talking points of their leadership, including BHO, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid to slam the Tea Party as be racist, red necks, ignorant, violent, nazi’s and it was plastered all over the MSM. Yet here we are watching the protesters of the AZ law, who are actually violent. Where is the MSM now?

We might also add problem of unemployment. How many times has the left said, these people are only doing the jobs Americans don’t want to do. If for no other reason, BHO should be protecting jobs in America. What right do illegals have to come into this country and take jobs away from Americans? These are jobs Americans would work.

http://www.azfamily.com/news/Hundreds-seek-to-fill-vacant-positions-at-Pros-Ranch-Market-91880224.html

This represents just one company. How many other jobs could be gained if 12 to 15 millions illegals were booted out of the country? Sorry, I have NO compassion on the illegals, when it is almost impossible for European immigrants to get into this country, because of red tape and restrictions. Liberals and socialists do not want educated Europeans, who have a trade, to come into this country because most are coming out of socialist nations and want the freedom of America.. They would rather have illiterate illegals, which can be easily swayed to vote for democrats.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 28, 2010 9:32 AM
Comment #299689

MAG
The bill does require racial profileing. Any citizen or group like the Minutemen,is allowed under the bill to sue and collect damages personally from the government official,including policemen,if they think they are not being hard enough on brown people.Thats the US version of turning in your nieghbor for harboring Jews.

MF
Gee where are all the wingnuts now spouting about how the Constitution is being weakened. I guess they plum forgot about the 4th amendment or maybe that only applies to white people.

For those that do believe in the Constitution:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-zirin/no-one-is-illegal-boycott_b_553262.html

Posted by: bills at April 28, 2010 9:38 AM
Comment #299692

bills, Where pray tell did you hear or read that BS.

Posted by: MAG at April 28, 2010 10:29 AM
Comment #299694

“If Arizona truly wanted to do something about illegal immigration they might have devised a law that mandated that an individual, found to be here illegally only after being arrested for an actual crime, be brought to an immigration processing center for deportation. “…
AN ACTUAL CRIME???? Sneaking into the country is an ACTUAL CRIME, isn’t it???

Posted by: capnmike at April 28, 2010 10:57 AM
Comment #299696

capnmike-
If a guy robs a bank, then he’s given the cops probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. If the evidence points to him, the cops can go to a judge, get a warrant for his arrest. If he is caught, and it turns out he’s illegal, he’s practically guaranteed to be deported, once his sentence is finished.

As for common sense? S***, even if we believe that Bear Stearns number for illegal immigrants, there are, as of 2005, 42 million Hispanic Citizens in the United States.

So, you’re saying we should automatically suspect anybody who looks Hispanic of being an illegal immigrant? You have a better than even chance of being wrong, even if you stretch the estimate as far as it will go.

As for this invasion talk? Yeah, you’re not using inflammatory rhetoric, no, not at all. It’s, for the most part, a peaceful migration. We would know it if 11 million people, much less 20 million were being truly violent, the dangerous threat you imply.

What does it tell you that illegal immigration went down when the recession hit? These aren’t people looking to make war. They’re looking to make a buck in the richest country in the world.

I say, let them, but instead of keeping the cost of becoming a citizen sky high, let’s lower the cost, raise the enforcement, make it easier for folks to immigrate properly.

The problem with the Republican’s approach on this matter is they think forcing 12 million people out will be an easy matter, if we simply go police-state on anybody who looks hispanic, demanding their papers.

No, it won’t. Police states require massive expenditures of tax dollars and police resources. You can’t be that thorough, chasing these estimates, without a substantial increase of funding and bureaucracy. Just how this is consistent with small government? The answer is, it’s not.

Berreta9-
Oh, you mean the millions of illegal aliens who will have to provide ID to prove that they are citizens in order to register?,/a> Oh, I know those illegal aliens are just itching to show up at the polls.

The AZ law is almost identical to the Federal Law.

Evidence?

Like everything else, the Democrats are willing to risk the security of our nation, for political advantage at the voting booth.

Yeah, it’s what we’re doing when we’re not twirling our mustaches and tying women to the train tracks.

The democrats are looking to loose a lot of seats this November; what better way to combat this loss than to gain millions of illegal Mexican votes.

I don’t know, beat the Republicans up over Financial Reform, getting it eventually passed.

I would think this would be the stupidest way to get votes. Hell, being caught doing this would be a political debacle in and of itself.

But you know what? We don’t need the illegal hispanic votes, because what Republicans are doing is giving us a large proportion of the tens of millions of Hispanic votes on a civil platter. I know you might be comfortable with cops being asked to question the citizenship of those who look Hispanic, but I don’t imagine the millions of Hispanics who are legal immigrants and natural born citizens will be very comfortable with having to produce papers to avoid arrest.

As for finding a way to make the law illegal? Read Article One, Section Eight, which says that Congress shall have the power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

In other words, Congress has authority over immigration. It is not a state power. The state has overstepped its bounds. States do not determine the laws that determine citizenship, nor how those laws are enforced.

As for how a terrorist might come through? You are aware that it could be something as bloody simple as coming in on a student visa, or recruiting a naturalized or natural-born American citizen, right?

Liberals and socialists do not want educated Europeans, who have a trade, to come into this country because most are coming out of socialist nations and want the freedom of America.

Given that even the folks on the right in Europe typically support socialist policies, if in a more limited form, this explanation is simply one more example of Partisan melodramatics. I mean, come on, isn’t my party the one that wants to make everybody booksmart nerds? Why not lower the costs of immigration, open the quotas and let all those socialist Europeans in?

I mean, that used to be the paranoia the Republicans employed. I guess we’ve moved on to a different ethnic punching bag now.

The problem of arguing out of sheer contrarian opposition is that you end up spending more time getting creative about your accusations, and not enough time keeping them straight!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2010 11:11 AM
Comment #299698

capnmike-
It’s a civil offense, not a criminal one.

The reason should be obvious: a criminal offense, to have teeth, would require you to either fine the person, or put them in jail. Well, your illegal aliens won’t have a lot of money to begin with, typically, and throwing an illegal alien in jail for crossing over has to be one of the most inane responses possible, since it essentially keeps that person here in the United State, and fed on our tab.

Folks pushing this crap are not thinking things through. They’re reacting in an emotional and partisan way, and are messing up any serious response to the problem in the process.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2010 11:15 AM
Comment #299702

“AN ACTUAL CRIME???? Sneaking into the country is an ACTUAL CRIME, isn’t it???”

You are right capnmike!!!

The progressive movement has no respect for the Constitution or th Rule of Law. Liberals have never met a law they didn’t want to violate.

This post is no more than trash. There is nothing in the AZ law that is notr already in ederal imigration laws. They cry “Racism” and “Foul”, but this has NOTHING to do with priciples and has everything to do with POLITICS.

Political correctness is the downfall of our civilization.

Greece has fallen with 13% of their economy being debt; Spain is next; and 11% of our economy is debt. How long before we also reach junk status? Illegals are costing us billions in lost wages, healthcare, lost jobs, SS benefits, and something has to be done.

I am totally convinced some on the left are just ignorant, and believe anything progressives tell them, and the rest are bent on destroying our country. HOW LONG CAN WE SUSTAIN THE COST? TARP didn’t work, STIMULOUS didn’t work, OBAMACARE won’t work, CAP N TRADE is a disaster waiting to happen, this crap about Wall Street in simply that. Wall Street is made to be the enemy and yet Wall Street IS part of the left; they support the left. This is all fraud.

One million in donations to Obama from Goldman Sachs and yet GS is the enemy. Obama is using a committee to impose more taxes on everyone and at the same time promise he would not raise taxes. It’s a game. This man has blatantly lied about every promise he ever made.

How long will “STUPID” be the word of the day for the left? Wake up America!!!!

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 28, 2010 11:30 AM
Comment #299706

While I think this is nothing more than grand standing by local politicians, it does serve to get the attention of the Federal government, which HAS been ignoring the problem.

I think it is overstating the case to make it about discrimination, although the state courts are more likely to be blind to poor/discriminatory work by police.

This is also an attempt to move the issue of illegal immigrants from federal jurisdiction to state and local jurisdiction. It will fail miserably in court.

Posted by: gergle at April 28, 2010 12:29 PM
Comment #299707

Az. passed a some kind of immigration law a few years back that went to court. The funny thing is the 9th circuit court, the most liberal court in the nation upheld the law and will probably do so again. So all you crying liberals are going to make yourselves look foolish on this one to. This whole thing Az. did was by federal laws that alreasdy existed. While crime is running rampent in that state you expect them to wait on the Federal government. That could take decades.

Posted by: MAG at April 28, 2010 12:38 PM
Comment #299710

RE: Fining businesses that hire illegal immigrants-

If it can be proven that someone knowingly hires illegal immigrants, great, fine them heavily.

It also seems that some want to put the burden on businesses. This is a Fedearl issue. Why should a business have to bear the burden of determining who is legal and who is not? There has been a lot of resistance to having a national ID card or the like. Since false documentation is easy to obtain, what measures should a business have to take, prior to being heavily fined? This approach seems like an abdication of responsibility, to expect a private entity to do any more than a cursory check of documentation.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at April 28, 2010 12:58 PM
Comment #299712

MAG,

This is an issue of jurisdiction. They can complain that the Feds aren’t doing their job, but immigration is not a state issue, it’s a Federal issue. Their courts cannot presume federal jurisdiction.

Posted by: gergle at April 28, 2010 1:11 PM
Comment #299714

gergle, Immigration may be a federal issue but crime in any state is a state issue. Isn’t being in this country illegally a crime? If the Feds don’t do their job then who will? IMO this is a wake up call and a prime for the pump.

Posted by: MAG at April 28, 2010 1:40 PM
Comment #299715

Beretta9-
You know, when you were using lowercase letters, I was completely unconvinced of your arguments. But now that you’re using uppercase, I don’t know how my arguments can stand against yours.

;-)

The progressive movement has no respect for the Constitution or th Rule of Law. Liberals have never met a law they didn’t want to violate.

That’s true. We just rove the streets in gangs looking for old ladies to beat up.

;-)

This post is no more than trash. There is nothing in the AZ law that is notr already in ederal imigration laws. They cry “Racism” and “Foul”, but this has NOTHING to do with priciples and has everything to do with POLITICS.

That must all be true since you used capitals to make that point, eh?

I really doubt federal law allows jurisdictions to be sued by individuals over perceived shortfalls in immigration law enforcement. I also doubt that any federal law would long survive that allowed people to be arrested simply for not showing their documentation as a citizen to the local police officer.

It’s not merely about racism, it’s about our right to live lives not interfered with by the authorities as long as we abide by the law. If you want your fear to push you into sacrificing that check against government, then you must not want as small of a government as you claim.

Political correctness is the downfall of our civilization.

Oh no, we’re faaaaaaaaaalllllllinggg!!!! Damn you, political correctness! I knew we should have tolerated racism, sexism, religious prejudice, homophobia, and elitism by the rich!

Greece has fallen with 13% of their economy being debt; Spain is next; and 11% of our economy is debt. How long before we also reach junk status? Illegals are costing us billions in lost wages, healthcare, lost jobs, SS benefits, and something has to be done.

1) Illegal immigration is not to blame for our debt. Government policies are, by the same people you want America to forgive and put back in charge. They didn’t raise taxes when they raised spending and didn’t offset it elsewhere in the budget.

As for lost wages? Maybe. Lost jobs? Well, these people still pay to live here, so the money doesn’t necessarily disappear from our economy. Social Security benefits?

Actually, that’s a bit of irony. In order to get jobs, illegal immigrants often get fake social security cards, which mean Social Security gets sent funds and taxes from these people which these people will never be entitled to collect.

Which means, more money in the trust fund for the rest of us to get benefits.

There are reasons not to tolerate a high level of illegal immigration. Those aren’t the ones I’d use to argue that, though.

I am totally convinced some on the left are just ignorant, and believe anything progressives tell them, and the rest are bent on destroying our country. HOW LONG CAN WE SUSTAIN THE COST? TARP didn’t work, STIMULOUS didn’t work, OBAMACARE won’t work, CAP N TRADE is a disaster waiting to happen, this crap about Wall Street in simply that. Wall Street is made to be the enemy and yet Wall Street IS part of the left; they support the left. This is all fraud.

Oh, those lovely CAPITALS! LET ME USE THEM, TOO!

TARP, as it turns out, has worked, and not worked. It worked to keep banks from collapsing. It failed, though, to get them lending again, but that was mostly due to the fact that certain folks vetoed any notion of putting harder requirements on the banks to lend to creditworthy customer. One thing is for certain, though: TARP has mostly been paid back. In that sense, it’s worked marvellously.

The Stimulus? According to both CBO and outside economic assessments, the Stimulus has been a success, offsetting job losses by millions, decline in growth by two or three points, and preventing an additional two percent rise in the unemployment rate.

But of course, if that is true, Republicans jumped on the wrong bandwagon, and in fact acted against the best interests of the country by being obstructionist on a party line about it.

Therefore, conservatives will reject it, in favor of sustaining their private fantasy world.

As for Healthcare Reform? I guess time will prove which of us is right, but I don’t think you should plan for a visit to the death panel any time soon.

Cap and Trade? We’ll see. But it didn’t destroy anybody’s economy when practiced elsewhere. It ist just me, or is so much of Republican policy sold on the basis of the other side’s policies being apocalyptically wrong?

What happens when nothing so terrible happens? What happens when Republicans become the party that cried wolf?

As for the donations from Goldman Sachs?

Here’s the phrase to learn: Quid Pro Quo.

If Obama goes easy on Goldman Sachs (which he hasn’t) then you can complain. Until then, Obama for them is like Timberwolf. (do some research)

This man has blatantly lied about every promise he ever made.

Oh, don’t be shy. Go for hyperbole!

How long will “STUPID” be the word of the day for the left? Wake up America!!!!

For as long as people on the right lack the humility to deal with liberals and moderates as equals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2010 1:42 PM
Comment #299717

“This is an issue of jurisdiction. They can complain that the Feds aren’t doing their job, but immigration is not a state issue, it’s a Federal issue.”

This is a voting issue. I listened to Rush Limbaugh today, while mowing my lawn. He brought out some very important points. This issue in AZ is a critical issue for the left. This is the reason Obama himself and his AG has come out declaring it unconstitutional. What business is it of Obama’s; what laws a state passes? If AZ is able to pass this law and it is upheld; giving the AZ’s law enforcement the right to enforce immigration laws, then other states will follow suit. In fact Texas is already talking about adopting the same law. There are some law enforcement officers in Ohio also calling for the same authority. When you add to this the fact that Democrats have fought, over the years, against all attempts to require voters to show identification, it becomes clear that democrats are only concerned about the illegal vote. There are some liberals on this site who will say, illegals cannot vote now, but it has been the goal of liberal groups like ACORN and unions to consistently get these illegals to the voting booths. No mater how you look at it, progressives can get no more than 30% of Americans to support their policies. Most Americans are against them. They can’t pass their agenda by a straight vote of the populace, so they must count on the illegal vote.

San Francisco has chosen to boycott AZ, and a suggestion was made that the Gov. of AZ should offer a one way ticket to all illegals to SF, no questions asked, because SF offers all the amenities that illegals want. I think this is a great idea.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 28, 2010 2:20 PM
Comment #299718

B9 Now you know why Ca. is going broke.

Posted by: MAG at April 28, 2010 2:51 PM
Comment #299722

Beretta9-
Immigration and citizenship are federal matters. You can spin gruesome conspiracy theories, full of dark implications about your political enemies, but that doesn’t rewrite the constitution, which clearly gives the regulation of naturalization to Congress as a power.

Answer this question, if you dare: does the constitution only apply when it favors your politics?

Does government intrusion into people’s lives only matter when it’s liberals doing it?

And are such tough laws actually of economic benefit?

And will it prevent folks who simply overstay visas or come in on forged papers from getting into the country?

You guys get charging in one direction, and you don’t stop to think about the actual implications of the laws you’re writing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2010 3:45 PM
Comment #299723

Immigration and citizenship are Federal matters. Then why Stephen aren’t the Feds doing something about illegal immigration? You can ask the same question about the constitution about favoring your politics Stephen. States have to take action when the Feds don’t. States have to protect their legal citizens when the Feds don’t. I want to see how much you cry when the crime rate goes up in your area because of illegals. I don’t care what your ethnic background is, if you want to live and work here be here legally

Posted by: MAG at April 28, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #299725

SD:

“You guys get charging in one direction, and you don’t stop to think about the actual implications of the laws you’re writing.”

Neither my state nor I are writing these laws. People a whole lot smarter than me are writing these laws. And more power to them.

Listen Stephen, us your head for more than just a hat rack for once. AZ citizens are being murdered and the Feds are doing nothing. Argue all you want about state verses Fed. These people need something done. I heard a man from AZ yesterday say that if you live within 60 miles of the border, you can’t leave your house unattended because when you get home, illegals or drug runners will occupy it. This is a problem. How would you like to return to your home and fear entering because an illegal might be in the house? Add to this, many of the illegals are armed.

This is not a new problem. It has been going on for years and not one Fed politician is willing to do anything about it. Money was allocated for a fence, but where is it? Promises made for more border agents, but where are they? The Obama administration has failed miserably to protect these Americans. He took an oath to defend and protect Americans, not illegals. But it appears his concern is for the illegals and not Americans. Now, the question is why? Why are illegals more important than Americans? You tell me?

This issue is not going away. The majority of AZ people support this law. The Governor’s polls have jumped from 40’s to high 50’s just because she signed the law.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 28, 2010 4:22 PM
Comment #299726

Add to this the fact that AZ begged for the Feds to send 3000 NG troops to help them. But no, Obama, cares nothing for the American citizens. He is a waste and as far as I am concerned a traitor to his oath of office. He has run his mouth and tried to stir up racism in this country. The great uniter is the great divider and I don’t think Americans like the “Change” he has promised. He’s no different than Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson; just another racist black would would be out of business if it weren’t for the claims of racism.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 28, 2010 4:30 PM
Comment #299728

gergle

“This is an issue of jurisdiction. They can complain that the Feds aren’t doing their job, but immigration is not a state issue, it’s a Federal issue. Their courts cannot presume federal jurisdiction.”

are you saying local and state law enforcment agencies can’t enforce federal laws? illegal imigration is just that, illegal under federal law. states have the right to protect thier own interests. in this case the lack of enforcement of federal law by the federal gov’t has negatively impacted them, and therefore have the right to act.

i agree with michael in one respect employers who hire them should be fined, and subject to criminal prosecution. this will require workplace enforcement, and the forcing of employers to verify soc. sec. numbers of perspective employees. if they can’t get jobs they won’t come in the first place. all this BS about not being able to deport them is a non issue, and a bogus point. if they can’t earn a living the majority will leave on thier own.

there should be no amnesty. that was done once, and helped to get us where we are today. forcing them to leave and apply for entry through legal channels will send a clear messege that law breakers are not welcome.

Posted by: dbs at April 28, 2010 4:55 PM
Comment #299729

To those on the Right,

This new law in AZ puts us on the path to tyranny. Is illegal immigration a problem? Yes it is. Should the Federal government be doing more about it? Yes it should. Should states violate the Consitution and take the matter into their own hands? No they shouldn’t. We are a nation where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Constitution makes it clear that a state cannot regulate immigration. The Consitution also states that we have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches & seizures.

The right to live one’s life free from government interference (aside from paying taxes) is a key component of our founding. For 230 years, the Right has attacked and weakened our Constitution and this is only one more episode. I hope it goes the way of similar legislation from the past like the Alien & Sedition Acts.

As I said before, the best solution in my opinion is to broaden the number of legal immigrants in order to account for the additional demand.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 28, 2010 4:58 PM
Comment #299731

Sam Houston had problems with Texans constantly griping about Mexican problems long after the Treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and he understood that many of the Texans were little more than racist yahoos. One of the gripes he had about his own army was they often didn’t follow orders, and more than once nearly cost him the war. The Alamo, while it became a rallying cry, was such an example of stupidity. He more than once had to send Rangers to settle them down.

Houston was nearly run out of Texas when he suggested that Texas not side with Confederacy.

Obama might have to come sit on a few Arizonans. Maybe they can secede with Rick Perry. I can’t wait to Sheriff Joe facing a Federal Judge. I would laugh my ass off.

Posted by: gergle at April 28, 2010 5:02 PM
Comment #299732

MAG-
The Constitutional delegation of powers allows for a difference of opinion between individual states and the federal government as to how the Federal government exercises the power the constitution gives to it.

Inevitably, they will confront and pick up an American citizen under this law.

That American citizen will have committed no crime. In fact, no crime will have existed at all to be accused of. Yet they will be detained, or threatened with detainment until they prove themselves innocent.

How is this protection of a legal citizen?

Beretta9-
Something does need to be done, but will your law make it easier or harder to fight the drug-runners and the criminals?

Who, might I ask, would they question in that community? Who would be willing to step forward, knowing they could get arrested with the criminal?

As for the rest?

Come on. Accuse Obama of being the Anti-Christ. Pay back Democrats for their dislike and hatred of Bush. Keep those damn liberals from taking over things and wrecking the country, because, really, that’s your party’s job.

Just utterly forget how Bush let the problem grow out of control, just blame it all on Obama, and his disquiet with putting armed men on the border with a country we’re not at war with.

Cite a snap poll. Then wait a few years, see how the policy actually works out, if it does at all.

We’ve stacked more and more manpower on the border and its failed to stem the problem. We need to take a different approach, one that enlists the cooperation of the people, rather than rejects it in favor of heavy-handed police state tactics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2010 5:07 PM
Comment #299733

I just wanted to point something out…

The new law was/is a neccessity which addressed an issue that needed something done. The government had overlooked this issue for too long, so we had to do something. Simply baulking at our solution is no longer a legitimate argument, the least you can do is present a valid alternative…

What’s funny is that this statement could reflect the current Republican argument for the Arizona immigration law, or it could be the Democratic justification for Health Care/Financial reform.

Just entertaining that the roles are reversed, and no one notices the shared amounts of hypocracy when the two parties start complaining about the others “rushed” agenda…

Posted by: pessimest at April 28, 2010 5:19 PM
Comment #299734

Stephen, I wrote in the red column, you get pulled over for speeding, what is the first thing the police officer asks for? Your permit and registration if you don’t have that what happens, you are detained until someone comes to prove who you are. I know this for a fact because I did the dumb thing of driving without a permit and was arrested and the arresting officer was black. I don’t give a rats behind what your ethnic background is, if you are here in the U.S. illegally you have committed a crime and if you get cought you get arrested. Stephen what people are you wanting to enlist cooperation from, I hope not the illegals. And what heavy handed police tactics.

Posted by: MAG at April 28, 2010 5:35 PM
Comment #299736

Pessimest-
That it is a need, even if its a neglected need, does not change the constitutionality of an action.

Yes, we need to do something. But it needs to be done at the constitutionally delegated level. Healthcare can be delegated to the national level because healthcare is easily defineable as interstate commerce. There is no delegation of immigration authority to the states, that is a national thing.

MAG-
If a cop sees from his radar display that you’re over the speed limit, then he has probable cause to believe you have committed an offense, speeding.

What is the offense, pray tell, that a person would have to commit in order to draw attention from this law? The answer is none at all.

That’s the problem. Guilt before innocence. That, my friend, is un-American. The Government, being imperfect, must prove that a crime has been committed, and then prove that there’s a good chance that the person committed it, and then prove that fact to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, citizens will be vulnerable to the laws unjustly.

This is a reckless solution to the problem that will likely do more harm than good, and will likely worsen the problem rather than make it better. Republicans need to learn there is a such thing as a counterproductive approach to policy, that it’s not merely their rivals that can get in the way of their laws working.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2010 6:08 PM
Comment #299739

Stephen, from what I’ve heard the law requires law enforcement to have probable cause. Racism and profiling will not be tolerated. I know it will happen but hopefully it will be only in a few instances. Did you read DRR comment I think it was right on. You on the left are parinoid of this law. You know even in the city I live in if you act suspect they stop you no matter if you are white, black, brown, hispanic, jew or other ethnic persuasion, and we welcome it here because we know that our law enforcement officers are doing their jobs of protecting the citizens. By the way I live in a suburb of Cleveland, Oh.

Posted by: MAG at April 28, 2010 6:33 PM
Comment #299740


I agree with those that say that Arizona had a right, indeed an obligation to their citizens to do something about illegal immigration.

From what I have read about the Arizona law, it doesn’t go after the employers and therefore isn’t serious about illegal immigration. It is a political non-answer to a demand by the citizens.

It is a minor inconvenience to the illegal immigration community and the politicians look like heroes to the majority.

Posted by: jlw at April 28, 2010 6:41 PM
Comment #299741


I agree with those that say that Arizona had a right, indeed an obligation to their citizens to do something about illegal immigration.

From what I have read about the Arizona law, it doesn’t go after the employers and therefore isn’t serious about illegal immigration. It is a political non-answer to a demand by the citizens.

It is a minor inconvenience to the illegal immigration community and the politicians look like heroes to the majority.

Posted by: jlw at April 28, 2010 6:43 PM
Comment #299743

Stephen D., your arguments lack an awareness of specific legal language surrounding this Az. law and its constitutionality.

First, the law does not specifically authorize targeting a specific race. It does authorize targeting a specific class of persons who have violated a specific statute of law. Ergo, it is neither unconstitutional nor a violation of civil rights. Police have authority to request identification under a host of circumstances in which probable cause may not predicate the request. Hell, anyone wishing to get into close proximity of the President or a State’s governor, must produce valid ID before entering a public place where the president or governor may be.

Your comments clearly don’t understand the law on this issue of Identification request by police authority. Road blocks in the interior of Texas are set up by the Border Patrol to screen all traffic coming through. I know, I have been stopped and screened many miles north of Big Bend National Park en route home from camping by the Border Patrol. This is routine. Nothing unconstitutional about it at the Federal or State level.

Second, checking ID does not presume guilt, and does not constitute deprivation of any civil rights without due process. If a person lacks ID, they will be detained by Az. authorities for further Identification verification. As you should be aware, police have for decades been authorized to detain suspects for 48 hours for investigative purposes, and lacking probable cause for further detention at the end of that period, are to be released.

Third, the Az. statute, though vague on justification for being stopped to have ID checked, clearly leaves the door wide open for enforcing the law ONLY under the circumstances in which other probable cause exists, a traffic violation or other suspicious behavior such as loitering. The Gov. of Az. has clearly stated that persons will not be stopped for no other reason than their skin color. If Az.’s authorities comply with this policy, there is no legal standing to challenge the Az. Law. Which I suspect many on the Left fear will be the case: the entirely lawful and constitutional implementation of the new law.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2010 6:53 PM
Comment #299744

jlw said: “From what I have read about the Arizona law, it doesn’t go after the employers and therefore isn’t serious about illegal immigration.”

Going after employers runs into a number of Interstate Commerce and other regulations and prohibitions at the federal level. Az. was smart not to tread on federal law regarding restraint of trade and other provisions.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 28, 2010 6:58 PM
Comment #299747
Road blocks in the interior of Texas are set up by the Border Patrol to screen all traffic coming through. I know, I have been stopped and screened many miles north of Big Bend National Park en route home from camping by the Border Patrol. This is routine. Nothing unconstitutional about it at the Federal or State level.

How in the world could that possibly Constitutional?

I thought there was a right to move about the country freely without being hindered without probable cause or due process?

If what you say is true regarding road blocks, I would find that very disturbing.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 28, 2010 7:40 PM
Comment #299749

Warped Reality and DR:

I can verify it is true. It is of questionable Constitutionality, in my opinion.

Years ago, I was stopped at a road block in Dallas when I drove around the block realizing I had forgotten my wallet. The officer would not allow me to walk 500 feet to my apartment to get my wallet and ticketed me for not having my license. I asked him why he had stopped me. He stated that it was deemed legal to do a “safety check”. I told him I didn’t agree he had probable cause. A few years later this was specifically outlawed in court. Periodically, some police agency or another comes up with reasons to put up road blocks. They eventually lose in courts, but generate lots of revenue in the meantime. However, the border patrol continues to be allowed this as a part of border control.

In the Republican column I posted about the racists behind the Arizona Law and the Arizona sheriff (not Arpaio) who stated something like this on Wolf Blitzer’s show. It’s not on the net yet. This is from another source.

loitering does not mean that you are unlawfully present. Correct. Likewise, loitering within a group of ten, of whom only one speaks English, being approached by English speaking men in pickups, translating to the other nine, accepting cash from the driver, etc., does not mean you are unlawfully present. It’s a good clue, though.

He differentiated between people loitering at Home Depot vs. Macy’s at a sale, and stated that loitering is already against the law, though he didn’t use the word loiter.

There is no difference between the State and Federal laws except jurisdiction, which will be the reason the courts will overturn this.


Posted by: gergle at April 28, 2010 8:13 PM
Comment #299750

As anyone can not by my earlier response, I don’t think the way the law is written is racist. I think the way it will be implemented is likely to be racist. That isn’t written down.

I’m looking at who is pushed the bill, and what law enforcement is saying.

Posted by: gergle at April 28, 2010 8:20 PM
Comment #299751

I am also not very grammatical:


As anyone can know…

I’m looking at who pushed….

Posted by: gergle at April 28, 2010 8:33 PM
Comment #299752

MAG-
What probable cause, is the question. What would be the probable cause for questioning somebody’s citizenship that would be mutually exclusive of any characteristic a legal alien might have? Or, put another way, what is a reasonable test for illegal status that would distinguish them from somebody of legal status?

See if you can’t tell that, then the law is useless for the reasonable confrontation of this problem. It’s just a license for harrassment.

David R. Remer-
If I am unaware of specific language, please enlighten me.

First, the law does not specifically authorize targeting a specific race.

The question is not merely what the bill formally allows, it’s what the bill would informally allow, or seem to allow among law enforcement officials. Practice is what counts here. You might be able to defend “Driving While Black” type stops the same way, but it carries with it the same problem of suspicion cast even before the officer has real probable cause to believe a crime has taken place.

Who do you think is going to be asked to produce proof of citizenship, David, a six foot blonde guy with a swedish accent? It’s just like with the sodomy laws. Officially you could say that it would apply to everybody. But in the case of those laws, in practice it invariably got used to target gay people, rather than the heterosexual couples it could technically ensnare, which is why the Supreme Court struck it down.

In this case, invariably, hispanics will be targeted, and given the fact that there are all kinds of people of all kinds of different status who don’t exactly wear signs around their neck announcing their status, it’s inevitably going to lead to a lot of harrassment of people who have broken no law.

That’s the concern. It gets ahead of where government should be. Even a forty-eight hour detainment can be a dignity-robbing experience, and it shouldn’t be visited upon someone without good cause. If the only cause is, “suspicion of being an illegal alien”, then this mess is going to degenerate real quickly.

It’s not just what people say, it’s what gets done, and what results. The law is not merely the letter, but the effect, and the practice of it as well.

What the left fears is the extension of police state tactics. What I fear as well is that this is not going to do as good a job as you might think, and when it doesn’t, people are going to decide to make things even more draconian, having fail to consider that toughness and workability are not one and the same.

I’m for conditional amnesty. I look at the challenge of approximately twelve million illegal aliens, and I don’t think we evict them without causing serious harm to our society and our economy. My opinion is, we waited too ****ing long to start to clean house, and now a lot of the immigrants are long-timers, people who have raised families, and put down roots.

Now what happens when people are asked to confront tough problems, and not really given the resources or a workable plan, is that a certain kind of culture of looking the other way develops, sort of like what you see in Casablanca. People make great grand claims as to the tough new laws will do, and that impresses voters, but the results don’t live up to expectations.

We’ve been tightening border security for the better part of three decades now, and what has come of it? More people crossed over. How can this be? Well, any wall between us and Mexico, for economic and trade reasons is going to be a bloody sieve. People are going to get through, and the dollars from work that we’ve got here will feed their ingenuity.

Part of what makes this so easy for people to decide to do is the simple dynamice between how much it costs to become a legal immigrant, and how much it costs to become an illegal one. So long as the coyote makes it cheaper than the US Government, guess who’s going to get outcompeted?

In my experience, government bureaucracies tend to have to strike balances between carrying out the law and governing things in the real world. The SEC can’t prosecute every complaint, nor can AG offices or District Attorneys prosecute every case. Immigration courts already groan under a significant load, and Small Town Sheriffs face being sued by those who think their Law Enforcement officials aren’t finding enough illegals, and by those who feel they are wronged by whatever detainment occurs. It all might be well intentioned, but in the buzz and confusion of the real world, the battleplans unlikely to survive contact with the real world.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 28, 2010 9:07 PM
Comment #299753

What is the difference between stopping at a roadblock for safety check or stopping traffic for DUI check? The police and State Troopers frequently set up roadblocks for DUI checks in my area.

Secondly, is law enforcement allowed to enforce any other Fed laws? If a criminal kidnaps a person and transports them across state lines, can state law enforcement stop them?

This law will stand, they have the right to protect AZ citizens, Obama and the Feds have failed, and all the crying by the left is for no other purpose than political talking points.

The way the left has acted about this is disgusting.

SD:

“That’s the problem. Guilt before innocence. That, my friend, is un-American.”

Stephen, I find this statement amusing. Is this the way you felt about the Tea Partiers? Or did you have them tried, tarred, feathered, and hung? I’m glad to see you now believe a man is innocent until proven guilty. I don’t guess you’ll be calling the TP racist, nazi, terrorists any more.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 28, 2010 9:17 PM
Comment #299755

Stephen, Does traffic stop ring a bell, or how about loitering, or how about suspicious behavior, or how about a person running when he sees a law enforcement officer. Aren’t these examples probable cause? B9 they do the same here in my area with the DUI checks.
Stephen you give 12 million illegals amnesty, what kind of repercusions would you get from those that come into this country LEGALLY every day who work hard to become citizens do the right things, don’t you think that would be a slap in the face to them. I do.

Posted by: MAG at April 28, 2010 9:54 PM
Comment #299759


Actually, another 20 million illegal immigrants would be good for our economy. Everyone of them college educated professionials willing to work for less. This could help make America a more affordable place to live.

Posted by: jlw at April 28, 2010 10:18 PM
Comment #299760

SD

“What the left fears is the extension of police state tactics.”

Now you know the fear conservatives have felt for the past 1 1/2 years.


“We’ve been tightening border security for the better part of three decades now, and what has come of it?”

You must be joking about this statement…

Napolitano pulls $50 million for border defence…
Napolitano tries to justify 30% drop in budget for border security.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34528.html

“National Guard troops assigned to help increase security along the U.S.-Mexico border are being pulled off the line a year earlier than promised, and some state and federal officials are not happy about it.

“The drawdown of Operation Jump Start’s strength level is ill-timed and should be halted and re-examined,” Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano wrote in a letter last week to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

“Arizona remains a problematic border in the Southwest region, and the long-planned drawdown in personnel and patrol is premature,” she said.”

This was dated 8/9/2007

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/09/guard-troops-pulled-from-border/

When Bush had sent troops to AZ and Napolitano was Gov.

She did not want the troops pulled out at that time. In 2009 eight senators sent a letter to now HSC Napolitano, asking for more border guards. But it wasn’t her state anymore.

On 3/11/2010 another request was made for more troops on the border:

http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/2009/03/11/reps-ask-obama-to-send-national-guard-back-to-the-border/14267/

The admins response:

“The Obama administration has shown less inclination to focus resources on border issues, and only recently began preliminary discussions on immigration reform. Obama visited Mexico last year.

Janet Napolitano, secretary of homeland security, told MSNBC that Perry’s request is under review.

“We are going to continue to work in any way we can to assist. But also we’ve been working to strengthen our own defenses along our southwest border to guard against any spillover violence,” Napolitano said.

She added, “And, indeed, we have not seen spillover violence onto the U.S. side the way one would predict given what’s going on just across the bridge in Juarez.”

3000 troops were requested on 4/20/2010:

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_5269e3db-1ff5-5611-a02a-149c0b413996.html

Answer from Obama:

“The decision to deploy the National Guard would have to come from the president or the Department of Defense.

The Obama administration is committed to securing the nation’s borders and has sent “unprecedented manpower, technology and infrastructure resources to the Southwest border over the course of the past 14 months,” said Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler in a statement.

“The administration continues to evaluate additional law enforcement options as needed, including the use of the National Guard, along the Southwest border,” Chandler wrote in an e-mail.”

While Obama is evaluating, Americans are dying. He is more concerned about his muslim brothers, than he is american citizens.


Posted by: Beretta9 at April 28, 2010 10:23 PM
Comment #299761

Lets just dump another 12-15 million illegals on this new obamacare system. That will be good for the economy too. Look at the bright side: another 12-15 million to vote for socialist democraps.

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 28, 2010 10:26 PM
Comment #299762
What is the difference between stopping at a roadblock for safety check or stopping traffic for DUI check? The police and State Troopers frequently set up roadblocks for DUI checks in my area.

DUI checks are of questionable Constitutionality.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 28, 2010 10:38 PM
Comment #299770

I don’t think they do “checkpoints” here. I think they set up areas where they observe the drivers and if they see any violations like a tail light out, or weaving they pull that car out of traffic. They have several cars at this location to make avoiding it impossible, and frequently they are set up to pull breathalyzers, sobriety checks and even blood tests on the spot.

They do that periodically in Houston looking for expired stickers. They do this at freeway intersections using the U turn lanes under the freeway to pull cars off the road. Now they have a data base where they can run a check on whether you have insurance based on your plate.

Like I said, it’s a game of finding legal loopholes. Plano, Texas once pulled me over for a “wide turn” then charged me with no insurance. When I took the insurance card to the court clerk, I was charged a $40 “dismissal fee”. I commented why didn’t he just put on a mask and take my wallet?

College Station recently got a referendum to remove their Red Light Cameras, now a lawyer in Houston,that I’ve used in traffic court is circulating a petition in Houston. I’m excited. It seems to me that driving has become a serious encroachment on our freedoms.

Posted by: gergle at April 28, 2010 11:45 PM
Comment #299782

stephen

“Who do you think is going to be asked to produce proof of citizenship, David, a six foot blonde guy with a swedish accent?”

if our country was being overrun by illegal swedish immigrants that would probably be the case. if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck. stopping someone and asking for ID, is not a violation of anyones constitutional rights.

Posted by: dbs at April 29, 2010 5:27 AM
Comment #299783

SD said: “The question is not merely what the bill formally allows, it’s what the bill would informally allow, or seem to allow among law enforcement officials.”

That is an entirely bogus argument, Stephen. Every law on the books carries the potential for abuse by enforcers. It has never held up as a defense for overturning a law. Yes, it is a question of what the bill formally allows. If, in the future, it is proven the law does more harm than good, then, AND ONLY THEN, can a legitimate case be made for overturning it. Enormous harm is done millions of Americans from our drug enforcement laws. They break up families, have cost tax payers over a trillion dollars without stemming the use or traffic, and convert many otherwise non-criminals into criminal types through incarceration with other criminal types. Yet, these historical facts fail to be sufficient legal argument to overturn the laws.

You need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2010 5:52 AM
Comment #299786

Not only does our state have DUI checkpoints at certain times of the year (especially celebrated holidays), but a cop can and do pull you over to ask you if you had your seat belt fastened. If they pass you the other direction, they can turn around and pull you over and ask, “Were you wearing your seatbelt”? It has happened to my family and me.

I also have no problem with this law is AZ. If I were pulled over for the purpose of checking my ID, to see if I am a citizen, it wouldn’t bother me one bit. I am asked for an ID several times a month. If I use a credit or debit card, I am sometimes asked; when I renew my drivers license or buy tags for my car, I am asked for an ID; when I buy a gun, I am certainly asked for an ID; when I cash a check, I am asked for an ID; when I vote, I am asked for an ID; when you go to the hospital ER or sign up for a doctor or dentist, you have to show an ID; when you open a bank account or transfer funds to a new stock account, you have to show an ID; when you apply for a job, you have top show an ID; and of course, when stopped by police, you always show an ID. The point is, we have to show ID’s all he time, and this whole post is bogus and just an attempt to create a racist situation.

I must also say, I am totally surprise at DRR’s response on this subject…

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 29, 2010 9:03 AM
Comment #299788

Baretta9, I go where the facts and reality lead, and ask if the policy is warranted, given the circumstances. This has always been my approach to public policy.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 29, 2010 9:35 AM
Comment #299795
I am asked for an ID several times a month. If I use a credit or debit card, I am sometimes asked; when I renew my drivers license or buy tags for my car, I am asked for an ID; when I buy a gun, I am certainly asked for an ID; when I cash a check, I am asked for an ID; when I vote, I am asked for an ID; when you go to the hospital ER or sign up for a doctor or dentist, you have to show an ID; when you open a bank account or transfer funds to a new stock account, you have to show an ID; when you apply for a job, you have top show an ID; and of course, when stopped by police, you always show an ID. The point is, we have to show ID’s all he time, and this whole post is bogus and just an attempt to create a racist situation.

All those situations have probable cause (except for the voting one, but states that require ID’s to vote are acting unconstitutionally). The Forth Amendment is very clear, we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. It’s too bad that you favor the tyranny of a police state over the freedom of a state that recognizes an individual’s liberty as enshrined in our Constitution. In our discussions about health care you loved to through around your faux support for the Constitution, but on this issue you have shown your true stripes. The AZ law allows for searches & seizures without probable cause which is another step down the road to tyranny.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 29, 2010 1:59 PM
Comment #299803

warped

“The AZ law allows for searches & seizures without probable cause which is another step down the road to tyranny.”

how so? as far as i know you are required by law to carry identification. mosts DMVs offer non DL IDs. how is asking someone for ID illegal search and seizure? if you want to take this road then we could also say a law requiring ANYONE to posses Id, and produce it on demand by a police officer to be unconstitutional.

“It’s too bad that you favor the tyranny of a police state over the freedom of a state that recognizes an individual’s liberty as enshrined in our Constitution. In our discussions about health care you loved to through around your faux support for the Constitution, but on this issue you have shown your true stripes”

do you realize how ironic statement is.

Posted by: dbs at April 29, 2010 4:09 PM
Comment #299804


Does anyone know how much money the U.S. taxpayers are funneling to the Mexican government to fight the drug cartels that are funded and participated in by illegal immigrants?

I am not implying that more than a small minority of illegals are involved with the drug cartels but, there is little reason to doubt that what is happening in Mexico is directly associated with illegal immigration and our open border policy.

The questions that should be thoroughly examined are the benefits and the costs. What are the benefits derived from illegal immigration? What are the costs associated with illegal immigration? Do the benefits derived from illegal immigration out weigh the costs?

I have heard various amounts bandied about for different costs like health care, welfare and law enforcement but, it seems to me that a detailed study of the costs verses the benefits should be funded by the government before immigration reform is considered.

My objection to illegal immigration has nothing to do with racism and everything to do with the fact that the majority of Americans obey the laws of our nation while some employers and our politicians can flout the law with impunity.

I have no doubt whatsoever that we need immigrants but, the law could have been changed to accomodate our needs rather than allowing a horde of illegals to invade our country. Had it been done right, most of the negativity associated with the illegal immigrantion could have been avoided.

Posted by: jlw at April 29, 2010 4:09 PM
Comment #299808

WR:

“It’s too bad that you favor the tyranny of a police state over the freedom of a state that recognizes an individual’s liberty as enshrined in our Constitution.”

This statement is more than “ironic”, it is idiotic. You worry about showing an ID and call it a police state, and yet have no problem with Obama and dems turning America into a socialist state…

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 29, 2010 5:26 PM
Comment #299812

David Remer:

Doesn’t it seem the least bit odd to you that a state law is exactly (or so I’m told) like a federal law? Why would a state need to pass such a law? What is the intent?

I think the very nature of the attempt to move jurisdiction from federal courts, implies some sort of bias, a priori.

Posted by: gergle at April 29, 2010 6:14 PM
Comment #299813

Folks, I think this debate gets nowhere. It gets nowhere because folks aren’t willing to calm down far enough, and dump enough of the adolescent rhetoric in order to consider this from angle that might run counter to their preconceptions.

People get all keyed up over different outrages, like illegals showing up in people’s homes, and they forget that most of the millions of illegal aliens are getting over not through the country routes, but instead the bordertowns and open trade arteries. Is it coincidence that free trade and the rise in illegals has coincided? No.

The walls, the border guards, and all that other junk won’t take care of the folks who make it across, who have paperwork drawn up that smooths their way, or come across on visas and over stays.

In 2006 Nearly 45% of all illegal aliens simply overstayed their visas.

Consider that for a second. All that money spent on technology, all that money spent on putting troops on the border, and somebody can simply overstay a visa, and all is for naught. Even that Arizona law couldn’t stop these people, because the Visas would be considered proof that they were in the country legally long enough to let them over. Or they might come over on a seasonal permit, and just never go back.

We’ve tightened our grip on the border, but the fact of the matter also is, it’s a border well over a thousand miles long, and once somebody leaves it, and the border states behind, the concentration of force and funding on the borders works against us.

But of course, if you’re not willing to consider the weaknesses of these approaches, or the logistical and social challenges of uprooting 12 million people, illegal or not, well then, you’re just going to keep on making the same mistakes, and worse paint yourself into a political corner from which it’s nearly impossible to escape.

And treating this like a war? Have we considered that things have gotten worse in the time we’ve decided to do that?

Quit assuming what works, folks. Try something different than what we’ve tried before.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 29, 2010 6:24 PM
Comment #299824

SD:

So let me get this straight; when you loose the argument, everyone else is adolescent?

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 29, 2010 9:35 PM
Comment #299830

Obama takes immigration off the agenda:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_immigration_politics

Why was he so quick to send swat teams to the oil rigs and yet cannot send help to Arizona?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/29/Poll-Most-support-Arizona-immigration-law/UPI-55921272544207/


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64910

Posted by: Beretta9 at April 29, 2010 10:44 PM
Comment #299833

Beretta9,

Which is it that you want? You seem rather confused. Nanny state? You never asked George Bush for all that help. You constantly talk about self reliance, and yet you keep complaining you aren’t getting enough federal help from Obama. Oh,wait. I see. You don’t have a logical argument.

Maybe you guys do need a nanny. The rest of us will continue on ignoring your feet stamping and cries. We understand that sometimes that helps the learning process.

I think it’s interesting to watch the behavior differences of Obama’s kids versus George Bush’s and comparing that to the leadership skills of the two individuals. One understands teaching moments, one was a leader of an impetuous, out of control party.

Posted by: gergle at April 29, 2010 11:08 PM
Comment #299834
Why was he so quick to send swat teams to the oil rigs and yet cannot send help to Arizona?

The situation in the Gulf is far more urgent than in Arizona. The illegal immigration problem is a long term problem, the oil rig is a short term emergency.

This statement is more than “ironic”, it is idiotic. You worry about showing an ID and call it a police state, and yet have no problem with Obama and dems turning America into a socialist state…

I’ll tell you what’s idiotic. Believing that a bill that does nothing other than raise a few taxes in some places and increase government spending in a few others is a threat to liberty is idiotic; especially in light of your support of government control/hindrance of domestic movement.

Obama takes immigration off the agenda:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100429/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_immigration_politics

Good.
It was nothing more than a political ploy anyway to pass a thus far unwritten immigration bill when we have a Cap & Trade Bill that senators have been working on for over a year.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 29, 2010 11:09 PM
Comment #299844

stephen

if they can’t make a living here, most won’t stay. allowing them to become legal didn’t work last time around, and it won’t work this time. it will only create incentive for more to come hoping to do the same. we can’t realisticly talk about changing our immigration policy until we can control our borders, and that has to start with workplace enforcement. IMO all the talk about about a road to citizenship by liberals who potificate about this being a humanitarian issue are really in fact just denying thier own political agenda. that is to recruit a new block of voters dependent on gov’t entitlements in order to help cement thier power.

Posted by: dbs at April 30, 2010 5:16 AM
Comment #299856

dbs,

I doubt that gaining a voting base is their agenda, but I agree border control begins at the workplace.

Posted by: gergle at April 30, 2010 10:50 AM
Comment #299864

Everyone is talking about requirements to show ID in other situations, but the requirement in AZ is to prove CITIZENSHIP, not identity. Thus hispanic Americans will need to carry a green card or birth certificate.

Green cards are highly valuable on the black market and a birth certificate includes all the information necessary to steal someone’s identity. Regardless of how the police wield this new enforcement tool, the result of the law will be a drastic increase in muggings of hispanic individuals to steal their papers.

Posted by: Brian DuBuis at April 30, 2010 2:11 PM
Comment #299868

Brian DuBuis

“Everyone is talking about requirements to show ID in other situations, but the requirement in AZ is to prove CITIZENSHIP, not identity.”

wrongo. it is to provide ID that shows you are here legally. any official state or federal ID will suffice. there are many people here legally that are not citizens, and are therefore eligable for a state ID such as a driver license, or state ID card.

“Green cards are highly valuable on the black market and a birth certificate includes all the information necessary to steal someone’s identity. Regardless of how the police wield this new enforcement tool, the result of the law will be a drastic increase in muggings of hispanic individuals to steal their papers.”

anyone in this country legally can obtain a state issued ID. your argument is nothing but a straw man. anyone that can produce a legitimate ID will be on thier way. end of story.

Posted by: dbs at April 30, 2010 4:15 PM
Comment #299879

AZ has a law that was enacted just in the last 2 years that fines employers for employing IA’s and if found guilty of a second offence they loose all their licenses and permits to do business in AZ and can spend some time in state rent controlled facility where they have to do their own wash and eat what is handed to them and if they work can earn up to $0.50 an hour is some limited jobs. This law has been used often in AZ.
If the argument is used that this is a federal issue and Mike you think the fed law is ok then the AZ law which mirrors the fed law is not ok, I don’t get it. And then all those laws that Congress passes that are states issues should be done away with also and I do agree we should do that. This is a states issue and a fed issue like a lot of items are.
For a copy of the AZ law go to:

www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2R/bills/SB1070S.pdf

All the law is going to do is empower police in AZ after they have made lawful contact with someone can then determine whether they are here illegally or legally.
After the president made his claim about the ice cream issue then he owes the people of AZ a summit where we will be served ice cream instead of beer ala Gates.
In AZ when police stop someone they are required to ask for DL, Registration, and Insurance. So there is no need to see what color their skin is or if they speak English or any other of those things people saying are going to happen. There will be no need for it. Racial profiling will be illegal under this bill. So, now what are all of you so afraid of? Remember what one of your progressive, liberal heroes said about fear? Then apply it.

Posted by: tom humes at April 30, 2010 10:44 PM
Comment #299880
anyone that can produce a legitimate ID will be on thier way.

And what happens to citizens who refuse? Maybe I don’t want the government to be able to keep track of my movements?

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 30, 2010 10:46 PM
Comment #299881

WR
Since you are so concerned about that, I suggest you try your approach and report back to us how it went. We would have the benefit of a first hand, first person report.
Now go to the site I mentioned and read the law. Revelation is really possible. I live in AZ. I have been in the storm far too long. Daily IA’s are reported in the news as perpetrators of serious crime. For example: cop killing, rape, murder, burglary, domestic violence and it goes on and on. Every day an illegal alien(s) do these things to hard working American families who have done absolutely nothing to bring this upon themselves. I am tired of hearing those outlandish statements ad infinitem about what this law will do only in the imagination of people who do not know this state or the people in the state or what we face on a daily basis.
BTW—Keep the curtains this law is coming to a state near you. Be ready to have people boycott your state (big deal). There is movement afoot to make AZ a place to do business but you won’t hear that on Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Lame Street Media, or your favorite resource for the “truth” you get.

Posted by: tom humes at April 30, 2010 11:12 PM
Comment #299882

Yea WR. Do that the next time you get stopped and tell us all what happened.

Posted by: MAG at April 30, 2010 11:23 PM
Comment #299883
Yea WR. Do that the next time you get stopped and tell us all what happened.

No need to do that, I can be pretty sure I’d be thrown in jail, which is exactly why I’d oppose any effort to enact a similar law where I live. American citizens should not be thrown in jail for asserting their 4th & 5th amendment rights.

If the police have probable cause or a search warrant, of course I’d let them see my driver’s license or whatever else they want. I just find it deeply disturbing that I could be walking down the street and the police could randomly come over and demand my identification. I have a right to unmolested travel within the United States and this is a clear violation of that.

Tom, thank you for sharing the text of the law. I have no problems with most of it, it’s just the first part (Article 8) that I object to. That provision will either never be enforced or it will be enforced, and then subsequently overturned by the courts because it clearly violates the 4th & 5th amendments.

Illegal immigration is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, most likely by providing a path for these people to somehow become legal immigrants because the logistics of rounding up 10 million people is impossible without resorting to a police state. I support increasing sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants as mentioned by others on WatchBlog. However I think a significant portion of the illegal immigrants will remain as long as the economic opportunities in the US are much better than in Mexico & the rest of Latin America. A permanent solution must allow these people to obtain some sort of legal status or for the opportunities south of the border to improve.

Posted by: Warped Reality at April 30, 2010 11:50 PM
Comment #299886

Beretta9-
Well, if the shoe fits… ;-)

Truthfully, it’s nobody’s opinion in particular. It’s the way the debate gets set up, so that any measure that’s not draconian doesn’t get due consideration. We’re so worried about being tough that we forget being tough isn’t being right.

Truth is, I was wanting to write something fresh, something not necessarily aimed at rebutting somebody, but discussing the ideas in broader context.

I like doing that. See when somebody does some bull**** like this it ticks me off. Yeah, I know where you’re getting the SWAT Team crack.

I’ve read some trash novels in my time, but that scenario just takes the cake. If folks weren’t so busy hating liberals, they might wander how all these evil, dastardly schemes never manage to get exposed by whistleblowers. When I was younger, I liked to watch the X-Files, and was entertained by its endless conspiracies. But the real world isn’t like that. People are crappy at keeping secrets, especially ones that seem to leave such obvious clues all over the place. People just aren’t that smart, or well informed, and I’m including the smart and well-informed folks in that pronouncement.

Everytime I hear one of these Obama Conspiracy theories, I get the distinct impression that the original source is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Massive Conspiracies! 11th Dimensional Chess-playing plotters! Evil plots that require the heroes to save the world (hey, it’s not my fault hollywood plots resemble delusions of grandeur).

Why shouldn’t I? Maybe it’s easy for you to believe that we’re just a bunch of mustache twirlers thinking of ways to destroy America, but that is distinctly contrary to what most of us think of ourselves. By turning Democrats into cheap villains, you rob yourself of much of your credibility with the people you’re cariacturing.

Tom Humes-
The basic argument would be that “mirroring” is pointless if the constitution delegates the power. There are places where the state governments are not supposed to have authority, period, no matter how well they imitate the federal government, to deal with certain matters. After all, States cannot follow the Federal Government’s example and mint money, or negotiate with foreign governments on its own.

Things go the other way, too. You ever wonder why some laws contain the threat of reduction or denial of federal funds to the states, rather than simply telling them what to do? One of the actual proper roles of the Tenth Amendment, which some have taken to mean states can nullify and modify federal law, is to prevent states from being shanghai’ed into enforcing the federal law, do the federal government’s work for them.

The key here with the delegation of powers is to keep the different levels and parts of government out of each other’s way, give the states room to decide some things for themselves.

The trouble I see with too many conservative movements nowadays is that they’re not really conservative. They’re built too much, after years of political button pushing, on wish-fulfillment, by whichever means are convenient. If its a state government that does it, fine, if its federal and its what they want, good.

But you can’t run a government on poor impulse control, and get away with it. The Republicans have still not learned either real conservatism or real moderation, and it takes its toll on the party, as people are forced to rationalize things that aren’t helpful in their logical validity.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 1, 2010 12:39 AM
Comment #299893

warped

“Illegal immigration is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, most likely by providing a path for these people to somehow become legal immigrants because the logistics of rounding up 10 million people is impossible without resorting to a police state.”


amnesty will only bring more trying to slip in under the deadline. it didn’t work in 86, and it won’t work now. you shouldn’t reward people for breaking the law. as to the rounding up, or mass deportations, this is a straw man. if they can’t earn a living they won’t stay. this is why strict enforcement of employers sanctions is so important.

Posted by: dbs at May 1, 2010 9:04 AM
Comment #299897

W.R. The 4th and 5th amendments of the constitution would not apply in a simple traffic stop. No rights are violated by the officer asking for your driver’s permit, registration, and ins. papers. If you were being stopped for no good reason, searched, and harrassed, then I agree there would be a problem. As amended Thurasday 4/29/10 by the Az. legislature, it specificly forbids anything like that happening in the law passed.

Posted by: MAG at May 1, 2010 10:07 AM
Comment #299907
amnesty will only bring more trying to slip in under the deadline. it didn’t work in 86, and it won’t work now. you shouldn’t reward people for breaking the law. as to the rounding up, or mass deportations, this is a straw man. if they can’t earn a living they won’t stay. this is why strict enforcement of employers sanctions is so important.

Maybe so. I wasn’t around in ‘86 so I have to glean my information from written sources rather than personal experience. I think the mistake made in 1986 is that we did not ease our legal immigration laws and kept them as restrictive as before. Most of the people who come here illegally don’t do so out of contempt for our laws. They do it because the legal process doesn’t let them in.

Immigration is a tough problem and there are no obvious solutions. Legalization if done improperly like before, may encourage future illegal immigrants. Mass deportation bears the risk of violating the rights of American citizens. I have no objections to going after the employers of illegal immigrants. I just think we’ll inevitably reach a point where the employers will complain that they are unable to verify the status of any of their applicants, which may lead to implementation of some sort of national ID card, which I oppose.


MAG,

The 4th and 5th amendments of the constitution would not apply in a simple traffic stop.
Yes they do. When the officer pulls you over he/she has to have probable cause, most likely this is because he/she just witnessed a violation of traffic laws.

If you were being stopped for no good reason, searched, and harrassed, then I agree there would be a problem. As amended Thurasday 4/29/10 by the Az. legislature, it specificly forbids anything like that happening in the law passed.
Wrong, from the link Tom posted Article 8 Section B:
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS

22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS

23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,

24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE

25 PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

“Lawful Contact” could mean any contact I make with a police officer that doesn’t violate the law. Here’s an example, I’m walking down the street and their is an officer standing at the corner, he/she says hello and I reply with hello. Now we have lawful contact and the officer may then demand me to produce papers without either a search warrant or probable cause. That is unconstitutional.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 1, 2010 12:24 PM
Comment #299914

W.R. A simple traffic stop means you did do something against the law,ie, speeding, going through a red light and the such. Your example is ridiculous. Did I not say that on 4/29/10 the Az. legislature amended the law to contain provisions that would prevent what you are implying. You, like a lot of others are reading more into this then the law states and making false assumptions.

Posted by: MAG at May 1, 2010 1:00 PM
Comment #299921
A simple traffic stop means you did do something against the law,ie, speeding, going through a red light and the such.

I already said:

When the officer pulls you over he/she has to have probable cause, most likely this is because he/she just witnessed a violation of traffic laws.

Did I not say that on 4/29/10 the Az. legislature amended the law to contain provisions that would prevent what you are implying.
Hold on a second. Are you saying that the link Tom shared is out of date? Because the text from his link clearly states that anyone with lawful contact may be subjected to a demand for identification. Posted by: Warped Reality at May 1, 2010 1:53 PM
Comment #299923

Warped Reality, there was a time when America could AFFORD to take in the world’s masses of poor and persecuted. That is NOT the case today. Low wage workers, and higher income illegal workers who send their earnings out of our country to another’s economy, exacerbate our debt and deficit threat going forward, especially in light of our spiraling costs for entitlements. Their families tap our social and medical services driving up the costs for all at a time when 10’s of millions of Americans are relying on unemployment benefits far in excess of premiums they paid in over extended periods of time exceeding a year.

These are indisputable facts. Inconvenient facts for Democrats who seek to bolster their voter rolls in future elections by championing illegal immigrant causes. But, these facts are stubborn, like global climate change facts and data, tested and proven. To deny reality is the surest path to failed decision making and policy. Democrats should have learned this from Republicans by now. But, they don’t seem to have on this illegal immigration issue.

I understand the rationale of cutting the border protection and defenses budget at a time when deficits and debt are unprecedented. But, cutting those budgets invites the States to take the illegal immigration unsolved issue into their own hands, which is precisely what has happened, and will continue to happen. These realities are not escapable. Democrats had better appreciate and deal with these realities of face even greater public backlash as a result.

There are racists who champion the Az. law, but, it is a HUGE mistake to make the illogical leap to conclude that anyone who understands or accepts the Az. move, is a racist. I am but one example of a non-racist independent who believes Az. was left with no choice by the federal government but to address the issue themselves.

Most Americans believe our laws should apply equally to all regardless of race, religion, or other personal beliefs or intrinsic attributes. Migrating to the U.S. without official permission is against our law. Why should exceptions be made for foreign citizens when our laws, good and bad, are enforced against U.S. citizens?

There is no way Democrats and liberals can win on this issue, without securing our nation against illegal immigration of terrorists, poor people seeking American jobs and to undermine American wages, and others seeking to secure a future of entitlements for their children not available in their home country through their being born in the U.S.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 1, 2010 2:01 PM
Comment #299924

warped


“Maybe so. I wasn’t around in ‘86 so I have to glean my information from written sources rather than personal experience.”

i was, i was in my twenties, and remember it well. the promise was ” this is a one time thing ” and then we will enforce our borders, and laws to prevent the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants again. a clean slate if you will. didn’t work. as usual politicians didn’t keep thier promises, what a shock. so you’ll have to excuse me when i say HELL NO to another round.

“I think the mistake made in 1986 is that we did not ease our legal immigration laws and kept them as restrictive as before.”

the mistake was to do it in the first place without first fixing the borders, and the reasons they come in the first place, jobs.

“Most of the people who come here illegally don’t do so out of contempt for our laws.”

i don’t disagree completely, they come to earn a living, so in that respect i agree. where i don’t agree is that there is no contempt for our laws. if this were the case they would enter legally. we cannot handle all the worlds immigrants who wish to come here for the opportunity this country offers, it’s sad but true, so we must have control over immigration into this country. we cannot afford fiscally, or socially to just open our borders. those who come here must assimilate or we lose our own identity, or our common values that define us as a country, and a people. that being among other things our languge, and social values.

most of the past immigrants have become americans, and were proud to become americans. they learned english, and embraced our culure. my ancestors who immigrated here in the mid 19th, and early 20th centuries learned to, and spoke english as a first language, not german, italian, or dutch. the current flood of illegal immigrants don’t bother to do so. thier allegiance is not to this country, but to mexico, central america, or where ever they’re from. IMO this is not acceptable. my country is not an ATM machine, or a tool to be used for no other reason than thier own personal needs. sorry, but that’s how i feel about it.

Posted by: dbs at May 1, 2010 2:06 PM
Comment #299927

gergle asked: “Doesn’t it seem the least bit odd to you that a state law is exactly (or so I’m told) like a federal law? Why would a state need to pass such a law? What is the intent?”

Jurisdiction, is the answer, gergle. Federal law falls under the jurisdiction of federal authorities to enforce. State law falls to the State authorities to enforce. It is sad that so many Americans are so un- and under-educated about law in a nation presumably governed by them.

Posted by: David R. Remer at May 1, 2010 2:22 PM
Comment #299928

WR
Your definition of legal contact does fit AZ standards. It might fit your standard, but that is not the law.

Posted by: tom humes at May 1, 2010 2:24 PM
Comment #299929

WR
Correction.
Should read does not meet AZ standards.
Fingers and brain were not properly engaged.

Posted by: tom humes at May 1, 2010 2:25 PM
Comment #299936

David & dbs,

if this were the case they would enter legally
But they cannot all come here legally because of limits embodied in our current immigration laws.
Low wage workers, and higher income illegal workers who send their earnings out of our country to another’s economy, exacerbate our debt and deficit threat going forward, especially in light of our spiraling costs for entitlements. Their families tap our social and medical services driving up the costs for all at a time when 10’s of millions of Americans are relying on unemployment benefits far in excess of premiums they paid in over extended periods of time exceeding a year
we cannot handle all the worlds immigrants who wish to come here for the opportunity this country offers, it’s sad but true, so we must have control over immigration into this country. we cannot afford fiscally, or socially to just open our borders

Maybe we could create a legal status that does not lead to citizenship for migrant workers that does not afford them the benefits of the welfare state? I don’t know if that’s a good idea or not, but it seems to be a way to allow people to come into our country legally without worsening our financial situation.

“Maybe so. I wasn’t around in ‘86 so I have to glean my information from written sources rather than personal experience.”

i was, i was in my twenties, and remember it well. the promise was ” this is a one time thing ” and then we will enforce our borders, and laws to prevent the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants again. a clean slate if you will. didn’t work. as usual politicians didn’t keep thier promises, what a shock. so you’ll have to excuse me when i say HELL NO to another round.

“I think the mistake made in 1986 is that we did not ease our legal immigration laws and kept them as restrictive as before.”

the mistake was to do it in the first place without first fixing the borders, and the reasons they come in the first place, jobs.


So it seems that the problem here is a lack of trust between some people and the government’s ability to control immigration. It’s not that legalization is a bad policy in general, it’s just that you don’t think the government will get it right this time around? So maybe the best way to move forward is to regain that trust by making meaningful, observable policy changes that reduce illegal immigration, through increased enforcement at the border or at the workplace. After we see reduced illegal immigration, we can relax the laws controlling illegal immigration to let people return, but with legal status. I think I could sign onto that.
those who come here must assimilate or we lose our own identity, or our common values that define us as a country, and a people. that being among other things our languge, and social values.

most of the past immigrants have become americans, and were proud to become americans. they learned english, and embraced our culure. my ancestors who immigrated here in the mid 19th, and early 20th centuries learned to, and spoke english as a first language, not german, italian, or dutch. the current flood of illegal immigrants don’t bother to do so. thier allegiance is not to this country, but to mexico, central america, or where ever they’re from. IMO this is not acceptable. my country is not an ATM machine, or a tool to be used for no other reason than thier own personal needs. sorry, but that’s how i feel about it.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the current wave of immigration is any different from a cultural/linguistic perspective than past immigrants. Except of course the original immigrants of the 17th century who refused to give up their old national identity as Englishmen/Englishwomen and refused to adopt any of the customs or languages of the native peoples.

Tom,
Legal Contact has not been defined to exclude casual interactions with the police.

Law professor Miller says “lawful contact” could also mean any normal interaction a cop has with ordinary people. If a Hispanic asks a patrolman for directions, she could expose herself to immigration questions. If an officer walks up to someone and starts a conversation without detaining him — something police are allowed to do — he may have established “lawful contact.”

Also take a look at what Tuscon Police Chief Roberto Villasenor has to say:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126286849
He says someone who is a witness or a victim of a crime will fall under the umbrella of “legal contact”

This law is talking about in the course of any legal contact, as well as when we talk to a witness of a crime or when we talk to a victim of a crime. Those are legal contacts of law enforcement. Now we look at it in the context of those legal contacts.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 1, 2010 2:53 PM
Comment #299957

WR
Read the law and understand it. Don’t take what ifs to make the case. The law is simple and straight forward.

Sheriff’s deputy attacked and shot with AK-47. It was probably somebody here illegally just looking for a job. Well that won’t work. They found some maryjane that the perps left behind.
So now we have multiple crimes commited by a group of illegal aliens who had some illegal substance and shot a law enforcement officer.

In AZ we call that just another day at the office.

In AZ we have a legislature that took the bull by horns while politicians, both r’s dna d’s pontificate about the horrors of one of our states passing legislation that will turn AZ into a police state. Some people just don’t know the difference between BS, malarkey and the truth. Not just politicians. So called religious people(yuk) who claim to know all the facts, making fools of themselves, and casting aspersion on the church.

We in AZ know that what the legislature did was the right thing to do. CA can boycott all they want, including the gentleman from LA who is going to discontinue his contract with a company in AZ, even though he will put 25,000 of his people out of work. Maybe his nationality should be checked. MLB wants to see about moving next years All-Star game from AZ to um, lets see, maybe Venezuela.

There was a report of some groups in SF that says they will not discontinue their business with AZ and will try to recruit more. Thank you to those groups.

Other states are now going to try passing similar legislation.

Posted by: tom humes at May 1, 2010 5:15 PM
Comment #299959
Read the law and understand it. Don’t take what ifs to make the case. The law is simple and straight forward.

Part of the problem is that the law is only 20 pages long. There are many loopholes and there are places that are subject to too much interpretation. The law says I do not have 4th or 5th amendment protection whenever I make “lawful contact” with an officer. Now, where in the law does it say that this “lawful contact” doesn’t happen without probable cause? I posted the opinions of a law professor and a police chief and both of them say “lawful contact” could mean the police have the right to my identification without probable cause.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 1, 2010 5:32 PM
Comment #299967

W.R. The law is only 20 pages long, so that’s a problem.LOL
If a law is 2700 pages mean there are no loopholes, again LOL Either of them could be subject to much interpretation. Lawful contact, “It could mean”, It could mean he does have the right but it doesn’t mean he will. I’ve had, buy your definition “Lawful Contact” with a police officer but was not asked for Id. I think your comments are nonsence and just being argumentative for the sake of argueing.

Posted by: MAG at May 1, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #299968
I’ve had, buy your definition “Lawful Contact” with a police officer but was not asked for Id.

That’s because the law currently prohibits the police officer from asking you for your ID. Once the AZ law goes into effect in a few months, that will no longer be true.

I think your comments are nonsence and just being argumentative for the sake of argueing.
My Constitutional Rights are very important to me. I do not tolerate any infringement of them by the government. If I tolerate an inch the government will take a mile, which is why I must be vigilant even when they are only at risk at the margins. This is part of the culture I was raised in Massachusetts. We started the hubbub about individual liberty and we will still fight to preserve it. Posted by: Warped Reality at May 1, 2010 6:47 PM
Comment #299969

WR
You said a police officer cannot ask for ID, but when SB1070 goes into effect he can. You must have graduated magna cum laude from BSU. Police officers all day long in every state ask for ID. And they don’t have anything to do with AZ SB1070. Where are the loopholes? Show me. Have you read the SB1070? It is 16 pages of legal size paper. Do your self a favor and understand the law. It is simple. Straight forward. Constitutional. And you don’t have to press 1 for English. There is no argument against the law that is sane.
Gotta go finish watching all those International Communist Day paraders. You know, May 1.

Posted by: tom humes at May 1, 2010 7:19 PM
Comment #299977
You must have graduated magna cum laude from BSU.

I’m a proud Stony Brook SeaWolf. I’m not from Boise State University or Ball State University ;)

Police officers all day long in every state ask for ID.
But only with probable cause.
Where are the loopholes? Show me. Have you read the SB1070?

Yes, I read it.

The loophole is that an officer is permitted to ask for my ID whenever I engage in “lawful contact” with an officer. “Lawful contact” could mean almost anything.

There is also a loophole regarding racial profiling. The law prohibits accusing someone of being an illegal immigrant “solely based on race”. However, there is nothing stopping someone from targeting someone partially based on his/her race.

Gotta go finish watching all those International Communist Day paraders.
Are there a lot of communists in AZ? (I believe that’s where you claim to live). I spend the school year on a university campus and I spend the rest of the year at my parent’s home in Massachusetts and I never see them too often. People in Massachusetts are usually too exhausted from Patriot’s day to be able to do anything on May 1 ;) Posted by: Warped Reality at May 1, 2010 10:19 PM
Comment #299980

W.R. I don’t think Tom meant either of those universities. I think he meant Bull S—T U.

Posted by: MAG at May 1, 2010 10:34 PM
Comment #299981
I don’t think Tom meant either of those universities. I think he meant Bull S—T U.

I know, that’s why I put ;) at the end. It’s too bad sarcasm is so hard to express online.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 1, 2010 11:01 PM
Comment #299984

Warped, you talk about about your constitutional rights being violated, but what about the rights of the people of Az. to live without the fear that they are living in now because of the influx of illegals that the Federal Gov. is supposed to be enforcing. How would you like to live in a place where you feared for your life and your families on a daily basis. How would you like it if you went out for the night and came back to find your house occupied by people you don’t even know. Things like that are happening in Az. and you cry because someone may ask for your Id. News Flash it happens every day. As I wrote in another column on 4/29/10 the Az. legislature passed an amendment to the Law PROHIBITING and I repeat PROHIBITING racial profiling. If the Federal gov. would have enforced the laws already on the books, the state of Az. would not have been forced to do what they did. So put the blame where it belongs on the FEDS.

Posted by: MAG at May 1, 2010 11:35 PM
Comment #299990
what about the rights of the people of Az. to live without the fear that they are living in now because of the influx of illegals

That is a human right, not a natural right. The electorate may choose whether or not they wish the government to protect that right. I wrote about this a few days ago in another thread.

If you think that is a natural right you live in the same fantasy land some on the far left live.

As long as any “lawful contact” that I may have with law enforcement will entail that I display identification regardless as to whether or not there is probable cause or a warrant, I will continue to oppose this law on Constitutional grounds.

The copy of the law that I have read:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2R/bills/SB1070S.pdf
if there is an amended version online, I’d be interested in seeing it.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 2, 2010 12:21 AM
Comment #300014

WR
You are using “lawful contact” acording to WR. I use that phrase acording to AZ state law.

Posted by: tom humes at May 2, 2010 5:38 PM
Comment #300054
I use that phrase acording to AZ state law.

Point to me where in the AZ law is “lawful contact” defined. As far as I can tell it isn’t. Interpretation of this phrase will be in the hands of law enforcement and the courts. I’ve already provided a link that shows that the Tucson Police will consider witnesses and victims of a crime to have had “lawful contact”. My other link shows that a law professor at the University of Arizona says that “lawful contact” could mean any ordinary interaction between law enforcement and the people.

You cannot continue to declare that I am off my rocker when I refer to this interpretation of “lawful contact” after I’ve shown evidence from two different sources that people will need to show their identification even if there is no probable cause or warrant under the new law.

If there is evidence to the contrary (for example a clause in Arizona law that specifically defines what “lawful contact” is), then by all means show it. You haven’t shown it, which makes me suspect that it doesn’t exist.

This is part of problem with having such a short bill. In contrast, the health care legislation took the time to define all the terms it was using explicitly in order to remove ambiguities.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 3, 2010 12:19 PM
Comment #300060

WR
I am working on 5 hot projects. When I can work it in I will do your research for you.

Posted by: tom humes at May 3, 2010 2:30 PM
Comment #300265
I will do your research for you.

It’s not my job to do the research to support your opinion. My job is to demonstrate my opinion’s veracity by providing evidence that my ideas are correct. I have already accomplished this in Comment #299936 by linking to comments made by a Tucson police officer and a University of Arizona law professor.

I’ve already waited a week, but I’ll be patient and wait another week for your response.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 8, 2010 10:17 AM
Post a comment