A few conservative voices criticize Arizona law
Arizona’s draconian new law regarding illegal immigration has drawn harsh criticism from many on the left, including President Obama. Most egregious is a provision that requires local law enforcement to check documentation of those they suspect might be in this country illegally, and to detain those who cannot produce such documentation.
In other words, if you look, sound or act as though you might be of Hispanic origin, you risk being accosted by law enforcement officers every time you venture into public. It’s a vast expansion of government power, yet most of those on the right who have claimed to be outraged by imaginary assaults on liberty by the Obama administration have been silent about this very real intrusion.
Instead, we get nonsense such as this tweet from Erick Erickson of CNN and Red State.com, who asks: “If Canadians were crossing illegally N2 Arizona, no one would be playing the race card. Can AZ not respond just b/c of the illegals’ race?”
Given the porous U.S.-Canadian border, I’m sure that there are a good number of Canadians in Arizona without proper papers, especially in the wintertime. And I very much doubt that they will be accosted by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Phoenix on the street and tossed into the county jail. So yes, race indeed plays a very large role, and it’s ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
However, there are exceptions to the right’s silence, and they should be noted. Former U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough, conservative host of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, condemns the provision in no uncertain words:
“It does offend me that when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one of three citizens who, if they’re walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they’re walking their child to school, and they’re an American citizen or a legal, legal immigrant, can now put a target on their back and make them think every time they walk out of their door, they may have to prove something. I will tell you that is unAmerican. It is unacceptable, and it’s unAmerican.”
Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants and a conservative Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Florida, has expressed similar concerns:
“States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.”
We need a rational approach to immigration policy in this country, although many of us would disagree on what might constitute such a policy. However, a law that presumes that a third of the residents of Arizona are here illegally unless and until they can prove otherwise — surely we can agree that is excessive and, as Scarborough calls it, unAmerican.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
394 comments Add your comment
Southern Comfort
April 27th, 2010
5:52 pm
Hehehehe…
Here we have a call for the federal government to stand up and do something, yet some of the same people have been arguing that the federal government has already been overstepping their authority and needs to be scaled back. How can you increase presence and enforcement of immigration laws and cut the government at the same time?
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
5:52 pm
josef nix,
“Or somebody you don’t like the shoes they’re wearing who just happened to cross your path on a bad hair day…”
If I had that power…watch out!
DoggoneGA
April 27th, 2010
5:52 pm
“I’d rather they do neither…keep it to themselves”
Nope, can’t agree with that. If they lived the lives of Christians, rather than the lives of preachers, we’d be better off. Yes, it’s the followers…not the “livers” who are the problem.
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
5:52 pm
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).
27 C. IF AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IS
28 CONVICTED OF A VIOLATION OF STATE OR LOCAL LAW, ON DISCHARGE FROM
29 IMPRISONMENT OR ASSESSMENT OF ANY FINE THAT IS IMPOSED, THE ALIEN SHALL BE
30 TRANSFERRED IMMEDIATELY TO THE CUSTODY OF THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND
31 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT OR THE UNITED STATES CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Sounds more like common sense law enforcement than draconian. Notice how Rubio says his impression is from what he reads in the press. If Rubio thinks he’s getting the straight scoop from the press he’s in big trouble.
Keep up the good fight!
April 27th, 2010
5:53 pm
Scout…..sure then….. so what is your distinction? But of course you have no legitimate answer. Perhaps because of the bible/scripture childishness you want to play now instead of real discussion. You have argued that because feds did not act, state was justified in action and apparently not constrained by constitution or numerous other laws. Where exactly is the line you want to draw? Come on now…a 1st year law student can do this reasonably well. Surely you know Terry v Ohio and the lines of cases that follow.
Paul
April 27th, 2010
5:54 pm
jewcowboy
Police Chief: “you want me to pull all all those radar cops and have them patrol for people looking for work? You know how much ticket revenue we’ll lose?”
Del
April 27th, 2010
5:54 pm
Josef,
I think its aim is to go after illegals and discourage their INVASION. Something once again the FED should be doing. Got to go…later.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
5:54 pm
@@
“I’m just asking, ’cause I don’t have the solution. It should have never come to this. The onus is on the federal government for letting it go unaddressed for so long.”
And this is the crux of the matter…
That section you quoted is one of many in the bill which raises a red flag…
This thing is only going to build a wall between our latino citizens and their neighbors…it will be to the point that you will find it “safer” just not to associate with them at all…
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
5:56 pm
Scout,
“No guts if you don’t watch this all the way through …”
Back at you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTegy6sBQVA
Dusty
April 27th, 2010
5:56 pm
Alll of you ;need to go live in AZ for a while. It is a beautiful place. It is not filled with hateful people sneering at brown skin people because many of them have brown skin or “red skin” or olive skin or white skin. It is a fine mix of people who have grown together as a state.
This new law is a reaction to lawlessness. Yes, lawlessness. Hordes of people are slipping across the border, some looking for work, some from drug cartels. They die in the desert by the hundreds every summer. They occassionally murder someone in their way like ranchers along the border.
I worked a short distance from the border in an Indian hospital in the Desert. We had a patient brought in half dead who was illegal. He was lucky. Many don’t make it. Some of the trailers on the hospital compound were robbed by illegals searching for food. Since that time condition have become much worse. The whole state is being beseiged. I think you should be fair about youtr; judgements. Arizona is in a state of seige as far as illegals. The state has taken desperate measures as others have not worked.
I think you should BE THERE
Scout
April 27th, 2010
5:56 pm
Keep up the good fight!:
I’ve read it. Looks great to me. Let ‘er rip.
Del:
Roger …….. shot out. Standby to adjust over.
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
5:56 pm
Paul @ 5.54,
Bingo!
Scout
April 27th, 2010
5:58 pm
jewcowboy:
Sorry, no can do. You didn’t have time to watch all of mine first.
Dusty:
They live here in their Ivory towers that’s why.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
5:58 pm
RW
Reasonable suspicion? Where is that defined in this bill or anywhere else…way too broad.
dtboy
April 27th, 2010
5:59 pm
Civil rights are reserved for legal citizens. Human rights do not give your the authority to commit crimes. If I steal to feed myself, I’ve still committed a crime and should be punished. We cannot operate within a society where one person has justification for committing a crime against another man, based on human and/or civil rights.
Southern Comfort
April 27th, 2010
5:59 pm
Dusty
Some of my co-workers were there as of late 2009. Some are scheduled to go later this year. I’ve seen the photos and heard the stories. I’m not on the list, so I won’t get to experience it firsthand. All I can say is, smaller government leads to smaller results and less effect in some cases.
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
6:00 pm
I’m still waiting for teabaqqer to denounce this as an government infringement on citizens freedom…or does that only apply to white citizens?
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:00 pm
josef,
If you’re worried about vague language about “reasonable suspicion” in laws then you’ve got a lot bigger fight on your hands. You can find them in every state in the country.
@@
April 27th, 2010
6:02 pm
This thing is only going to build a wall between our latino citizens and their neighbors…it will be to the point that you will find it “safer” just not to associate with them at all.
Not as far as I’m concerned. I’ll be hanging with whom I please and challenge anyone who questions my motives. I don’t mean to make light of your concerns but let’s see how this thing plays out…kinks and all.
All throughout the act it appeared as though Arizona was sending a message to the federal government. “We’re doing your job now here they are. What are you gonna do with them?”
I’ll read the bill further. All that legal mumbo jumbo gives me a headache. Have to read it half a dozen times looking for the nuances, never knowing, for sure, if I’ve spotted one or not.
Scout
April 27th, 2010
6:03 pm
Reasonable suspicion is what it has always been. No change there. Once you have established that (or especially probable cause that a crime has been committed) you simply document their legal status to be in the country.
I LOVE IT !
O.K. guys ……….. got to go out on patrol and look for illegal aliens. Back later.
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
6:03 pm
dtboy,
“Civil rights are reserved for legal citizens. ”
How about the civil rights of legal citizen of Hispanic descent being legally harrassed and detained by the state on the basis of his skin or the language he chooses to speak?
@@
April 27th, 2010
6:04 pm
Oh! That 6:02 was for josef.
Dusty
April 27th, 2010
6:06 pm
Josef,
I think you are wrong. Arizona is under seige. They have had people of many skin colors for centuries, many of them brown. This is a desperation measure. It is against a criminal element which stems from illlegal people there. Unless you live there and see that, you are assuming something that is not true.
I do agree that some of the law sounds drastic. Those parts will change. But not before law and order are established. If someone invades your home, do you check their skin color before you decide whether or not to take action? You are jumping at easy condemnation. That too is not good. .
TaxPayer
April 27th, 2010
6:06 pm
Some years back a DVD was released – “A day without a Mexican.”
Who was the lead actor? and Chong!
N-GA
April 27th, 2010
6:09 pm
Then there will be a 5th generation Mexican-American legally carrying a concealed weapon and an Arizona law-enforcement officer will get overly gung-ho….and someone is going to die.
Jerome
April 27th, 2010
6:09 pm
Boobies 2:2 “On the 3rd or 4th day (after God proclaimed, “Grass on the infield play ball”) God put nipples on the thing he gave a rib and it was good……
durden
April 27th, 2010
6:10 pm
If the Feds were willing to enforce the law this would never have happened. Dems want the voters because they enjoy using fraud to win elections and the GOP wants illegals to get around tax minimum wage laws. In the end we all lose. At least AZ is willing to ENFORCE THE LAW!!!!!!!
@@
April 27th, 2010
6:11 pm
Jerome:
Are you lost?
TaxPayer
April 27th, 2010
6:11 pm
If the Arizona cops charged a fee for each ID they checked, they could balance the state budget and solve their “illegal immigrant issue” at the same time.
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
6:11 pm
durden,
“At least AZ is willing to ENFORCE THE LAW!!!!!!!”
No…they are willing to pass the law…we shall see if it is enforced and how.
Franz Ferdinand
April 27th, 2010
6:11 pm
I think it would be wise to kick out of the good ole USA any veteran who served in a losing was (Vietnam), we need a winners only bill……
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
6:12 pm
“Boobies 2:2 “On the 3rd or 4th day (after God proclaimed, “Grass on the infield play ball”) God put nipples on the thing he gave a rib and it was good……”
That makes about as much sense as Scout’s bible quotes…
durden
April 27th, 2010
6:13 pm
I think it needs to be mentioned that nearly 50% of Arizonas have some Hispanic heritage and that their are a ton of hispanic police officers. Do you think they will have a problem looking for illegals? No, because they support this law and know that illegals commit a disproportionate number of the violent crimes in the state.
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
6:15 pm
durden,
“No, because they support this law and know that illegals commit a disproportionate number of the violent crimes in the state.”
link please…
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:15 pm
@@
And like you, I’ll hang out with whom I choose, too and challenge anyone who questions me and do it as citizen with a bad a$$ “bring it on…” and, truth be told, it’s law there now and we have no choice but to see how it plays out kinks and all.
RW
You betcha any time we’re talking law, my antennae go up over vagueness…
DUSTY
Again, I am not arguing that Arizona is not faced with the front line dealing with the problem…but that is no rationale for so unthoughtout legislation. I think there’s way too many Carpetbaggers here in Georgia…so that means we can pass legislation of this type? Would that we could…
Keep up the good fight!
April 27th, 2010
6:15 pm
ahhh…the book of boobies…. right before the book of bJob right?
TaxPayer
April 27th, 2010
6:16 pm
Why aren’t there more white police officers in Arizona! I heard they pay $50/hour for that work too.
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
6:17 pm
“Report: Immigrants do not commit most crimes”
http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/article_04450961-0c56-59fc-91cb-f1229975da4d.html
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:20 pm
Critics have focused on the term “reasonable suspicion” to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. “That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. “The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop.”
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Byron-York/A-carefully-crafted-immigration-law-in-Arizona-92136104.html#ixzz0mLFM9Ikp
It’s well worth the read too. Even the AJC hysterics get a mention.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:20 pm
Just for the record here, I grew up in the Deep South in the 1960s. “Reasonable suspicion?” Been there, bought the t-shirt…
@@
April 27th, 2010
6:22 pm
To be fair and balanced, law enforcement oughta ask for papers of those who don’t even look Latino. I mean if it’s the citizens that wanted it, then why not share in the inconvenience.
Works for me. I’d be one of those who was stopped on complexion alone.
N-GA
April 27th, 2010
6:22 pm
I’m sure the Jews in pre-war Germany can relate to this Arizona problem. What’s next?
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:22 pm
You betcha any time we’re talking law, my antennae go up over vagueness…
josef,
I’ve read the Arizona bill and it’s far less vague than any of the things our Congress has been debating and/or passing for the last year or so.
Jackie
April 27th, 2010
6:23 pm
The profiles in courage that pretend to be Senators have voted to kill debate on the bill for bank reform.
Such political courage is enabled by those that support such foolishness.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:24 pm
RW
Yes, they can pick anyone out of a crowd (been there, too) and cart them off if they don’t pass “reasonable suspicion.” Whether or not it was “reasonable” will be determined in a costly court case…
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
6:24 pm
josef nix,
“Been there, bought the t-shirt…”
And it did not stop in the 60’s:
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/03/bar-raid-charges-of-atlanta-eagle-employees-dismissed-by-judge.html
Dave
April 27th, 2010
6:25 pm
“MSNBC News Flash: Arizona Law ‘Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant’ ”
Can’t make this stuff up…
AmVet
April 27th, 2010
6:25 pm
Welcome to Arizona! Trying hard to be the 1938 Germany of America! Papers please…
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:25 pm
Yes, they can pick anyone out of a crowd
josef,
No they can’t. Did you read the part about needing lawful contact first?
Del
April 27th, 2010
6:26 pm
SoCo@5:52pm,
Apples and Oranges
DK
April 27th, 2010
6:26 pm
If 11 million stop paying income taxes, would they be getting the same treatment?
Paul
April 27th, 2010
6:26 pm
Sen Coburn (R-Ok) at the hearings: “I think 90% of the blame for the mortgage meltdown goes to Congress. We don’t call hearings and do oversight to see how things are going.”
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:26 pm
N-GA
For a change we’re on the same page here…Unmentionable made the comment, “how long before a Herschel Grynszpan and a Kristallnacht…?” This is the step that led to that…
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:28 pm
RW
Lawful contact is the actual presence of a law enforcement official…
Dave
April 27th, 2010
6:30 pm
“Roswell police have ‘mandatory’ DUI goal
AJC Exclusive: Cops risk poor performance evaluations if they fall short”
As if we didn’t already know they have “quotas”… sorry if it’s a little off topic
Southern Comfort
April 27th, 2010
6:32 pm
Del
How so? Would it not expand the federal government if they hired more ICE agents, Border Patrol Agents, or CBP Officers? Isn’t that the opposite of making the government smaller? It would cause an increase of hundreds of millions in spending to hire, train, and pay those agents and officers. Not to mention the benefits and extra equipment purchases (guns, uniforms, vehicles, radios, etc…)
I see it as one and the same.
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
6:32 pm
josef nix,
This law does remind me of Martin Niemöller.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:32 pm
AmVet–Thank G-d you’re here on this…aber wir muessen hier Ordnung haben…Latienen, ‘raus!
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:32 pm
Lawful contact is the actual presence of a law enforcement official…
josef,
No it isn’t. It requires that lawful contact is due to the investigation of a different criminal activity.
Keep up the good fight!
April 27th, 2010
6:33 pm
RW did you include in your little Wash Post tribute to Kris Kobach, the self-proclaimed author of the AZ immigration bill, his background with white supremacist organizations.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:34 pm
jewcowboy–
“This law does remind me of Martin Niemöller.”
And he has many congregants hereabouts…
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:35 pm
RW
Keep reading the bill…
@@
April 27th, 2010
6:37 pm
josef:
” Whether or not it was “reasonable” will be determined in a costly court case…
Doesn’t the ACLU work pro bono?
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:37 pm
josef,
Frankly I don’t think your 5th graders are well served by the way you’re hyperventilating over this. The bill is very easy to understand and I find nothing in it that should cause this hysteria.
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:39 pm
Keep,
If you’re going to smear somebody as a white supremacist shouldn’t it be you providing some facts to back up your allegations?
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:41 pm
@@
Yes, they do and you can bet they’re gearing up for this…
RW
FYI, I do NOT hyperventilate in my classroom. I am a professional. I come here for that.
jt
April 27th, 2010
6:44 pm
All I know is that, if I was Barry Soweto,
I would stay away from Sheriff Arapaho AND Arizona.
Those guys probably aren’t as understanding as our Lame Stream Media is when it comes to proper documentation.
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:44 pm
josef,
So why did your 5th graders take up the bill? You’ve also said you use this blog as a teaching tool so it doesn’t really matter where you do your hyperventilating.
Brakeman
April 27th, 2010
6:44 pm
Franz Ferdinand:
You sure are hung-up on that Vietnam thing. I’m betting a vet stole your girlfriend once ……………
jt
April 27th, 2010
6:46 pm
THE remains of Noah’s Ark have been discovered 13,000ft up a Turkish mountain, it has been claimed.
Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2949640/Noahs-Ark-found-in-Turkey.html#ixzz0mLM7SAB2
Gracie
April 27th, 2010
6:46 pm
Actually, I don’t think a police officer would have reasonable cause to stop an Hispanic family walking their dog through a neighborhood. Unless, of course, the family came tumbling out of the back of a box truck blinking against the daylight, and looking like they have no idea where they are and what to do next.
The law is an attempt to enforce existing laws.
Not likely that anyone speaking Spanish would be targeted, unless there is reasonable cause to suspect they are illegal.
Bee
April 27th, 2010
6:48 pm
The actual Bill does not make a distinction on who qualifies as a suspected immigrant. Without warrant, anyone, of any race, who is suspected of being an immigrant, and is without proof of citizenship can be arrested and detained by the Police. This Bill leaves absolute power to the Police in Arizona and protects them from personal trial for false arrest. Whether or not a person is anti-immigration reform, or pro-immigration reform, sacrificing personal Freedoms of “due process” allowed to us in the Bill of Rights to simply flesh out illegal immigrants is a terrifying step towards a tyranny style Government.
I see this as a non-partisan issue. I see this as a “WTF” issue. Anyone entering the state of Arizona, of any race, should be aware that they may at the discretion of any police officer, arrested and detained unless they have proof of Citizenship.
Also- Evidently, proof of Citizenship requires a Passport, a Birth Certificate or an Immigration card.
Scooter
April 27th, 2010
6:50 pm
The bill is very easy to understand
Dang RW, I’m glad you find it easy to understand.Whew! I know I’m not smarter than a fifth grader now.
Disgusted
April 27th, 2010
6:51 pm
I’m astonished to learn that the illegal immigration problem has not been solved by now. Didn’t our last Republican Congress pass huge appropriations to build border fences and add thousands of border patrol agents? Please don’t try to tell me that these measures didn’t work. We were assured that they would, and I, of course, always believe in our Republican representatives and senators. Besides, Tom Tancredo would not have retired if the illegal immigrant problem was still extant.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:51 pm
RW
Most of my kids have a personal interest in this bill and their parents are talking about it. When they asked me, I asked them did they know what the bill entailed. They are the ones who went to the internet and found it. I left the interpretation to them and told them to talk about it among themselves and with their grown ups. And yes I use this blog as a teaching tool and as they want to know more, I will use the various comments here (not mine under my name, I never would do that) and let them be the judge according to their own perspectives. I am not in their lives to tell them WHAT to think, but HOW to come to their own conclusions. And, no, I don’t tell them it’s Jay’s blog, I just tell them “a” blog…
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:54 pm
josef,
You’ve said you use your real name here. If you also use your real name in the classroom just how hard do you think it would be to find out it was Jay B’s blog?
Keep up the good fight!
April 27th, 2010
6:54 pm
Actually RW, because he is a public figure different standards apply…but here you go…
Kobach is attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, the legal arm of FAIR, founded by John Tanton…. Now you can go look up John Tanton and his racist memo from the Southern Poverty Law Center…try 10.10.1986. Or the 1993 letter talking about the need for a European-AMerican majority. That’s a start. FAIR has received over $1 million in funding from the Pioneer Fund, a group dedicated to proving the racial superiority of white people.
theyeshaveit
April 27th, 2010
6:54 pm
durden said, “I think it needs to be mentioned that nearly 50% of Arizonas have some Hispanic heritage and that their are a ton of hispanic police officers. Do you think they will have a problem looking for illegals? No, because they support this law and know that illegals commit a disproportionate number of the violent crimes in the state.”
Arizona Police Agencies Not In Agreement Over Immigration Law
check it out:
http://www.kpho.com/news/23155537/detail.html
By the way, police officers are sworn to uphold the law regardless of how they feel about any given law. I am a Viet Nam era veteran. Like a number of my buddies, I was against the war. But we followed orders.
stands for decibels
April 27th, 2010
6:56 pm
Since nobody seems to have mentioned Lindsey Graham yet, it seems worth noting that he thinks the AZ law is unconstitutional.
Gracie
April 27th, 2010
6:56 pm
I think Grady Hospital would be in good shape, but for having to treat all the illegals who show up there and don’t pay taxes to support it. What if all the school systems were legally supported by the parents of all the children who attended that school? What resources do illegals use that they don’t pay for?
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
6:57 pm
BEE
Exactly my point. As I said below, my own stance on the problem of illegal immigration is pretty far from pc, but the issue here is not nearly so much the target population as it is the fast and loose way it is playing with constitutional principles…
Keep up the good fight!
April 27th, 2010
6:57 pm
Oh and article 8 about suing cities and governments and being able to collect attorneys fees and costs…that is what FAIR does… they just funded their racist organization with a state law.
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
6:58 pm
Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the United States, because of illegal immigration and human smuggling, according to the head of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association.
In the past year, there were 359 kidnappings in Phoenix, and not one was legitimate involving a truly innocent victim, said Mark Spencer, head of the union which represents more than 2,500 Phoenix police officers. He said all the kidnappings were connected to illegal immigration and the numbers may represent just the tip of the iceberg.
“The investigators up at the violent crimes bureau are estimating that this 359 represents just one-third of the reported kidnappings that take place in Phoenix,” Spencer said.
http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=877515
It’s not like they don’t have a problem to deal with.
@@
April 27th, 2010
6:59 pm
Well the bill does discourage frivolous claims. Say an employee targets a co-worker for investigation. He/she better know the facts or his/her butt is up on charges. That’s a good thing!
ken R
April 27th, 2010
7:00 pm
Jay,
Because our pathetic Gov’t doesn’t have the cajones to deal with illegals the Arizona Governor did.
What she did is to finally bring this problem to Washington, it will be interesting to see what, if anything our miserable politicians do.
70% of Arizonians agree with the bill, obviously for a reason. Maybe some of the liberals on this site should move to Arizona and see why.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
7:01 pm
RW
I don’t think it would be hard at all. Those would be the more motivated and more advanced thinkers. They went and found that information on their own. I did not send them to it.
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
7:01 pm
Keep,
Are you now saying that lawyers only represent people whose beliefs they share? That’s not gonna look good for all those Gitmo attorneys now working in the Justice Department.
jewcowboy
April 27th, 2010
7:04 pm
Until someone shows the protections in this legislation for legal citizens of Hispanic descent from being targeted by their skin color or the language they speak, then this law is a step towards the prosecution of one group of people…
Anyone on here who posts about the Obama administration’s supposed march to tyranny and supports this law, without demonstrating how legal citizens of Hispanic descent will not be targeted, then you shall show you give not a hoot about real freedom.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
7:04 pm
ken–
I think all of us agree that the immigration cart is broken and something has to be done…how many of that 70% have read the bill they “support?”
Balance Our Budget
April 27th, 2010
7:04 pm
Liberals have no problem with the government checking our papers to see if we have health insurance .But they had better not check our papers to see if we are here legally.Strange isn’t it.
Cherokee
April 27th, 2010
7:05 pm
Scout please do us all a favor and stop quoting your proof texts. Jesus would call you a Pharisee.
stands for decibels
April 27th, 2010
7:07 pm
70% of Arizonians agree with the bill, obviously for a reason.
Given that Rassmussen generally massages their issue polling questions to favor the GOP’s agenda, one should really take any such polling from them with a grain of salt. This highly touted “70%” number, it seems, is just another example.
RW-(the original)
April 27th, 2010
7:07 pm
By the way, that article I linked at 6:58 is from 2008. Phoenix police have had this authority to ask for citizenship information and contact ICE since May 21, 2008.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
7:10 pm
jewcowboy–
Have you read Milton Meyer’s “They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45″? It gives some insight into this…
Scooter
April 27th, 2010
7:10 pm
josef, help me out here. Are you saying the bill is unconstitutional and that is the main problem with it?
stands for decibels
April 27th, 2010
7:11 pm
Oh, and here’s how the Rassmussen poll question was worded:
“Do you favor or oppose legislation that authorizes local police to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant?”
Not terribly surprised that 70% of people in AZ might support such a thing; it’s described in a rather bland vacuum.
As that piece I linked above pointed out, though:
To their credit, Rasmussen later asked people whether they were concerned that “efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens”; 58 percent said they were in fact somewhat or very concerned. But that finding did not get their lede, nor was that concern expressed relative to Arizona’s law itself.
Del
April 27th, 2010
7:13 pm
SoCo@6:32,
It’s more a case of not fully utilizing the resource we have in enforcing the laws we already have. That’s unrelated to growing a government that over reaches into the private sector as this administration has been all about. An over reaching government, however, is an all together different subject.
josef nix
April 27th, 2010
7:14 pm
Scooter–
I am no expert on constitutional law by a long, long shot…but there are some questions, as SoCo said, with the Fourt Amendment…
jt
April 27th, 2010
7:15 pm
Washington Times) Race-baiting never goes out of style. Only the races and the baiters change …
dajngo
April 27th, 2010
7:15 pm
I think Scout and his kind need to watch 9500 Liberty….Scout and his kind need to understand that people of color will be the majority in this country within our lifetime…..Scout needs to understand that this is no longer the 60s and nobody is about to put up with any of it…Scout needs to understand internet bravado is cool…but wether or not you know it…you need us more than we need you…so keep it up…jewcowboy said it best..theres a backlash coming…