You’re subscribing to NRO‘s Morning Jolt from Jim Geraghty (I always have to cut-and-paste his name…that spelling is beyond me), right?
Yesterday he had a great piece in his daily newsletter that outlined the much more moderated, level-headed, and sober criticism of Arizona’s new immigration law. (You know, the one MSNBC declared “Makes it a Crime to be [an] Illegal Immigrant”.) I’ll cut and paste at length below the jump.
Well, leave it to Connie Mack, a guy who represents the 14th CD of Florida (which includes not a border with a dangerously unstable narco-nation, but, rather Naples) to destroy the concept of a temperate and reasoned objection (of which, admittedly, there are some):
This law of ‘frontier justice’ – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause
Perhaps Representative Mack should do some investigating before he opened his mouth. The part I highlighted above is completely untrue and misrepresents the law totally. It could have come from Keith Olbermann. Maybe it did.
Clearly put, the law requires law enforcement to check citizenship only while engaged in “lawful contact“, i.e., pulled over already for, say, speeding or hazardously driving. Can this law perhaps be abused by bad cops? Abso-freakin’-lutely. But so can all the laws up to now. Not that this isn’t a legitimate concern, but to characterize this as some sort of Hitler-esque Stasi move is ridiculous and below a Congressman. Espeically a Republican one. Having an issue with this and it making one feel uncomfortable is fair. I’m not totally sold on it myself. But come on, Connie.
Here’s Jim’s submission from the newsletter:
A few Republicans have come out doubting whether Arizona’s tough new immigration law is a good idea.
Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio: “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.”
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush: “‘I think it creates unintended consequences,’ he said in a telephone interview with Politico Tuesday. ‘It’s difficult for me to imagine how you’re going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well.'”
Karl Rove: “‘I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,’ he said to the standing-room-only crowd at the Colony Cottage Recreation Center. ‘I wished they hadn’t passed it, in a way.’ Still, Rove . . . objected to comments by critics including President Barack Obama that the law will lead to problems such as racial profiling by police. ‘These are modern police forces that respect the rights of people in their communities,’ Rove said. ‘They’re going to do it on the basis of reasonable suspicion that these people are here illegally, like they’re driving a car with a Mexican license plate or they can’t speak English or they don’t have a drivers license.'”
Note the tone of all of these criticisms; there’s no accusations of hateful motives, no demonization of the proponents; no public-art demonstrations using pinto beans in the form of historically infamous symbols. These guys just lay out their concerns that turning this law from words on paper to government action could take us places we don’t want to go. Why, it’s almost as if they actually want supporters of the new law to hear them out!
I wish the Arizona immigration law wasn’t necessary. This has been a maddening issue for Americans, where a fairly basic desire of the public — “Control who goes in and out of our country, let the good folks enter and keep the bad guys out” — has been routinely ignored. Decades of little or no border control created serious, divisive tensions in communities far from our borders (here are fascinating cases from Hilton Head, S.C., and Northern Virginia). Not even 9/11 triggered much serious improvement in border security, and from the middle of the past decade to today, the governing class has tried to argue that some form of amnesty is necessary, with a bone or two being thrown to enforcement via “virtual fences.” (Now we’re told — surprise! — the virtual fence isn’t working.) Only the open-borders absolutists can begrudge Arizona for trying to get dramatically different results from a dramatically different approach. Maybe it won’t work, or will create new problems, but the state’s voters have made clear that the status quo is untenable.
A lot of how this law works out will depend on the good judgment of the Grand Canyon state’s law enforcement. But then again, that applies to every law. One bad cop, and all of the current temper tantrums comparing this to Nazi Germany will look less unhinged and more genuinely prescient.
On the other hand, cops already work with the knowledge that one confirmed case of racial profiling will ruin their career, cast suspicion on every officer in a department, and potentially cost that jurisdiction a small fortune in legal fees and damages. It’s a safe bet that no officer in the entire state wants to be known as the next Mark Fuhrman.
Of course, I suppose cops could ask someone for proof that they have health insurance first, and then ask if they’re in the country legally.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)
This is where I disagree, I don’t think anything is below a congressman these days.
I’ve never had high opinion of politicians, these days it’s in the gutter.
“but to characterize this as some sort of Hitler-esque Stasi move is ridiculous”
Oh lord the Irony.
Only in the mind of the typical Intellectually Inconsistent Conservative is it OK to call Obama a Fascist but “ridiculous” to point out this implications of this bill..
gillie:
As pointless as it may be to challenge you to defend yourself, can you please point out a time wherein I called Obama “a Fascist”
Thanks for your interest!
I thought I was reading “The Onion”, but it was on Drudge that I saw the headline, “Illegals plan to leave AZ over law”. Isn’t that the whole idea?
Of course there will be a plethora of unintended consequences from this law, but how is that any different than the laws our esteemed Congress passes these days?
The Left has a problem. The problem is that their economic program is corporate socialism (while pretending to be for the people). Quasi-socialism for the benefit of the largest corporations, but really bringing them and everybody under the thumb of government. That *is* the economic program of fascism, i.e., of Mussolini then Hitler.
Being actually engaged in fascism (or at least its economic program – but that is a pretty huge thing), the Left desperately needs to distract and deflect – by accusing others of fascism. Any excuse will do. And the lamestream media, being Left biased, is in on this one – i.e. the Arizona tning.
I believe I have, and just did again. Which is to say: You, CP, have not. Somebody around here has been doing it – but it isn’t you. Thus the 100% fairness of your question to gillie.
Gillie – have you actually read SB 1070? Or are you on the bandwagon of hysteria that the Left so often implements? As for “the implications” of the law…Explain what the hell you actually mean by this statement in your comments. It would be great to finally see you present a rational dialogue instead of resorting to “feelings” to establish your viewpoint.
There is only one party that is trying to court the votes of convicted felons AND illegals in the country illegally.
Now the facade is gone. Obama is making himself perfectly clear hehe.
I remember a time when if a person robbed a bank, the media was afraid to detail the description of the offender lest they be accused of being racist, sexist or another horrific charge. Then they decided it was foolish to ask the public for help……unless they were serious.
—-help us find a tall white woman who just robbed First State Bank on Main st.
is much more efficient than….
—–help us find a PERSON of unspecifiec size, and sex who just robbed an unspecified bank on an unspecified street.
We are approaching a time when we are becoming more serious about terrorism, and we will let grannie alone and double check islamic travelers. Same with illegals. Most are truly not CANADIANS. If they were I’d say double check everyone who says EH EHH.
#2: gillie (and Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, George and Jeb Bush, and the rest of Mexico’s “Amen Corner”…)
Just what part of “illegal alien” are you not understanding? It is already against FEDERAL law to be in the country illegally. Arizona simply added a statute to make it a state misdemeanor to be in the country ILLEGALLY.
Aliens in the US are already required by FEDERAL law to carry “papers”. (See page 8 here: http://www.uscis.gov/files/nativedocuments/M-618.pdf)
It’s our damn country. It is our right to decide who can and cannot enter this country and live here – just as it’s Mexico’s right to decide who can and cannot enter and reside in Mexico (see Amnesty International report on the plight of illegals in Mexico).
If this country is such a godawful hellhole full of bigots and knuckle-draggers… well, I can’t figure out why so many people want to come here.
Re Connie Mack: I think he was doing his part to further alienate potential GOP donors and voters. It worked so well for John McCain.
The Dems have been selling out the working class for years… the GOP is trying to catch up.
“IHRE AUSWEIS BITTE”….words that never be uttered in this country.
What’s next, ….universal dossiers? Oh that’s right, we just conducted the decadal-census of every household in America. You really think those records are sealed for 70-years? The DC suburbs are full of black-glass office buildings with no discernible tenants, yet full parking lots every workday.
Phone records, bank accounts, internet activity, tax returns, census forms…the Stasi only had dossiers on a quarter of the East German population.
#10. You have got to know that the NSA already knows way too much about every citizen in the good Ole US of A.
Koback on SB 1070
Law professor and conservative immigration expert Kris Koback has an op-ed in today’s New York Times explaining the Arizona law and showing why its critics’ claims about it are incorrect.
April 29, 2010
Op-Ed Contributor
Why Arizona Drew a Line
By KRIS W. KOBACH
Kansas City, Kan.
ON Friday, Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a law–SB 1070–that prohibits the harboring of illegal aliens and makes it a state crime for an alien to commit certain federal immigration crimes. It also requires police officers who, in the course of a traffic stop or other law-enforcement action, come to a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal alien verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.
Predictably, groups that favor relaxed enforcement of immigration laws, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, insist the law is unconstitutional. Less predictably, President Obama declared it “misguided” and said the Justice Department would take a look.
Presumably, the government lawyers who do so will actually read the law, something its critics don’t seem to have done. The arguments we’ve heard against it either misrepresent its text or are otherwise inaccurate. As someone who helped draft the statute, I will rebut the major criticisms individually:
It is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents with them. It is true that the Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to fail to carry certain documents. “Now, suddenly, if you don’t have your papers … you’re going to be harassed,” the president said. “That’s not the right way to go.” But since 1940, it has been a federal crime for aliens to fail to keep such registration documents with them. The Arizona law simply adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime. Moreover, as anyone who has traveled abroad knows, other nations have similar documentation requirements.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct. Over the past four decades, federal courts have issued hundreds of opinions defining those two words. The Arizona law didn’t invent the concept: Precedents list the factors that can contribute to reasonable suspicion; when several are combined, the “totality of circumstances” that results may create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.
For example, the Arizona law is most likely to come into play after a traffic stop. A police officer pulls a minivan over for speeding. A dozen passengers are crammed in. None has identification. The highway is a known alien-smuggling corridor. The driver is acting evasively. Those factors combine to create reasonable suspicion that the occupants are not in the country legally.
The law will allow police to engage in racial profiling. Actually, Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status. In addition, all normal Fourth Amendment protections against profiling will continue to apply. In fact, the Arizona law actually reduces the likelihood of race-based harassment by compelling police officers to contact the federal government as soon as is practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien, as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment.
It is unfair to demand that people carry a driver’s license. Arizona’s law does not require anyone, alien or otherwise, to carry a driver’s license. Rather, it gives any alien with a license a free pass if his immigration status is in doubt. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
State governments aren’t allowed to get involved in immigration, which is a federal matter. While it is true that Washington holds primary authority in immigration, the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law. As long as Congress hasn’t expressly forbidden the state law in question, the statute doesn’t conflict with federal law and Congress has not displaced all state laws from the field, it is permitted. That’s why Arizona’s 2007 law making it illegal to knowingly employ unauthorized aliens was sustained by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
In sum, the Arizona law hardly creates a police state. It takes a measured, reasonable step to give Arizona police officers another tool when they come into contact with illegal aliens during their normal law enforcement duties.
And it’s very necessary: Arizona is the ground zero of illegal immigration. Phoenix is the hub of human smuggling and the kidnapping capital of America, with more than 240 incidents reported in 2008. It’s no surprise that Arizona’s police associations favored the bill, along with 70 percent of Arizonans.
President Obama and the Beltway crowd feel these problems can be taken care of with “comprehensive immigration reform”–meaning amnesty and a few other new laws. But we already have plenty of federal immigration laws on the books, and the typical illegal alien is guilty of breaking many of them. What we need is for the executive branch to enforce the laws that we already have.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has scaled back work-site enforcement and otherwise shown it does not consider immigration laws to be a high priority. Is it any wonder the Arizona Legislature, at the front line of the immigration issue, sees things differently?
Kris W. Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, was Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003.
#3 –
Many folks on this site and others called Obama a fascist. Did you ever call them “ridiculous” too?
If so then indeed perhaps you have a shred of intellectual honesty and I would apologize.
If not, you would be like commentators #5, #9 and anyone else I might have missed – A card carrying member of the intellectually dishonest Conservative right.
Given that he hires Maoists, Communists, and Truthers, and given that he has moved to nationalize large segments of the country Gillie, what would you call him.
gillie, as it comes from *you* – know what I mean? 😉 – I will take that as a great compliment.
Even though, no, I’m not actually a conservative. (Or am only on the economic issues, and some of the foreign policy issues.)
I have to look more into this AZ law, but I have no problem with it. Even if the law is wrong, unfair, or whatever, I don’t think it is fair to compare it to Stalin or Hitler. In those cases, people who were law abiding citizens were put to death.
Apparently, AZ is flooded and overwhelmed with illegal immigrants, i.e., these are persons who are breaking the law by being in this country illegally. So I don’t see an undue hardship by those persons who are asked to show proof of citizenship, resident alien status, or on visa, since they are here illegally. As for persons who are here illegally, I don’t see the hardship of showing such proof either. I would say that at about 98% I am out of the house, I have proof of citizenship on me. And I would say that at least twice per year, I have to “show papers” that prove I am a citizen, like every time I go on a flight. Or renew my driver’s license (even though I couldn’t have gotten my old license without proving I was a citizen).
So this is getting the attention of the federal government. Great. So now what are we going to do about it. Are we just going to continue to ignore it? Do we mean illegal when it comes to illegal aliens? Does the federal government want to take care of these illegal aliens (including taking them out of Arizona and care for them elsewhere)?
I realize it is impractical to just boot out tens of millions of people out of the country at once. But something has to happen at least gradually to take care of these illegal immigrants, and then put a system in place so that we don’t have any more illegal immigrants in the future. In the meantime, we must set a deadline and insist that any illegal immigrant become documented in some fashion, and after such deadline, any illegal immigrant without documentation will get deported. And any resident, legal or otherwise, who does not fill out their census form, should absolutely, positively not receive any aid from any level of government, since the amount of aid a state receives depends on the census. We have to make it riskier for an undocumented illegal alien, so the argument that they don’t want to risk getting deported by being documented becomes completely bogus.
I had a colleague who is a resident alien, and after 9/11 had to make sure every “t” was crossed, and “i” was dotted. And even then, he risked deportation. Why on earth should he have had it worse than an illegal immigrant?
Oops, forgot to unbold. sorry.
That’s because Il Douche IS a fascist. AZ is not. Therefore, and I know this is hard for you to follow, Mack’s statement was ridiculous. You know it, I know it.
Shove that one sideways.
gillie:
I think my request of you was pretty explicit.
I’ll take your reply as a concession.
Have a great weekend!
gillie – are you calling me a liar? Specifics?
#19 – Great!
My reply would be a concession if you just show me where you called the folks who call Obama a fascist “ridicouls”
Did you? Not that I can find! So…have a good weekend too
#20
No I am saying you support a Bill that has more fascist implications than anything Obama has even thought about doing. Yet you complain about Mack stating this fact yet you have not complained about anyone on the right calling Obama a fascist.
So no I am not calling you a liar
I am calling you and the Right intellectually corrupt
Sorry, gillie,
Again you lie.
As the original post points out, “required to stop anyone based on ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they may be in the country illegally” doesn’t exist in the law.
So again, you lie over and over, hoping someone will be as gullible as you to believe it to be true.
I am tired of the media referring to Arizona´s law and any opposition illegals as antiimmigrant. It galls me to see the demonstrations by illegals demanding rights and amnesty now. In essence it is a political demonstratiion.
I live in El Salvador as a legal resident. If I were to take part in a demonstration of any political stripe or if I were to carry a sign in front of the Ministry of Migration protesting any part of immigration law; in five minutes or less immigration officers would have me handcuffed and deported to Miam, Houston, or L.A. Why aren´t Central and South Americans demonstrating in front of the Mexican Embassy. Mexico has troops trying to protect their southern border. Felipe Calderon is such a hypocrite to criticize Arizona. Those who do get through do so because the coyote paid the mordida which is included in the fee for bringing them here.
I pèrsonally believe all illegal aliens should be deported. As I read the 14th Amendment which was written to clarify the status of children of ex-slaves is misapplied to illegals. The operative phrase is ¨subject to the jurisdiction thereof¨ (U.S.) Undocumented persons are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S but to their country of origin. therefore, I believe anchor babies are not citizens but also undocumented aliens and should be deported with their parent(s)-
So let us explore the logic of the Obama Party here.
It is NOT fascist to confiscate the property of legal citizens and force them to hand over everything they earn to the government, who will then redistribute it according to the sole whim of said government.
But it IS fascist to arrest and deport people who are in the country illegally.
This is just another example of the Obama Party’s Soviet-style nomenklatura. Laws are for everyone else BUT the Obama Party and its potential supporters. White people who protest Obama are automatically terrorists, but Obama Party supporters can commit whatever violent acts they want.
NDT, yes. It’s amazing also that gillie posted his rubbish so late in the thread, I mean, long after the facts were given at #12 from Kobach’s piece.
The economic program of fascism, aka national socialism, at work:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026206.php