I'm all in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration, but this issue has long passed the debate point, and is now just dwelling in political theater status.
Case in point:Yeah, it's in Arizona. Where else did you expect?
Arizona's House has passed the nation's toughest legislation against illegal immigrants, making it a state crime to be undocumented in the United States and compelling local law enforcement agencies to verify the status of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant.
So, how the hell is a cop going to verify anybody's immigration status on a street corner? How will they know who to suspect? Anybody with an accent, maybe? Gee, and to think my Dad doesn't possess immigration papers, and never did, as is common I would guess with all birthright citizens. and would be at risk of being deported to a country he won't even acknowledge as being legitimate to him.
Besides being a bad idea, and unworkable, it's just screaming to lose a court challenge.
And that is the whole idea.
In an election year, you ramp up your base. This will piss off both sides, as either/or attempts to boost their turnout.
And ya know what?
It works every time.
25 comments:
Hurrah for dictatorship! So long as I'm the Leader.
First ruling under my dictatorship?
Beer piped in to everybody's house. Oh and?
1.Smoking allowed in bars
2.And anybody caught setting up a salt lick during the summer for deer so they just come right to the same spot during hunting season = 40 years hard labor. And they have to wear a pink ribbon too.
The state's population is something like 1/3 Hispanic. And an awful lot of those are native-born Americans. (Not to mention all of the Spanish-speaking legal immigrants, of which there are many as well.)
This will make police-community relations in some of Phoenix and Tucson's worst neighborhoods even more toxic than they already are. NO ONE is going to talk to the cops if they have to worry about producing papers for them every time they do so. Criminals and predators flourish in communities where no one talks to the police.
I can't imagine that too many local LEA's in AZ are thrilled about this, except maybe Sheriff Joe and his merry band of jackboot thugs. Not that they are terribly concerned about having a legal pretext to harass whomever they want, anyway.
None of this is to say that illegal immigration doesn't cause problems in AZ--it does, particularly if you own land along the border--but you've hit the nail on the head. This is political theater that is not going to make anything better.
There is a reason this is the feds' responsibility.
"There is a reason this is the feds' responsibility."
Yes it is. But Brian, please don't tell us it can't be a state or local responsibility as well.
Gino, I'm not sure why this is so complicated for some people.
If you are driving your car with a bad tail light you can get pulled over. It is up to the discretion of the office to give you a ticket for that offense. If the officer has reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence of alcohol the office can give you a breathalyzer... and you can be charged with a DUI...
Now if the officer pulls a person over for that busted tail light and asks you for identification... well, if the person can't prove legal status to be in the US... the officer can charge the person...
So yes, this certainly can be enforced within reason and it certainly is NOT "unworkable".
Gino, ever heard of "sanctuary cities"? Is that what you prefer?
K-Rod-That is exactly what I am telling you.
Wow, Brian, you claim the states don't have the right to pass and enforce such a law?
You claim the states don't have the right to prosecute illegal activity?
Sorry, old boy, you couldn't be more wrong. You look foolish.
From you, that's damn near a compliment.
So your not so foolish as to not agree with me. ;^)
The views of the founders of this great country are much closer to my views than your views.
In your heart you know I am right.
i doubt it.
Spoken like a true lefty blogger, never one to substantiate your claims, eh.
Tell it to your gullible kids. Heh heh heh.
Is that a scrotum in that picture? Yes, I believe that's a scrotum. A genuine Latino scrotum.
tully, I wouldn't know and I wouldn't care. Maybe someone is glad that you would, but I really don't care.
The views of the founders of this great country are much closer to my views than your views.
a) Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution (you may have heard of it) specifically delegates to the legislature of the US the power "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization." This is an enumerated power of the US, right up there with printing money, signing treaties, and waging war. Subsequent court decisions have held that the power to regulate naturalization necessarily implies the power to regulate immigration, since one has to get here first in order to be naturalized. And though this power is not specifically prohibited to the States by Article 1 Section 10, the fact that a "Rule of Naturalization" is specifically referred to as "uniform" means that it didn't need to be.
b) While we're on the Founders, I feel fairly confident in asserting that the Americans of the 18th century would find the concept that any person would require the permission of the federal government to work to be rather strange, indeed. Particularly as the Census didn't even start asking about country of birth until 1850.
But actually, I didn't come here to make a constitutional argument about whether the the state can do this (because we all know no one in government gives a shit about that anymore), but rather that it's really dumb, short-sighted policy for the reasons I outlined in my first comment.
Brian, thanks for making my point. If you are not naturalized by the federal government you have no right to reside in any state and each state can determine how they might or might not enforce and prosecute such illegal activity.
"the reasons I outlined in my first comment"
Already fisked that.
Next.
"(because we all know no one in government gives a shit about that anymore)"
True, they just changed "regulate interstate commerce" to "mandate commerce".
Mandate commerce... that's a lot like enforced charity i think.
Hmmm, fair point, RW.
But this is about the recent legislation that gives the federal government the power to mandate commerce. i.e. By law you MUST buy my widget or a competitors widget.
Now I realize the constitution does in fact give the federal government the responsibility to "regulate interstate commerce" but nowhere does the constitution give the federal government the power to "mandate commerce".
I'm being a victim of forced eating, I think. Or culinary coercion. Maybe it's bull shitting. Or cocker spanielling.
Or maybe you just do a good job at playing Monty Python when you know you have been bested.
"Run away, run away..."
Brave, brave sir RW?
huh?
I don't have time to explain it to you right now and you probably still wouldn't understand. Remind me tomorrow; maybe I will have some time to inform you.
ok chief! :-)
I am a native North American, but you need not call me "chief"; your admittance that you are wrong and uninformed is quite enough. ;^)
My offer still applies.
Post a Comment