President Obama Says Arizona’s “Poorly-Conceived” Immigration Law Could Mean Hispanic-Americans Are Harassed

So, Obama is counting on police officers to once again act “stupidly”?
I thought he was a constitutional lawyer. If so, he would know AZ, as a state, is simply enforcing the Federal law.

Mr. Obama is shamelessly throwing kindling on racial tensions hoping for a spark. He will be the blame if things go badly.
Why is the left is so blind to the plight of legal US residents besieged by a virtual invasion of illegal aliens?
Why don’t they understand that indifference to enforcement of one law engenders indifference to other laws?

Obama is dividing this country. When are you liberals going to wake up and realize this man is a fraud?

I am in favor of the law arizona governor signed at least the state of arizona has the gumption to do something the federal government won’t do why don’t we release every prisioner in this country as they were incarcerated for breaking A LAW!!!!
WAY TO GO ARIZONA

Would one of you journalist just tell the Scolder-in-Chief to just shut the “he**” up?
Nobody give a darn what he or hisfellow criminal Democrats think.
They are NOT going to get those 30 million foreign illegals to swamp the voter rolls to save their sorry behinds from the millions of actual AMERICANS whom they have screwed for the last time.

Plan to vacation in Arizona…AND….Spend alot of money…

Pathetic! how about protecting the citizens of this country instead of worrying so much about Illegals. Nowhere in the bill does it encourage “racial profiling”

Another blow for immigrants. Funny if Indians had passed such a law way back then…I can see this going out of hands…We “Americans” forget that we are all immigrants as well. Let this people live.

The President watches out for the rights of the individual over the government and the right wing attacks – interesting. What a bunch of phonies.

The President watches out for the rights of the individual over the government
_________________________________
Tell that to the individuals in AZ who have been terrorized by the unchecked border. What about Mr. Krentz the rancher were his individual rights being protected?

Tell that to the individuals in AZ who have been terrorized by the unchecked border. What about Mr. Krentz the rancher were his individual rights being protected?
Posted by: obieone40 | Apr 27, 2010 8:40:11 PM
_______________________________________
I’m sure Mr. Krentz’s rights were protected. Are there killers in the world – yes there are.
Surprising how quickly the right wing drops individual rights and gives them to the government when they get a little scared. Cowards. Stand up for individual rights – except when its the ‘other’ people. Creepy. Thats’ the way totalitarianism creeps in.

“Stand up for individual rights – except when its the ‘other’ people. Creepy. Thats’ the way totalitarianism creeps in.” – tierraq
Give it a rest tierra.
You are way off base on this one.

“Poorly conceived immigration laws might lead to Hispanics being harrased”
Poorly enforced immigration laws has led to death, drugs and kidnapping.
So we can’t enforce laws because it “might” lead to someone getting asked a question they take offense to and we are willing to overlook crimes of every kind being committed because it might hurt someones feelings?
Come on Mr. President, quit the race stuff and do what is right for the citizens of this country.

Obama takes side with those who break
the law rather than live within the rules.
He should know, he surrounds himself with
alot of people who think the law only
applies to other people, not them. Obama
is using the Hispanic community for
political purposes and will kick them
to the curb when he gets what he wants.
He is a fake and a fraud.

i strongly disagree with all of you guys!!!! they are human beings just like you and me. Also, they pay taxes!!! and yeah, there is violence everywhere you go so stop complaining!!! another point that i want to make is that this law that was passed in Arizona is just plain rasit!!!

70% of those that live in Arizona are in favor of the new law. They deal with it on a daily basis.

First, these illegals DO NOT pay taxes. I assume their incomes aretoo low for that and if not then they are taking good paying jobs from legal citizens. The illegals do cost the country money when their kids go to schools, they go to hospitals for treatment or cops need to police them. What they get from us is more than they put in.
But why should liberals care about that. They will just advocate more taxes on the top 1% to take care of the rest world in addition to them.
A country with no borders is not a country.

First, these illegals DO NOT pay taxes. I assume their incomes aretoo low for that and if not then they are taking good paying jobs from legal citizens.
PrinceOfSnides | Apr 27, 2010 9:28:57 PM
Your arm chair analysis is laughably wrong. Most illegals use fake social security numbers – so they pay in social security and medicare taxes, yet will never pull out a single cent of benefits. Plus they pay local taxes, like sales tax and property tax via their rents.
Illegal immigrants need to be dealt with, but putting forward such obvious falsehoods hurts your side of the debate.

Why does the left always ascribe base motives to those with whom they disagree? It is entirely consistent to be sympathetic with the casual immigration violator and at the same time realize it is very important to enforce immigration laws.
I for one am happy we are not like Japan with no immigrants. I am also happy we are not like Europe, whose immigrants are antithetical to their value system and way of life.
We are very fortunate that the country to the south has values much like our own.
I would not be unhappy if Mexico was moved to the top of the list for legal immigration.
But the law should be enforced, for one and for all.
It is really the left that are racist… they want the law ignored on a basis of race…
The funny thing is that the legal Hispanic community has as much, if not more to lose because of total abdication of responsibility by Mr. Obama and his mignons. Their emergency rooms are overcrowded, their wages are depressed, their communities are unsafe, their schools are stretched, their tax dollars are misspent.
We haven’t seen the poll that shows the legal Hispanic population of Arizona opposes this law. I wonder if maybe they support it like other Arizonans.
As for the one sheriff who says he won’t enforce the law… there are how many counties and how many sheriffs in Arizona? His county is mostly along the Mexican/US border. Was the Rancher that was murdered from his county? Why does ABC choose his county to highlight? I wonder if he will win re-election?

so they pay in social security and medicare taxes, yet will never pull out a single cent of benefits.
Posted by: jhw539 | Apr 27, 2010 9:35:37 PM
Not so fast… the beneficent US Government has procedures in place for people to receive social security benefits for work they performed under a social security number not their own. In addition there is a treaty with Mexico so that repatriated citizens can draw benefits from Uncle Sam. In addition, they can file for and receive “earned income” tax credits which result in a “refund” even though they paid no income taxes. It’s good to work in the US…

I think the President needs to see what it looks like from an AZ resident before he starts passing judgement on what he thinks are “ill-conceived” laws. What an arrogant response to something that the majority of people living in this State want.
It’s a question of federalist vs. states rights…time to stand up!

I love this law, it is separating the “Republicans” from the conservatives. Meg Whitman in Calif waffled, as did her supposedly conservative opponent. Finally we can see who is who. Artful language will no longer serve to camouflage and obfuscate. By their fruit you shall know them!
I think the jig is up. Look to the laws just passed in Oklahoma over a leftist governor’s veto reasserting an unborn baby’s right to live. I think the American people have had it with the liberal lies and deceptions.
It will soon be morning in America, again…

It will soon be morning in America, again…
Posted by: Quo Warranto | Apr 27, 2010 10:00:39 PM
___________________________________
It happens every day . .. we don’t need the right wing to predict morning . . . talk about arrogance.

Defense is government’s duty while health-care system is not government’s business at all. The world may be upside-down in our president’s view. I am sad.
Koyaanisqatsi | Apr 27, 2010 10:03:39 PM
President Obama increased the funding for immigration enforcement (deportation and defense of the border) by almost $2 billion last budget. He recently had quotas set for the minimum number of deportations each federal immigration officer must meet to increase enforcement (and took flak from the left for doing so). Based on the documented facts, this administration is doing more than any in a generation to secure the borders. But again, that’s just verifiable reality.

President Obama increased the funding for immigration enforcement (deportation and defense of the border) by almost $2 billion last budget. He recently had quotas set for the minimum number of deportations each federal immigration officer must meet to increase enforcement (and took flak from the left for doing so). Based on the documented facts, this administration is doing more than any in a generation to secure the borders. But again, that’s just verifiable reality.
Posted by: jhw539 | Apr 27, 2010 10:23:09 PM
____________________________________
That couldn’t be true – if it doesn’t match the right wing’s preconceived attacks on the President how could it be true?

Illegal means not legal. Period.
Those who “invade” the U.S. when they cross the southern border illegally are illegal aliens. Period.
It is long past due for the Federal government to meaningfully secure the Southern border and stop illegal crossings. American Presidents for years have been derelict of duty; it is their primary duty to secure and protect the Nation’s borders.
It is foolish to think that those illegal immigrants are here to better our country. Rather, they are pandered to by business and government offering written materials in Spanish. They aren’t interested in assimilating into American culture. Rather, they’re here to continue their third-world culture here in the States, and degrade America.
Let’s finally stem the siege of Hispanics and Latinos. Enough is enough. If illegal border crossers cannot legally be shot with a bullet upon breach, a suggestion to citizens: shoot them with a camera. Post close up photos on the web, and email copies to INS and ICE.

He recently had quotas set for the minimum number of deportations each federal immigration officer must meet to increase enforcement…
Posted by: jhw539 | Apr 27, 2010 10:23:09 PM
A typical leftist approach to a problem… government mandates. I am as far right as you can get, but I would oppose this policy. It has a lot more potential for unjust outcomes than the mild law passed in Arizona.
Mr. Obama has a heavy hand…

President Obama increased the funding for immigration enforcement
__________________________________
Yes he threw money at it while suspending ICE raids on businesses. Today his DHS Napolitano stated the AZ border is the “most secure it’s ever been” and felt being even asked to answer if the border was even secure was an “unfair question”. Her job in his admin is to oversee security. If over a million people can get through the Tuscon area of the border alone (illegally) how could they stop others. They really are blind to it while people in AZ suffer from more than being asked for papers.

Just when we were getting worried the Republicans might make big gains in November some of their state level officials go berserk and legislate ethnic profiling….broadcasting to the entire nation a grim reminder of how far to the loony right they’ve dragged the party. Talk about shooting themselves in the foot! -The right-wing fringe; the gift that keeps on giving.

Oh! Here’s a better plan!
Jan. 7, 2004
WASHINGTON – President Bush called for a major overhaul of America’s immigration system Wednesday to grant legal status to millions of undocumented workers in the United States, saying the current program was not working.
“Out of common sense and fairness, our laws should allow willing workers to enter our country and fill jobs that Americans are not filling,” the president said in an address in the East Room to members of Congress, his Cabinet and immigrant advocacy groups.

Our President shouldn’t be so quick to criticize AZ and fulfill his duty as our president and provide a solution to this problem.
jdink | Apr 27, 2010 10:43:20 PM
He has increased federal enforcement dollars by almost $2 billion and instituted minimum deportation quotas on federal immigration officials to put greater emphasis on enforcement (and took considerable flak from the far left for doing so). The President is doing his job, more than any prior administration in a generation. It’s up to Congress to act.

How’s this? My son, a paramedic in Phoenix, responds to a call of 14 (yes, FOURTEEN) illegal immmigrants, none who speak English, no IDs, who were in a pickup that went off the road and rolled (alcohol was involved). Emergency crews from 4 different cities responed and there were 4 (FOUR) Medivac helicopters called in to evac four of them to hospitals. Now, do your own math on what it cost those cities, local hospitals and ambulance companies who provided the same emergency medical treatment to the illegal immmigrants that a US citizen would receive. How much of that cost do you think was written off or uncollectible? At probably $50-60,000 per heliccopter, that probabby cost several hundred thousand dollars alone. Illegal immigrants inflict a monetary toll on our social infrastructure that they do not help support

In the end, I suppose it doesn’t matter… the illegal immigrants may soon leave on their own. Considering the dept that Mr. Obama and the Democrats have laid on the American people, there is really no hope it will ever be paid, or even managed.
Keep an eye on Greece over the next several months, we are not far behind. The only hopes are drastic cuts in spending (yeah right!) or drastic inflation. The gravy train is at the terminus.
There is a huge tidal wave of debt cresting. It is about to crash down on the American economy. No one will escape the consequences, not one, not me, not you, and not the illegal immigrant.
Government programs will dry up, or at least be held at current levels, which in terms of inflated dollars, will be worthless. Wealth held in terms of dollars (401k, savings accounts, etc) will be greatly devalued. The quality of life will decline dramatically for all.
There will be general breakdown in civilization. Martial law is not out of the question, neither is a break up of the United States…
Do you doubt it? Look to history…
Interesting times are ahead… prepare now.

President Obama increased the funding for immigration enforcement
__________________________________
Yes he threw money at it while suspending ICE raids on businesses.
obieone40 | Apr 27, 2010 10:37:48 PM
This is just not true.
“Just up the road in Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties in Maryland, Janet Napolitano’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were conducting immigration raids on two restaurants and rounding up immigrants at their homes.” March 13th 2010
“TUCSON – Leaders from the Derechos Humanos Coalition took to the streets of Downtown Tucson to protest the raids.
Demonstrators held banners, demanding answers from the Obama Administration as to why these raids were allowed.” Apr 16th 2010
“Immigration officials arrested 28 illegal workers at Yamato Engine Specialists in Bellingham, Wa. on Tuesday.” Feb 25th 2009

Tierra: America consumes? 80% of the worlds resources?
I guess your solution is to give them all of the water from the Colorado river. The problem with giving all of what we have is that the world depends on us to produce food.
We need solutions that fix the poverty in the countries from which these people are fleeing. We also have to get them to stop coming here. We are a life boat for the world. If everyone gets in we will sink. They need us to produce more boats, not get in our boat.

80% of the worlds resources?
Posted by: tierra | Apr 27, 2010 10:59:15 PM
We consume what we pay for… and we give so much more in return. Europe can afford (temporarily) their social programs because America provides for their defense, and has do for fifty years… like wise Japan and many other countries. We provide food for many, without America, there would be mass famines. We provide medical cures and and many other marvels of science. We provide charity (like Mr. Bush’s 100 Billion for Aids in Africa). We created the Internet so you could air your opinions.
Most importantly, we provide an example of what a free people can achieve…
But being dragged down by Democrat profligacy, that may soon be no more. We cannot survive the complete financial irresponsibility of Mr. Obama and the Democrats (not to mention the Republicans).
What will follow…?

jhw539 | Apr 27, 2010 11:03:52 PM
And the solution is not to shred 4th amendment protections for LEGAL CITIZENS.
The legal citizens of Arizona want the law by 70 to 30.
A good way to avoid trampling on the 4th or 1st amendment is to build a fence. Unfortunately our politicians have sold us out to special interests.
The fence works well in Israel.
Above all of that we need to make Mexico a better place to live. The reason we have an invasion of immigrants is that Mexico is corrupt.
The Mexican people are hard working and fit in with our culture. We know if given an opportunity in Mexico to succeed, they would take it. My goodness, they are willing to risk their lives to come here.

Cute.
Posted by: tierra | Apr 27, 2010 11:11:53 PM
I think you must be talking about the people you know, I don’t know them, nor would I…

If you’re not aware, then you’re not aware – and that leaves
Posted by: tierra | Apr 27, 2010 11:20:13 PM
You may be talking about the people riding in the wagon. I hang out with people pulling it…

What is Hugo Chavez’s line?

“That’s not the right way to go,” the president said to the crowd at Indian Hills Community College.”
.
Wow… oBama and his politicized Justice Department are more worried about ILLEGAL ALIENS in this country than legal AMERICAN CITIZENS.
.
But, there is a solution. For every illegal alien that we are forced to accept (and support), we send Mexico a liberal. Pretty soon Mexico will get the message loud and clear and THEY will be the ones trying to protect their country against the “invaders”.

Wow… oBama and his politicized Justice Department are more worried about ILLEGAL ALIENS in this country t
gk | Apr 27, 2010 11:28:56 PM
Yes, Obama is worried about them. That’s why he recently set a minimum quota on the number of deportations each federal immigration agent completes to increase enforcement. And boosted enforcement funding by almost $2 billion in the last year. And continues workplace raids and deportations.
The documented, verifiable facts are that this administration is doing more than the last to reduce the problem of illegal immigration.

Posted by: welldirected | Apr 27, 2010 11:25:29 PM
I have to admit I can’t for the life of me figure out how pointing out that a thousand mile long wall will be very very expensive makes one a racist…

Ever been to another country? We are by far the leaders in caring for our environment and in having a clean and healthy place to live.
____________________________________
Nonsense. America wastes more resources than any other country in the world – has for years.

The President is trying to protect legal AMERICAN CITIZENS from unconstitutional searches by the police state.
Posted by: tierra | Apr 27, 2010 11:34:09 PM
Mr. Obama does not care a whit about American Citizens… he cares only about inhabitants of his social utopia.
The guy who would not wear an American flag lapel pin during his early campaign now will not appear without at least eight American flags in the background.
It is not America he cares about, he views himself as a citizen of the world, and maybe someday President of the World.
He sees an opportunity to exploit this situation to prevent total defeat and collapse in November 2010, and perhaps in November 2012.

“oBama and his politicized Justice Department are more worried about ILLEGAL ALIENS in this country than legal AMERICAN CITIZENS”
No, they’re concerned about American citizens getting harassed because a police officer thinks they look like an illegal alien. but we didn’t expect you to get that right.
“But, there is a solution. For every illegal alien that we are forced to accept (and support), we send Mexico a liberal”
Who is “we”. Nobody is sending any liberals I know anywhere.

“Mr. Obama does not care a whit about American Citizens… he cares only about inhabitants of his social utopia”
-Who happen to be….American citizens.

My wife used to have a “Green Card” before she renounced all foreign potentates.
____________________________________
You don’t have a “Green Card” if you’re a legal American citizen being stopped by police – as being ‘suspicious’ – because you’re hispanic looking.
Again, you presume.

Posted by: Quo Warranto | Apr 27, 2010 11:56:38 PM
Every environmental advance in the country has been led by environmentalists and liberals – with a smattering of intelligent conservatives thrown in – the remainder fighting every effort because they were too hung up on the ‘freedom’ to make money ‘any way we want’ and their obsession with maintaining the status quo at any cost.
That is still the case now.

-Who happen to be….American citizens.
Posted by: Skip | Apr 27, 2010 11:56:32 PM
And illegal aliens, and he makes no distinction between the two.
He doesn’t care a whit about the fourth amendment, or any other… as he has very clearly stated… he views the constitution as a list of “negative liberties”, enumerating what the government can’t do to you. He would prefer to morph it into a list of things the government must do for you.
God help us all…

Which is why the try to undermine environmental legislation every chance they get.
Posted by: Skip | Apr 28, 2010 12:02:10 AM
Actually conservatives support real environmental legislation at every turn. What conservatives resist is idiotic leftist excesses with will do nothing for the environment but totally diminish the people living in it.
Silly dolts, leftists don’t realize that if their plans work out and the American economy is driven back to the stone age, no one will care a whit about the environment. Survival will be the word of the day.

Silly dolts, leftists don’t realize that if their plans work out and the American economy is driven back to the stone age, no one will care a whit about the environment. Survival will be the word of the day.
Posted by: Quo Warranto | Apr 28, 2010 12:08:57 AM
______________________________________
Same excuse (the economy) that’s been used by the right for decades to oppose any environmental legislation.
Thank God for the environmentalists and the liberals or nothing would get done in terms of toxic pollution, clean rivers, the global environment .. and so on.

You missed the point jcrue – the President is attempting to protect LEGAL American citizens being treated as ‘suspicious’ by the police state.
This protection extends to ALL citizens, not just some. Posted by: tierra
*********
Roadblocks are set up for DUI checkpoints. We are legal citizens being treated as ‘suspicious’ by the police state. I have no problem with it, nor would

Roadblocks are set up for DUI checkpoints. We are legal citizens being treated as ‘suspicious’ by the police state. I have no problem with it, nor would
Posted by: wheresmymoney | Apr 28, 2010 12:20:21 AM
Actually, several California towns have suspended DUI checkpoints. The problem is that when they stopped an illegal alien and he had not driver’s license, they had to impound his car.
So naturally the liberal town fathers concluded that it they should suspend the DUI checkpoint to avoid unhorsing illegal aliens who needed their cars to get to work…
Make any sense to you…? I’m sure tierra would understand.

Posted by: Quo Warranto | Apr 28, 2010 12:25:31 AM
*********
Nothing surprises me anymore when it’s California. I am glad I don’t live there!

Actually, several California towns have suspended DUI checkpoints. The problem is that when they stopped an illegal alien and he had not driver’s license, they had to impound his car.
So naturally the liberal town fathers concluded that it they should suspend the DUI checkpoint to avoid unhorsing illegal aliens who needed their cars to get to work…
Posted by: Quo Warranto | Apr 28, 2010 12:25:31 AM
_____________________________
Because now you just seem to be making stuff up.
Where’s your source and date for this?

What I said… in the realm of Maslow, no one will care about the environment…
Posted by: Quo Warranto | Apr 28, 2010 12:32:53 AM
____________________________________
Again, you show your foolishness. Drinkable water is primary. You live in a fantasy world.

ocaine used by the Reagan administration to raise money for weapons and support for the contras – bad business.
Posted by: tierra | Apr 28, 2010 12:21:26 AM
______________________________________
If the prohibition of the drug was the cause of the uneven distribution of wealth and the corruption of the society, the drug should have been free and available at Walgreens. Then the price will go down to the competitive level. The exorbitant underground price will collapse.
Then, good thing is that the terminally ill patients won’t unnecessarily suffer to purchase pain control. And, hope that the drug cartel members will find better careers.

Quo Warranto where’s your source and date for this?
Posted by: tierra | Apr 28, 2010 12:35:09 AM
_______________________________________
I can totally understand why you didn’t post either a date or a source . ..
I’d be embarrassed too . ..

What federal law says that anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant can have their papers demanded with failure to comply resulting in arrest?
Posted by: Ryan C | Apr 27, 2010 7:15:48 PM
Which is a good thing because the Arizona law says, the law enforcement officer must already have detained an individual because he or she has violated some other law.
So the statement:
“But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen.”
won’t happen unless some law is first broken. This statement therefore is – not surprisingly – a gross misinterpretation of the actual law.

Plan to vacation in Arizona…AND….Spend alot of money…
Posted by: Parallex View | Apr 27, 2010 8:07:33 PM
I hear there are plenty of golf courses – and fees are ‘half price’ in the summertime!

Doesn’t resumption mean they were stopped?
Really, tierra!
Posted by: Quo Warranto | Apr 28, 2010 1:27:49 AM
____________________________________
Hahaha . .. you’re quoting right wing blogs about a story that (apparently) happened in 2004 for 2 weeks . ..
THAT IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO?
I can totally understand why you couldn’t name a source or a date.
Sad.

Which is a good thing because the Arizona law says, the law enforcement officer must already have detained an individual because he or she has violated some other law.
Posted by: For the Record | Apr 28, 2010 1:33:25 AM
_____________________________________
No it doesn’t . . .
The Arizona law as written states that “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
It says nothing about the person having already violated some other law.

Ironically, they had a swearing in ceremony today in Arizona where about 20 people became citizens. Many of them have lived here 15 or more years – legally.

those kind of things the government ‘must do’ for you?
Posted by: tierra | Apr 28, 2010 12:09:31 AM
Thank God we don’t have the Patriot Act anymore…

It was pointed out its’ too expensive to build, too expensive to maintain and has to be defended like the wall of jail, otherwise it can be fairly easily circumvented with something as simple as a rope
Posted by: tierra | Apr 28, 2010 12:04:26 AM
So we take all our junk cars down to the border, bury them vertically to form a wall, spread broken glass and razor wire along the US side for about 1000 yards, then add another row of vertical junk cars. If anyone can get past that, they automatically get a green card.
That’ll work…

Posted by: For the Record | Apr 28, 2010 1:59:33 AM
“That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law”.
If that is what the law is meant to say, then it should say it – as far as I’m concerned.
It doesn’t. What was the problem – they didn’t want to use 3 additional words – too difficult?

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the main U.S. counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.
Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:
—Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
—Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
—Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

If that is what the law is meant to say, then it should say it – as far as I’m concerned.
It doesn’t. What was the problem – they didn’t want to use 3 additional words – too difficult?
Posted by: tierra | Apr 28, 2010 2:05:40 AM
Well, for one thing keep in mind that the complete bill sets the law – not just a few words. Like these:
“This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.”
“rights of all persons” – if they screw up I’m sure that there will be plenty of lawsuits. If it is implemented properly, maybe it will help solve some issues. You have to remember that the majority of the citizens were not keen on the idea of a sanctuary city and the Phoenix mayor made THAT decision.
The rights of the citizens of the State have been ignored by the Federal government. Property owners near the border have suffered for years over this issue. The State is protecting it’s citizens. Arizona has put it’s State’s reputation on the line. 70% of the people approve of the bill. It’s their choice.

And you can’t imagine that happening right For The Record?
Posted by: tierra | Apr 28, 2010 2:13:59 AM
The sentence is carefully constructed. Ambiguous enough yet infers that for no reason at all, someone will demand to see your papers while you’re eating ice cream with your kids.
But I’ve heard and read enough of him to realize that can be his style when he wants to turn it on. I just think it’s poor form for THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES who is supposed to be our leader.

“The president said he would push for comprehensive immigration reform ‘so that we don’t have either the kind of bad laws that you see in Arizona, or alternatively we’ve got half a million illegal folks coming into Arizona without any control.’”
Of course, no mention of controlling the border. Amnesty 2.0 is what any good liberal wants. Then we can have Amnesty 3.0 ten years from now, garner some more liberal votes while painting some other group as the bad guys and so on and so on.
It’s all about votes and liberal politicians could care less about the actual people involved. They are simply a different set of pawns in the big game.

I’ll close with this (from above):
“provide clear guidance to law enforcement officials regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and shall make clear that an individual’s race, color or national origin alone cannot be ground for reasonable suspicion to believe any law has been violated.”
I’m sure that Arizona law enforcement is some of the best in the country. I think the country will be surprised as to the great care taken not to violate this law.

We are the only country in the world that allows people to cross into this country. Do it in China and Iran and see what happens. Send them all back and save $488 Billion a year.

The point is you can’t imagine being hispanic and being out with your kids for ice cream and a cop harassing you for your papers.
Posted by: tierra
—
Oh, well.

I think it makes sense to only allow people into the country legally. They should have the means to sustain themselves economically, should not destined to be burdens on society, should offer economic and social benefit to society, be of good character and have no criminal records; and be contributors to the general well-being of the nation. And it should be strictly enforced.

“Which part of illegally isn’t a crime?”
Being here illegally is not a crime. It bugs me no end but it is true.

The point is you can’t imagine being hispanic and being out with your kids for ice cream and a cop harassing you for your papers.
The point should be that you cannot imagine being a tax paying, hard working US citizen who is gunned down by drug gangs coming over the border, illegally, to sell their drugs.

“Obama is a Social Activist not a President.”
Posted by: Noz | Apr 28, 2010 8:39:27 AM
Good thing our Demagogue-in-Chief is out there blabbing about Arizona’s law before his own Justice Department has even reviewed the law. He is just as well informed about this topic as he was when he declared that the Cambridge, Mass police “acted stupidly” when they arrested that loud-mouthed professor.

By agitator in chief, do you Demagogue in Chief do you mean Karl Rove?
——
oops, By agitator in chief and Demagogue in Chief do you mean Karl Rove?

When we travel outside this country, we have to have my passport at all times. If we are asked for it, we show it and move on. IT IS NOT HARASSMENT!
———-
And yet you disregard that nearly 1 of 3 Arizonans are Hispanic, and some have ancestors who have lived there since before it was a state. They’re not traveling. They’re home. Perhaps, the key is that everyone who has ancestors who immigrated here sometime in the past 200 years should have to carry around papers, and prove they’re citizens at random– or while shopping– or at the doctor’s office– or wherever.

And you disregard the citizens that are being KILLED by illegals. And so does the President.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | Apr 28, 2010 9:50:33 AM
Except that neither of us do– you’re just blathering because your post was ill-conceived. lol.

There are better ways to address it.
Posted by: progressive mama
******
But no one is, which is why Arizona did what they needed to do. 70% of the people of Arizona are in favor of this law.

70% of the people of Arizona are in favor of this law.
Posted by: wheresmymoney | Apr 28, 2010 10:03:16 AM
And if 70% were in favor of other things that were unconstitutional and were nearly certain to strain the state further and wedge police officers further into that spot between a rock and a hard place?

“70% of the people of Arizona are in favor of this law.”
73%, white support
50% black support
63% other
key word- OTHER. Guess who that would be in Arizona?

“Btw, people are also being killed by legal citizens.”
I see. So that makes it acceptable to be killed by illegals. Interesting moral equivalence on display here.

And if 70% were in favor of other things that were unconstitutional and were nearly certain to strain the state further and wedge police officers further into that spot between a rock and a hard place?
Posted by: progressive mama |
**********
It has yet to be decided if this is unconstitutional. President Obama is looking into the legalities of it, and so far (I think) nothing has been determined. If there was a determination, no doubt he would be holding a “special news conference” on it.

“Its clear the border and illegal immigration are a huge strain on the state, and other border states, and that something productive and effective must be done. Arizonans are frustrated and want action. However, that doesn’t change the issues surrounding this law.”
Can you clearly and lucidly explain what the “issues” are “surrounding this law”?

“But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed”
This story (referenced in prior post last night) is somewhat ironic given Obama’s comments:
Associated Press February 23rd, 2010
Man convicted in 3 deaths at Colo. ice cream shop
CENTENNIAL, Colo. — An ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT was CONVICTED Tuesday in a crash that KILLED three people, including a 3-YEAR-OLD BOY inside an ICE CREAM SHOP.
Jurors found Francis Hernandez, 25, of Guatemala guilty of vehicular homicide and other charges.
Prosecutors said Hernandez was driving an SUV at TWICE THE SPEED LIMITwhen it crashed into a pickup truck, which in turn crashed into an ice cream store in the east Denver suburb of Aurora in September 2008.
The case sparked calls for immigration reform after Hernandez AVOIDED DEPORTATION DESPITE A DOZEN PRIOR ARRESTS IN COLORADO. Authorities said he used 12 aliases and two dates of birth to slip under the radar of immigration officials.
Killed in the crash were Marten Kudlis, who was inside the shop with his mother; Patricia Guntharp, 49, who was driving the truck; and her passenger Debra Serecky, 52.
================================
By all means, let’s protect the “rights” of illegal immigrants at the expense of the safety of U.S. citizens. /s

“Let me take a wild stab on what will happen—- you all will start complaining about it once you have Democrat governors and senators in Arizona, right? Then, all of a sudden the law will be intrusive, right? lol
Logical consistency isn’t a strong point on the right…”
There’s name for this sort of mindlessness. Make the straw argument and then insult it. It’s called Obamatism.

“constitutionality (courts have rebuffed state efforts through pre-emption in the past)”
You might want to investigate how many times the state has prevailed in issues like this. You’re not going to like it.

It has yet to be decided if this is unconstitutional. President Obama is looking into the legalities of it, and so far (I think) nothing has been determined.
—-
We’ll see. The word “solely” is problematic.

“Let’s just say, it won’t surprise me at all, and when it happens, my Republican-leaning friends will say, well, der, okay, you predicted our very predictable behavior yet again— b.b.b.ut…. (insert whatever the excuse is; it’ll be something that is once again logically inconsistent.)”
OK, that’s better. We’ll just chalk it up to your being logically inconsistent.

“Read up.”
Huh. Well, you conveniently left out that the part in the law that states that there must be “lawful” contact:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
Also, the Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person (this has been a federal crime for more than half a century — U.S.C. 1304(e)).
This talk from the Obamaites (and from Obama himself) that Hispanics who have lived in the U.S. for “hundreds of years” will be profiled is absolutely false, disingenuous, and politically motivated. It is also pathetic and indicates a true sign of desperation from Obama and his sheep.

The “show me your papers” meme is farcical and purposely inflammatory. The “papers” aren’t papers at all. It’s a card, the same size as a license or ID. Do you carry your license in your wallet when you get in your car? Do you take a wallet with you when you go into an “ice cream store,” you know, to pay for the ice cream? When was the last time you saw a police officer patrolling an ice cream store?
And for those of you whose forebears emigrated to this country in the early 20th century, take a look at the ship’s manifest or the Ellis Island records. They had to declare whether or not they were anarchists. They had to list a sponsor, the sponsor’s address, what the immigrant’s trade or skill was, their age, their height and more. Now those were papers. And they were coming here LEGALLY. It has become socially acceptable among the liberal/leftist sect in this country, including the current occupant of the WH, to use the all-purpose bigotry and racism accusations whenever good, decent people of whatever ethnicity or race push back against the attempt to abrogate their rights and redistribute them. What a divisive administration this is. Sarah Palin looks better and better every day. I can see November from my house, 2010 and 2012, and it looks fabulous.

“I can see November from my house, 2010 and 2012, and it looks fabulous.”
Agreed – Outstanding.

Noz, it is just silly to claim illegals are voting in our country.
As a liberal, I’m actually for this bill as long as they are not profiling people but asking everyone to see their license or i.d. in a situation where some other law has been broken. But if police abuse it by questioning anyone they come across, that is taking it too far.
Let’s face it, with so many millions of illegal people here, any way we deal with the problem has to have a slow, but steadily increasing enforcement angle. Otherwise the sheer numbers will overwhelm police stations, etc.
We simply must pass a law a.s.a.p. increasing fines exponentially for those who hire illegals. If you dry up the jobs, you discourage more from coming here, as well as help our economy by the increase in employment of Americans.
I agree with the comments about not going anywhere without i.d. I absolutely never leave the house without my photo license and insurance card, otherwise I risk substandard care in the event of an accident. Even my kids know to have their school i.d. and insurance card with them. How else will the hospital know who you are in the event you are unconscious? Everyone I know has i.d. on them when they leave home. It is a safety issue that we all need to follow anyway.

Obama isn’t giving any credit to the police officers – why does he assume that they will profile? I bet he hasn’t even read the full bill. Everywhere we go we’re asked to produce our drivers license. Bank, doctor’s office, DMV. We have to prove citizenship for employment, licenses, gun ownership. This isn’t asking too much.

Posted by: Lydia | Apr 28, 2010 12:11:38 PM
Lydia,
It is extremely rare that I agree with a self-identified liberal, but I applaud your well-thought and honest post. You are spot on. There is hope the right and left can find some common ground.
Another thought: Why isn’t Obama promoting more aggressive action on employers who employ undocumented workers? By demeaning the AZ law he is addressing a response/outcome rather than a root cause of the larger issue: Half a million illegal immigrants in the state of AZ (and millions more beyond).

Why isn’t Obama promoting more aggressive action on employers who employ undocumented workers?
__________________________________
jhw posted a bunch of clips yesterday from newspaper articles documenting exactly that – crack downs on companies employing illegal immigrants from the Obama administration.

“This talk from the Obamaites (and from Obama himself) that Hispanics who have lived in the U.S. for “hundreds of years” will be profiled is absolutely false”
The largest Spanish language newspaper in the country has called for a boycott of Arizona as has a Congressman from AZ.
The right wing just gave Hispanic voters a good reason to go to the polls.
Will it go from a 2 to 1 margin for Democrats to a 3 to 1 margin?
What would a 10% increase in Hispanic voter turnout do to the GOP’s chances if they lose those voters at a 3 to 1 clip?

tierra, while I usually agree with you, I don’t on this issue. This is a matter of national security as the drug wars are spilling over our borders.
_____________________________________
Couldn’t agree more – the ‘war on drugs’ was and still is a disaster, it’s made some very nasty people very rich and has caused uncounted death.
It also allowed nonsense such as the Reagan administration cocaine for contras atrocity – where cocaine was smuggled into the United States to raise money to finance the Contras and their death squads – bad business, bad example to set.

tip612, I like to think almost any problem we have could be figured out if people stopped name-calling, looking for scapegoats and just sat down and figured it out. I’ve noticed on the job, when bosses and workers didn’t work against each other but approached work as a ‘team sport’ progress it made. Not to sound sexist but men and women in general think a bit differently, so I think any group making decisions needs both sexes and a variety of ages for the same reason.
We do have to remember we are on the same team, no matter our political affiliation. And we must look for solutions to any problem that have long term benefits, even at the expense of short term ones.
If the problem of extreme poverty in Mexico was addressed directly, for instance, as well as why so many Americans use drugs, ‘employing’ the drug cartels, we could make progress on the two huge problems of illegal immigration and the drug wars.

A man (woman) comes to America to work in order to support a family AND pays their fair share in taxes to support the very services they use; roads, schools,…NO PROBLEM…HOWEVER…that is NOT what is happening here…The crime rate, at the hands of those taking advantage of our system, is truly increasing at an alarming rate and with jobs decreasing a man/woman will do just about anything to provide for his or her family, just human nature….LIKE IT OR NOT…IT’S GOT TO BE STOPPED AND SOME TYPE OF ORDER NEEDS TO BE RESTORED…FOR THE SAFETY AND WELL BEING OF ALL..

Michael Gerson at WaPo makes a good point in his piece called, A test of Arizona’s political character:
“Arizona’s new immigration law is understandable — and dreadful.
…Few Americans would happily tolerate living near a porous border with a failed state, or, in this case, a Mexican state that has failed in certain lawless regions. Portions of the border have descended into an arid state of nature — a vacuum of authority filled by drug gangs, human traffickers, roving vigilantes and desperate migrants who sometimes die in the desert or in drainage ditches. It is offensive to find such chaos under the American flag.
This is an argument for effective border enforcement….But chaos at the border is not an argument for states to take control of American immigration policy — an authority that Arizona has seized in order to abuse.
American states have broad powers. But they are not permitted their own foreign or immigration policy. One reason is that immigration law concerns not only the treatment of illegal immigrants but also the proper treatment of American citizens. And here the Arizona law fails badly.
Under the law, police must make a “reasonable attempt” to verify the immigration status of people they encounter when there is a “reasonable suspicion” they might be illegal. Those whose citizenship can’t be verified can be arrested. But how is such reasonable suspicion aroused? The law forbids the use of race or ethnicity as the “sole” basis for questioning. So what are the other telltale indicators?
…This law creates a suspect class, based in part on ethnicity, considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent”
And that last line is the bottom line.
Gerson adds, and this is also true: “It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny — but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command “Your papers, please,” however politely delivered. The distinctly American response to such a request would be “Go to hell,” and then “See you in court.” ‘

melvin polatnick, your attitude that extremely poor people will work for less doesn’t balance out with keeping our economy and country strong. Illegals are willing and able to work for less because, for instance, they will live 3 families to one rent. (This puts a great strain on our schools as the taxes can’t cover this kind of population density.) They get sick and burden our hospitals. They will work long hours without being paid overtime because they fear deportation or lack the education to know they should be provided with protective gear or suffer health consequences. (By your way of thinking, if they get sick from their working conditions, there is always another poor person to take their place.) Your way of thinking would eventually eliminate the middle class. Which leaves us re-making the U.S. into a third world country.
Try to understand, that giving an American the job instead of an illegal, means their fair share of taxes are paid into the system to provide for all we share, roads, hospitals and schools, etc. An unpatriotic, law-breaking employer will hire an illegal worker to profit at the expense of everyone else.

Posted by: tjp612 | Apr 28, 2010 11:06:13 AM
Define that tjp, particularly in the context of clarifying reasonable suspicion and “solely” when it comes to racial profiling.
Governor Brewer looked awfully flustered when trying to respond to questions about both…. (pssssst… they really ARE problems)
Those of you who worked yourself up into tizzies over supposed death panels and blow this off look extremely naive, imho (not to mention beyond caricature ridiculous when it comes to partisan hypocrisy.)

“Those of you who worked yourself up into tizzies over supposed death panels and blow this off look extremely naive, imho (not to mention beyond caricature ridiculous when it comes to partisan hypocrisy.)”
That’s because right wingers love a dictatorship, provided they are the dictator.

So to refute that you proceed to generalize the Hispanic voter?
Here are the facts, in 2004 Bush lost the Hispanic vote 55 to 44.
After the right wing showed its racist face during the 2005 immigration reform debates.
The Hispanic community reacted, voting for Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin in 2006 and 2008 with record turnout.
I hope you’re not stopped by some GOP poll watcher when you go to vote, even though your “i’m not one of those Hispanics” attitude won’t matter nearly as much as your skin color, no one should have to go through that.
Posted by: Ryan C | Apr 28, 2010 1:27:26 PM
Sizzling response.
Good on ya, Ryan C.
I keep reading these posts and thinking about a good blog post I read yesterday via a hat tip from Balloon Juice called, “Imagine if the Tea Party was Black” (Tim Wise). He talks about imagining if all the slurs against the president, carrying guns to rallies, speaking of the need for revolution and so on were done by patriotic/hatriotic African Americans– and you know, a former VP candidate that was an African American put targets with crosshairs on all Southern Republican conservatives and talked about death panels — and did Palin-like nutty stuff.
Its an anti-racist, provocative, thoughtful piece— he gets into some of the uglier stuff at various conservative blogs too– and then asks, “In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy?”
Good question, right? And while I haven’t thought of the spot-on analogy for this law, maybe someone else can come up with a good one.

“Are they race mongers too tjp?”
No, they are political panderers. Their statement is not accurate (“this new law can be abused by authorities to pull us over with mere “reasonable suspicion”.”). The law states that “lawful contact” (e.g., traffic stop, etc.) must be established prior to request for validation of legal status.
Guess what? Americans provide proof of identification many times a week to many requestors as diverse as hotels, police, pubs, etc.). When I was in college I would drive through an immigration checkpoint manned by Border Patrol agents during visits home from college. Was I offended? Did I feel I was being profiled? Not at all.

U.S. Drug Laws Fuel Illegal Immigration
the solution on my link
Arizona had no choice but to address the immigration issue. The U.S. does not regulate illicit drugs, so there are no numbers separating legal U.S. residents and undocumented workers from drug market workers. Now that AZ has decided to blame much of their drug crime statistics (kidnapping, murder, home invasion, drug smuggling, gun smugging, money laundering) on illegal immigration, they have the right to assume all undocumented workers are engaged in crime.

Imagine if 95% of white voters voted for a white presidential candidate running against a black candidate…(not hard – 95% of blacks voted for Obama…Care to wax eloquent about that fact?)
Posted by: tjp612 | Apr 28, 2010 1:57:05 PM
You’re pretending that hasn’t happened?
LOL, LOL, LOL.
Your naievete is almost cute– but be careful. People tend to take advantage of the gullible.
(you might want to check numbers of various elections– granted, if we’re talking presidential elections, we have to look at primaries versus general elections. hint: my aunt voted for Shirley Chisolm in 1972 if you want to start there.)
Also, what do you think the reax would be if the tea party were predominantly African American, or, for that matter, Mexican American, or Native American, or Muslim American? lol.

Look at the outsized reaction/outrage by the right over the New Black Panthers.
Posted by: Ryan C | Apr 28, 2010 2:09:08 PM
Exactly.

“Never happens when its all white people in the car.”
Really? So your experiences are reflective of everyone else’s, huh? It’s Ryan’s World and the rest of us are just happy to be here!

“Also, what do you think the reax would be if the tea party were predominantly African American, or, for that matter, Mexican American,”
We actually know the reaction.
See how the protest last weekend was portrayed in the right wing echochamber.

“Also, what do you think the reax would be if the tea party were predominantly African American, or, for that matter, Mexican American, or Native American, or Muslim American? lol.”
Well guess what – We have a very recent example on which we can draw:
- “Tea Party” demonstrators have been characterized (ad nauseum) by a vast swath of “mainstream media” and by Democratic leadership (e.g., Pelosi, Hoyer, Reid, etc.) as being “extremists”, “racists” and on the verge of inciting violence
- Hispanics demonstrating over the weekend had violent encounters with law enforcement which received little notice/attention from same media (including placement of Nazi swastika styled in refried beans smeared on Capitol). No calls of “restraint” heard from Obama/Democrats.
See the contradiction? Just where is the naiveté of which you speak?

See the contradiction? Just where is the naiveté of which you speak?
Posted by: tjp612 | Apr 28, 2010 2:24:16 PM
Were they carrying guns– and were they burning effigies– and did they put targets on Arizonan politicians? Did they spit on people?
Just curious if its an apt analogy, and if the protests have truly carried out to the tea party extreme? You claim so? And you stand by it? Or you saw the Fox coverage and you’re parroting it (lol)?

No really ProMa, I didn’t know.
So which one trumps which?
If you are a Hispanic but practice the Muslim religion then what type of American are you?
This PC stuff is sooooo hard to follow.

“Since I ‘m here on this ABC News Blog, out of respect I was using the 97% ABC News number.”
I’m looking at ABC”s exit poll and they have it at 95%.
So what number are you using?

ALL STATES SHOULD FOLLOW ARIZONA! Immigrants should go through the proper channels to become legal; otherwise, send them back to their homeland. This will be the first president to ever weaken the United States of America. President Obama uses his aggression and arrogance for his own agenda against the will of the American people when he should be using his will and aggression against our enemies. This is the most corrupt administration in American history. GOD HELP US ALL!

Posted by: OBAMA PROTECTS ILLEGALS — NOT AMERICANS. WHY? | Apr 28, 2010 2:42:42 PM
Actually the President’s comments were intended to express caution to ensure legal Americans are safeguarded against unconstitutional police actions.

I think it’s rather nice to hear someone say they don’t know something. I mean, I’m in the same boat, it’s tough keeping up with all the different forms of hyphenated Americans the PC crowd comes up with.
But answer me this, why am I not referred to as an Irish Catholic American? Or a European American? I guess my lobby isn’t as well funded.

“But answer me this, why am I not referred to as an Irish Catholic American? Or a European American? I guess my lobby isn’t as well funded.”
Because the lord knows that myself and my fellow Americans of Irish descent are loathe to celebrate our heritage.

“Were they carrying guns– and were they burning effigies– and did they put targets on Arizonan politicians? Did they spit on people?”
Posted by: progressive mama | Apr 28, 2010 2:30:42 PM
Didn’t see any guns (have not heard of any at Tea Parties either). There was pinata effigy of Sheriff Joe Arpaio that was beaten (have not heard similar at Tea Party). Did not hear of any spitting (none has been proven at any Tea Party events – unintentional “spittle” perhaps, targeted spitting, no). I did see water bottles being thrown at law enforcement in AZ (have not seen similar at Tea Party events).
Leftist double standards.

“Does it ever get tedious not knowing, not knowing, not knowing.” – ProMa
Nah, you pro/lib guys here make not knowing fun and exciting!
It’s sort of a Way-O-Life for certain individuals.
Now back to the __________ American Protocol™, what if your mama was a native indian and your daddy was Asian but you ate Eastern Indian food most of the time before going to Baptist services yet sometimes you visited a Jewish Synagogue with your best buddy Mosha? What’s the proper PC American name for that situation?
I’m tellin ya, this PC stuff is really hard.

Leftist double standards.
Posted by: tjp612 | Apr 28, 2010 3:54:52 PM
Rightist projection.
Its on the menu daily.
lol.

Great moments in GOP stupidity…
TPM “Would you support deportation of natural born American citizens that are the children of illegal aliens?” a man in the audience asked.
“I would have to, yes,” Rep Hunter (R-CA) said.”

“ryan c..So if I am to assume that any Statement presented by any ONE member of the Democratic Party that may be considered less than in intelligent nature then that statement is representative of ALL in the Democrate Party?”
Feel free to make fun of stupid things that Democrats say.

.DEBATE IS GOOD…..keeps our Country free….
Posted by: Parallex View | Apr 28, 2010 6:26:00 PM
Debate IS good– but so is pointing out when something is really stupid.

“hey ryan, no lets just leave the anchor babies here and deport the parents. fine by me.”
Those are American citizens.
They came about citizenship the exact same way you and I did.

Ryan C wrote:”Those are American citizens.
They came about citizenship the exact same way you and I did.”
.
Doubtful… your parents were probably here legally.

the most visible way to categorize is usually the way those who aren’t very discerning or bright go about it.
Posted by: progressive mama
—
The most visible categorization is usually correct. When one has to go “outside the box” to explain something they are almost always reaching for a way to avoid the simple, obvious, truth.
Drop the rightwinger, birther, crap and put this issue to a national referendum then analyze that vote. Give voters the option of offering a solution and analyze that. All done via secret ballot.
Would you be willing to accept the results?

smartlillena, progressives don’t respect the will of the majority as they know better than us.

The most visible categorization is usually correct.
___________
It racializes, and race is a human construct, a way of labeling, pigeonholing, creating “the other”– there’s a simple, obvious, truth.
Interesting tidbit:
“A new survey by the University of Washington Institute for the Study of Ethnicity, Race & Sexuality offers fresh insight into the racial attitudes of Tea Party sympathizers. “The data suggests that people who are Tea Party supporters have a higher probability” – 25 percent, to be exact – “of being racially resentful than those who are not Tea Party supporters,” says Christopher Parker, who directed the study. “The Tea Party is not just about politics and size of government. The data suggests it may also be about race.”
Surveyers asked respondents in California and a half dozen battleground states (like Michigan and Ohio) a series of questions that political scientists typically use to measure racial hostility. On each one, Tea Party backers expressed more resentment than the rest of the population, even when controlling for partisanship and ideology. ” (Arian Campo-Flores, Newsweek)
As for this: “Would you be willing to accept the results?”
Depends on the results. Occasionally, “the people” are led astray– for example, the founding fathers allowed slavery to continue in this country despite being in direct conflict with the principles of the Constitution. We also have a history that includes the genocide of American Indian tribe, Jim Crow laws, concentration camps for Japanese Americans and so on. Germans allowed atrocities to occur on their soil under Hitler.
I won’t ignore racism or pretend it doesn’t exist– or pretend that some aren’t obviously more prone to racial hostility than others.
In regards to this, “Drop the rightwinger, birther, crap and put this issue to a national referendum”, if you’re asking me to not call out birthers and rightwingers, I won’t do that either. I despise the ideology, fear and small-mindedness that motivates much of the rhetoric. I support the liberal principles our country was founded on, and I believe in progress– socially, technologically, scientifically and so on.

progressive,
Something tells me it all comes down to race with you when you are confronted by those who disagree with your liberal principles.

and they don’t understand the meaning of the word “illegal”.
Posted by: ConservativeWoman | Apr 29, 2010 6:06:04 AM
That’s quite a leap in logic. lol.
I actually agree with Mayor Bloomberg on the issue, see “Mayor Bloomberg slams Arizona’s anti-immigrant law: ‘We are committing national suicide’ (New York Daily News)

I also believe that you have a very skewed view of what our founding fathers believed in.
——-
And I don’t care what you believe as I think *your* view is skewed. So we’re at an impasse. lol.
———
“If you’re in common cause with maintaining the status quo”
No I’m not.
——-
Keep telling yourself that. If you vote for Republicans, many of us are able to tease that out and figure out with whom you’re in common cause and what that ultimately means. lol
I do agree that many mouth the rhetoric you include here, while doing things in direct conflict with that rhetoric. Hypocrites? Don’t know any better? Easily duped? All of the above?

mama,
I’m not interested in someone else’s opinion or interpretation of the tea party. I haven’t been to any tea party event although given the opportunity I would probably attend. I liked GWB because he was a straight shooter, but I didn’t like his governemnt expansion ways and his views on immigration.
Welfare, affirmative action, government subsidies of any kind and etc. coming from the federal government runs counter to what the founding fathers desired and set-up. They believed in a stronger local and state government held together by a central federal goverment. Democrat idealogy believes in a stronger federal gov’t. Yes Republicans have been bad at this too, but to me they usually pose the lesser of the two evils.
I’m pretty sure you pull lever for Democrats 100% of the time. Your ideas of what the goverment should provide are not in line with the founders.

I’m pretty sure you pull lever for Democrats 100% of the time.
_____
Keep swinging, keep missing. What is true is that I’ve never voted for a Republican. (psssst… you don’t have to vote for one of the two main parties if they don’t actually do what they say they’re going to do… like, you know, represent for the principles you CLAIM to stand for. lol)

Yes, lets get back on point. Andrew Sullivan is too busy focusing on Sarah Palin’s womb to understand anything about the Tea Party. And I don’t know what the tea party has to do with the Arizona law, with the exception that I’m sure most of their members are for it.
And Bloomberg’s little rant misses the point. He conflates illegal and legal immigrant (a common tactic used by thosed opposed to enforcing our current immigration laws). He misstates the law and then comes out with his real sentiment, he wants us to legalize all the criminal illegal aliens in this country. Why that’s just what we need, millions of low skilled workers who will now be eligible for government services!! It’s not like we have an escalating debt problem here.

People who want to stop AZ from defending themselves should pay the security cost for the people of AZ.
If you already paid few billion $ out of your pocket to build the border-long fences to secure AZ, or you are already running around 24/7 to guard the border, any hypocritical “humane” rant from your mouth can be forgiven.
Justice and defense are the primary duties of a government.
If you are just sitting there and not helping to secure AZ from the infiltration of the drug-wars, it’s okay. You may sit there forever. That’s your right. But you should at least stop throwing the harmful criticism over the recent decision of AZ, based on their own right and concern. Not YOU, but THEY are the ones who are facing the threats from reality.

And I don’t know what the tea party has to do with the Arizona law, with the exception that I’m sure most of their members are for it.
_________
Right. Despite they’re being for the principles many right wingers recite very well at a skin-deep level and those you claim to have a better understanding of than me (um… constitutional principles), more or less.
Liberty? Small government? Against authoritarianism?
only when it fits in with maintaining the status quo, obstructing progress and pathological nostalgia. But whatever, you seem to want to back off from making up who I am and why I disagree with right wing rhetoric, and that’s fine with me. So I’ll move on.
As for Bloomberg, he seems as angry as all the protesters and those of us who believe in this nation’s lofty constitutional principles over the ill-conceived Arizona immigration law, BUT he also is upset– as many, many of us are– at the federal government for not implementing widespread immigration reform sooner. DC’s inadequacy forced Arizonans to take matters into their own hands, and they did it in an ugly way that puts law enforcement into quite a pickle of a situation. Fact of the matter is, his position on the Arizona law isn’t much different from Jeb Bush’s, Karl Rove’s, Marco Rubio’s and President Obama’s though how he perceives what needs to be done may differ. There isn’t an overwhelming consensus among Republicans, Democrats, conservatives or liberals about exactly what should be done– which is why it keeps getting kicked down the road. The only people who seem to know for sure exactly what must be done are folks who aren’t particularly gifted when it comes to workable solutions or voting for folks with them. lol.

p.s. its intriguing that a republican type would try to turn progressive versus regressive into a dominance/aggressive versus recessive thing, btw. Out of curiosity, how neocon are you? I like to observe things like that and then see if it extrapolates more broadly…

Here’s another in which I am almost positive progressives are familiar with…DIVISIVE….

“You’re in common cause with those who are clinging to the status quo and scared to death of progress,” – ProMa
While you and J.R. are having your debate I’d just like to remind everyone here of something.
The Status Quo right now is The United States of America is the best and greatest Nation on Earth.
I, for one, would like to see that continue to be true.
If progress means we have to become a Euro-Type 2nd World Nation then count me out. ProMa, you’d be smart to be selective about what you’d like to support in the name of progress unless you don’t mind living in The United States of France.
BTW
regarding Posted by: J.R. | Apr 29, 2010 10:05:35 AM
I nominate J.R. for President in 2012.

How does limited governemnt obstruct progress or maintain the status quo?
——–
Way to miss the point. How does voting for W twice, or apologizing for him repeatedly, or voting in more Republicans show any concern for small government– or the deficit for that matter??? LOL!!! Ever check the records of some of the folks tea partiers and right wingers cheer for??? LOL!!!!
Republicans stand for huge deficits, deficit spending and big, big government. Period. Since I’ve been able to vote, beginning with Papa Bush– but I remember what a hypocrite Reagan was too– that’s all they’ve done. Mouthed rhetoric regarding fiscal responsibility and small government and self determination and liberty and enacted policy that does the exact opposite.
As for the rest, you clearly don’t understand the problems with the Arizona law, and you’re just chest thumping, reciting the b.s. that you all claim to stand for but never put into practice.
Republicans obstruct progress by denying science and civil liberty. By giving hand outs to corporations and manipulating the economy in a way that benefits corporations, creating unholy alliances between government and big business and additional coercive hierarchies that you all close your eyes to.
I’m not for hand-outs either. But I’d begin by cutting the hand-outs to those who obstruct liberty and the voices of the people. You’d start with the people and the measures intended to lessen the inequities inherent to capitalism, those that make capitalism work better despite what the laissez faire free market mythology fairies and unicorns tell ya. That’s where we differ in a big way.

Funny thing though, there were laws already on the books the made illegal immigration, wait for it…illegal!!!
Posted by: J.R. | Apr 29, 2010 1:36:45 PM
__________________________________
Agree. It’s the government’s freedom to prioritize their defense activities. The fact that AZ has overlooked the illegals and taken care of more urgent issues so far doesn’t make the illegal turn into legal.

“Way to miss the point. How does voting for W twice”
You’re right, Kerry or Gore would have been better. Listen mama, we all know that the Dem and Rep were the only choices you had for the Presidential election. Otherwise, like the alien in the Simpsons election special stated about voting for a 3rd party, “go ahead throw your vote away.” Would I have liked to vote for someone with more fiscal restraint than GWB, heck yeah, bit bottom line, he was a far better choice than Gore or Kerry would have been.
Now local elections are a different story, I don’t always vote Republican. I look for principled candidates that espouse the sort of positions I hold.

mama,
Everything you claim to stand for and then claim Republicans obstruct was, can be and should be accomplished without government intervention. We don’t need more government agencies and regulations, we have too much already.
If you stand with Obama now, you believe in more government control of your life. His view of goverment dwarfs the unfortunate increases brought on by GWB.

Now local elections are a different story, I don’t always vote Republican. I look for principled candidates that espouse the sort of positions I hold.
Posted by: J.R. | Apr 29, 2010 3:00:11 PM
We can agree that local elections are a better environment for finding principled candidates, and expanding outside the two party system. My town has two independent parties and one or the other always wins– sometimes there aren’t even Republicans or Dems on the ballot.

“As for Obama, I voted for him, fully aware that he was a centrist, politician and that he viewed change more ameloriatively than I might like ”
Wow, you’re way far gone if you think Obama is a centrist!

“My town has two independent parties and one or the other always wins– sometimes there aren’t even Republicans or Dems on the ballot. ” – ProMa
Ah Ha!
So you live in France or maybe Canada!
That explains a lot.
: o )

Posted by: Noz | Apr 29, 2010 5:13:15 PM
Nope. Right in the heartland of the good ole United States– where we don’t like either party cuz we’re way too independent for all that and prefer to get outside the party platforms. We have the old Town party and the new Town party (lol, the new town party wasn’t all that original) and then usually a Republican or Democrat, occasionally both.
But I do like vacationing in France and visit there when I’m in Italy every year. I’m partial to Nice and Provence. I’ve been to Canada a couple of times. Banff is beautiful.

Chomsky??? Will that explains that….No more room for debate….No wonder you feel Obama is a centrist….Debate closed…

Meanwhile, more lawsuits are being filed in Arizona against the law, including some by cops:
“The lawsuit from 15-year Tucson police veteran Martin Escobar is one of two filed Thursday, less than a week after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law that’s sparked fears it will lead to racial profiling despite the governor’s vow that officers will be properly trained….Escobar, an overnight patrol officer in a heavily Latino area of Tucson, argues there’s no way for officers to confirm people’s immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates numerous constitutional rights.”

Please enlighten as to what Constitutional Rights have been violated when a police officer request to see ID…To establish the individual’s identification and place of residence within their jurisdiction of course…

He is a self-described socialist with a twisted view of political workings of America….Way too strong and again explains your views of our dem.o.cra.tic society and the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF….
Posted by: Parallex View | Apr 29, 2010 6:22:12 PM
heh, heh. Did you panic at the word socialist and get yourself all confused?
He’s a self described left-libertarian or social anarchist,sometimes referred to as a libertarian socialist. And that is very dem.o.cratic. and more prone toward INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS than anything those on the right come up with.
So, just to be clear here, because I know you all like your bogeymen, left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism is an anti-authoritarian form of socialism with the main principles being liberty, freedom, the right for workers to organize democratically, the absence of illegitimate authority, the right to question and call out authority and coercive hierarchies and resistance against force. Libertarian Socialists represent for the principle that the people can make the best judgments for themselves when given enough information; therefore, education and good information is essential. Libertarian socialists are against all forms of coercion, state and capitalist or corporate, and do not seek to regulate human behaviors by way of the state, including such issues as possession of firearms, drugs, sexual conduct between consenting individuals, and related issues.
Sound really twisted, doesn’t it? /sarc.

Posted by: Parallex View | Apr 29, 2010 6:51:46 PM
Why do all right wingers seem to spell lose as loose and moron as moran? I hate to nitpick but its quickly becoming a pet peeve. A surefire way to know that you’re talking to someone who is hopelessly right wing.
In any event, we’ll see if he loses. Steve Chapman wrote up a good piece on the law, highlighting a few of the problems. For example, he notes:
“After signing the new law requiring police to check out people who may be illegal immigrants, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer was asked how the cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened. “I don’t know,” she replied. “I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like.”
No kidding. But she has a lot of company in her ignorance. When I called University of Arizona law professor Marc Miller and told him I wasn’t sure what some of the law’s provisions mean, he replied, “Neither is anyone else on the planet.” We will find out what it means after it takes effect, not before.’
Also, he tackles the lame excuse I “heard” here yesterday about the lawful contact bit, and notes:
“The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposes the policy. Winslow city administrator Jim Ferguson told The Los Angeles Times, “If we enforce this new law, we are not going to be able to afford to take care of some other pressing law enforcement issues.”
So the measure could mean that overaggressive cops will put legal Hispanic residents in chronic fear of arrest. Alternatively, police may not do their jobs much differently from before.
Maybe the new law is a menace. Or maybe it’s more of a hoax.”

If you don’t have time to read the actual legislation, but have time to read the skewed liberal media, then your a fricken idiot! But then I guess anyone who would condone illegal activity (like entering our country without documentation) can probably be lead around by the nose by a totally misinformed and skewed liberal media. Look, me and everyone else who live in Arizona and see the negative effects of illegal immigration such as: human smuggling, drop houses with hundreds of people living in them, drive by shootings, identity theft, strain on our medical system by supplying medical care to people who do not pay for it, and they do not pay income taxes, would love to have people LEGALLY enter our great country. Immigrants are what has made our country the best on the planet…but our ancestors did it the right way, the legal way.

Desmond Tutu made some good, and rahter poignant points. He wrote:
“I recognize that Arizona has become a widening entry point for illegal immigration from the South. The wave has brought with it rising violence and drug smuggling.
But a solution that degrades innocent people, or that makes anyone with broken English a suspect, is not a solution. A solution that fails to distinguish between a young child coming over the border in search of his mother and a drug smuggler is not a solution.
I am not speaking from an ivory tower. I lived in the South Africa that has now thankfully faded into history, where a black man or woman could be grabbed off the street and thrown in jail for not having his or her documents on their person.
How far can this go? We lived it — police waking a man up in the middle of the night and hauling him off to jail for not having his documents on his person while he slept. The fact that they were in his nightstand near the bed was not good enough.
Of course if you suggested such a possibility today to an Arizona policeman he would be adamant that he would never do such a thing. And I would believe him. Arizona is a long way from apartheid South Africa.
The problem is, under the new law, the one or two who would do it are legitimized. All they have to say is that they believed that illegal immigrants were being harbored in the house. They would be protected and sanctioned by this law.
Abominations such as apartheid do not start with an entire population suddenly becoming inhumane. They start here. They start with generalizing unwanted characteristics across an entire segment of a population.”

Obama made the ultimate point yesterday by taking immigration reform off the table. Admittedly, election year politics made the decision for him, WH internal polls are surely saying something the bloggers aren’t saying.
Write your rep, screaming, they can still do “the right thing”!

“Escobar, an overnight patrol officer in a heavily Latino area of Tucson, argues there’s no way for officers to confirm people’s immigration status without impeding investigations, and that the new law violates numerous constitutional rights” – ProMa
It sure isn’t hard to find a bad apple in any single barrel.
I’m thinking Escobar is either lazy or has a firm grip on his sub-par abilities to do his job.

Why do all those who align themselves to Chomsky, intellectually that is if that is possible, use our Constitutional Rights in a effort to justify their arguments….Hmmmmm…Be that as it may, I hope beyond hope that the Arizona Senate Bill 1070, goes all the way to the Supreme Court; therefore, bring on the law suits and let’s clean house once and for all….

Posted by: Parallex View | Apr 30, 2010 12:58:32 PM
__________________________________
Parallex View, I appreciate your compassion on the unfortunate event in history.
I personally believe it is the government’s duty to take any ‘extraordinary’ measures in case of emergency, if necessary. That’s where AZ is at. It is sticky because it is not yet officially declared as emergency while the thing is imminent and dangerous.
And besides, this AZ case is no more or less than immigrants’ status. Legal immigrants and citizens should not have any problem with that.

Interestingly, gf the four governors whose states border Mexico, three are criticizing the new Arizona law. The exception, of course, is the governor of Arizona.
Just sayin’….

Oh, oh, you guys were talking about Aviva Chomsky, right? I was thinking about Noam Chomsky…dumb.

Rights to defend against illegals
US Constitution
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
Section 9
The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Section 10
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment 14
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Keep the fight alive and remove these law breaking scum who have invaded this country. This is on the back of my truck and since the government doesn’t want to do anything it’s time to call up all those in the militia and remove all illegals.

It is interesting to me that one can be checked for legitimate papers for health insurance and face a fine or jail if he/she doesn’t have it but cannot be checked for his/her citizenship status.
Putting illegal non-citizens ahead of law abiding citizens is like an Alice in Wonderland scenario – the Mad Hatter scene, upside down world or opposite land or something similar. In other words – “You gotta be kiddin’ me!!!”