There has been a great outcry in the press and on the internet about the terrible new anti-illegal immigrant law signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. The sad reality is that very few people on both sides of the issue have actually read the new law, but their ignorance of the law does not stop them from making statements about it.
This post is part 1 of 5 posts that contain the entire text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, (aka SB 1070) as as revised by House Bill 2162 (aka HB 2162) on April 30, 2010. The new illegal immigration law / anti-immigrant law becomes law on July 29, 2010. Deletions to text made by HB 2162 are show in red text that is lined out and new language is this color and underlined.
The other four posts found are here:
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 2,” which contains the text of new ARS Section 13-1509 (as revised by House Bill 2162).
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 3,” which contains the text of new ARS Sections 13-2319.E, 13-2928 (as revised by House Bill 2162) and 13-2929 (as revised by House Bill 2162).
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 4” which contains the text of new ARS Sections 23-212, 23-212.01, 23-214, 28-3511 and 41-1274.
- “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 5,” which contains the text of revised ARS Sections 1-501 & 1-502 made by House Bill 2162 and new Sections 7, 8 & 9 of House Bill 2162.
The first thing the new law does is require that all state and local agencies and personnel refrain from not enforcing EXISTING federal laws. A number of elected and non-elected Arizona government officials have made the decision without any legal basis to not enforce existing immigration laws. The question now becomes will these same people ignore the new Arizona law?
One of the most controversial provisions of the new law is the requirement that people must prove they are legally in the U.S. when asked by a police officer. For most people, they can prove legal status merely by showing the officer a valid Arizona driver’s license, a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, a valid Arizona nonoperating identification license or any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
Text of New Arizona Revised Statutes Section 11-1051 (effective 90 days after the end of the current Arizona legislative session).
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
B. For any lawful contact stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.
D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.
E. In the implementation of this section, an alien’s immigration status may be determined by:
1. A law enforcement officer who is authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.
2. The United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).
FE. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:
1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
3. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
4. Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.
GF. This section does not implement, authorize or establish and shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302), including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.
HG. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws including 8 United States Code sections 1373 and 1644, to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand five hundred dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.
IH. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G of this section and remit the civil penalty to the state treasurer for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724 [KEYTLaw Comment: This section is part of the new law and reads as follows: 41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund. The gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund is established consisting of monies deposited pursuant to section 11‑1051 and monies appropriated by the legislature. The department shall administer the fund. Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation and shall be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.].
JI. The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this section.
KJ. Except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith, a law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section in which the officer may be a defendant by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency.
LK. This section 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.
Packetguy,
Legal presence doesn’t mean being a US citizen. I can be here legally on a work visa and still able to apply for a DL in CA as long as I show proof that I’m here legally. If you go a step further by clicking on the link of the CA DMV on what constitutes a verification of legal presence, you will notice that the state strictly requires original or certified copy of documents that can prove legal presence including but not limited to a valid I-94 which is a document issued to visitors entering the US. If the state does not care or does not follow protocols on making sure those documents are presented, that would be a whole other issue. For now, it’s very clear that CA DL will meet this new law given that a legal presence has to be established before a CA DL can be issued.
Incorrect Bomber. The law only requires disclosing your ne VERBALLY. Read the case:
“The Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It does not require him to produce a driver’s license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.”
Hibbel refused to say his name. That’s why he was arrested.
I reiterate: no citizen in the US can be compelled to provide identity orbithwr documents on demand of a police or other LE officer. It’s a fundamental principle of our constitution. The AZ law would change that; it’s unconstitutional on its face. It’s an evil law written by foolish men who don’t understand liberty or the history of out country. They are constitutional morons.
Arizona is out of control, people. The Internet is chock full of stories of blatant abuse of power, violation of civil rights, and repeated unconstitutional behavior. Check out this recent story of a student stopped for making a LEGAL U turn on a highway, yanked from her car, handcuffed and arrested, and THEN illegally searched – both her vehicle and her person. This is beyond the pale. These guys are thugs, and if you ask me, it looks like AZ is being used as a proving ground for police state tactics that will be deployed nationwide (since these tactics are directed by Federal agents).
http://tinyurl.com/azstudentcuff
God help us.
Marc, it’s nice to know you’re an attorney and not an accountant. A third of property taxes pays for education, I’m pretty sure “most” refers to a 51% minimum. And you have supported my claim that education is NOT free. Ask the teachers that are being laid off, for lack of funding.
As to Affirmative Action being similar, I was merely stating, that sometimes in America we need to level the playing field. In this case, level the field so that officers can control, an out of control problem. A/A had an out of control problem with black men getting hired for employment and accepted to college. With AZ., there is an out of control problem with illegal immigrants and kidnapping. AZ. carefully constructed their law to not supersede the federal law, which removes the handcuffs off the police officers and allows them help enforce the crime of illegal immigration, which in turn will reduce the kidnapping epidemic.
As to the “liberals” comment, while we needed liberals from 1950 to 1980 to help level the playing field. 1980 to 2010 the pendulum as swung way too far in the other direction. Crime, greed, promiscuity, etc. have risen to epidemic proportions, and while that’s great news for lawyers, until the lawyers daughter comes home beaten and raped, it’s not for society. America is now moving in the other direction, conservative values are taking back the country. What do hardcore rappers do, like Master P do when they reach the top? They settle down raise a family, go to church, and do a kids show on tv. Get ready, lawyers, now that affirmative action has allowed diversity to spread through out the police force (a good thing), it’s much harder to show racial discrimination on minorities. Now that conservative values are making a comeback, crime will see a spike over the short term of a couple of years, but then a sharp decline over the next ten. AZ. is just the beginning.
Marc
You and the USSC are missing an important factor. Forcing me to give my name to the police without probable cause is giving identification. Stating my name verbally or showing a picture ID accomplishes the same goal. It identifies who I am!!!
oh paul,
such good intentions…
such seriously misguided thought…
“Not if you are a USC whose SSN can be run and easily proven to be yours or can answer easy questions like where were you born? What high school did you go to?”
right to remain silent… miranda… remember her…
frankly, a person without identification is not detainable under federal law… all state nonsense… go back to constitutional law and re-read the 4th and 14th… really…
Sam,
“right to remain silent… miranda… remember her”
Technically, Ernesto Miranda was a “he”, and he raped somebody, but his conviction was overturned…
Bomber,
Merely giving your name is not the same as showing ID documents. Your name doesn’t constitute probable cause for a search; in the new AZ law, NOT having and presenting ID automatically makes you a presumed illegal, subject to search, arrest, and transport away from where you were just being a free citizen. And once you’ve given your name, you’re free to walk away absent probable cause (not merely reasonable suspicion) without syaing anything further to LE. The new law let’s you be detained untul the GOVERNMENT verifies your not illegal.
In AZ today, tens of thousands of people are being stopped on AZ public highways at internal Federal checkpoints, in cooperation with State LE, being questioned, then detained at secondary inspection areas, then illegally subject to highly invasive searches. This is all illegal under current AZ law. That’s why AZ is promulgating this new law that goes far beyond anything any US LE agency has been permitted in the past: to legitimize the currently illegal practices. I believe this will be the template for sweeping denials of liberty in every other state in the union.
Numerous lawsuits filed by innocent citizens subject to these LE assaults are wending their way through the courts. LE defendants have been incredibly obstructionist in these legal actions, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on such blatantly abusive tactics as arbitrary venue changes, claims of national security to block evidence gathering, and filing of harassing new charges against plaintiffs. It’s an atrocity happening right under our noses.
You can be led like a sheep to the liberal New Society slaughterhouse. I will not.
[...] 28 04 2010 ORIGINAL LINK [...]
Victor, do you ever tire of being wrong?
Less than 10% of public school funding nationally comes via the federal budget. Over 40% comes directly from local property taxes. The balance comes via state budgets which are in almost all cases taxed based and is almost entirely based on property taxes except in the states that have adopted statewide income taxes or sales taxes. While it may not be uncommon for a third of your local property tax to go to fund local education, that is not the same thing as percentage of school funding derived from property taxes, and the need to ensure that people understand the diff is why we have schools
the terms liberal and conservative are meaningless for all intents and purposes. Nutcases like Palin would call Ike a liberal, while dubya wrecked the economy to enrich the top 5% or so f the population. Even the Swiss have had a national health care system for years while Americans with virtually no comprehension of much of anything screamed about death panels. You betcha!
Sorry, Victor. I am a triple professional (lawyer, educator, IT) and Ilmy experience, which is validated by all testing, is that we are largely a nation of ignorant clowns; the very mob that our founding fathers considered a threat second only to the polarizing effects of political parties.
You want to be a conservative? Then harken unto the Whig roots of the GOP, the first party to support unions and oppose “states rights”!
Oh, and just because a law is on the books doesn’t mean that it is lawful. We have three branches and the final say on legality of statutes is in the courts. Legislatures do stupid politically motivated crap all the time. While I think you are misinformd re sates requirng citizens to carry ID (as opposed to a requirement they Identify themselves) it is really no matter wherecourts have ruled any such requirement illegal as is the case in AZ. Scotus could have gone further I hilber but did not, and the court is not moving “right” anymore.
I understand how frustrated so many feel atbeing unable to comprehend the complexities of civcs, economics and history (not to mention math) but ignorance is no basis for ad hominum against those who are not
Packetguy – Merely giving your name is not the same as showing ID documents.
I totally disagree. The same information on my ID can be given to the police verbally. It makes no difference if I verbally give my name or provide ID. The police have my information because I was forced to give it. Under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, I have the right to remain silent. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States should be force to give the police any information.
Packetguy – You can be led like a sheep to the liberal New Society slaughterhouse. I will not.
My belief is supported by the Constitution of the United States. I will stand by it until the day I die. I’m not a liberal. As an African-American, I don’t support affirmative action. Why? Because I believe it violates the Constitution. Don’t be so quick to judge people.
LOL, I provided a post with links to all the reading that Brown Bomber should probably undertake before opining about the constitution, the non-existent right to remain silent etc and the blog ate it because it was spammy ;=}
Bottom line BB is that you are an uninformed ill-educated braggart, and when you advise the IRS that you are no longer filing your taxes I will send you flowers in prison
The US Constitution, per the US Constitution has been subject to interpretation by the Courts for over 200 years. I suggest you study the case law produced during that period as well as the functions and history of our government before telling anyone what the law in this country is.
Marc – Bottom line BB is that you are an uninformed ill-educated braggart, and when you advise the IRS that you are no longer filing your taxes I will send you flowers in prison
WOW! I cannot believe you are comparing a Terry Stop with filing out tax returns. The IRS is not patrolling the streets looking for reasonable suspicion or probable cause that I didn’t file taxes. The law is governed by the totality of the circumstances. This topic is about encounters with the police while walking or driving.
[...] I thought that a look at the actual legislation might be in order. I took the legislation from KYETLaw. The site appears to be non-partisan in nature. B. For any lawful contact made by a law [...]
So, this law has immense commerce potential. Think of it, who carries their ID to the gym. If I call the police with a threat of suit for not following up; and, in the interest of not looking like they are profiling, you have tickets going to all the Canadian and European “illegals” I allege gather there.
Oh, and I forgot, for those who think you can just give your name as ID, what is the use of that law. Welcome home, memorize this name, address, and SSN (which most have done for jobs anyway).
Better yet, Wilmer, ever try to get back into this one without a passport? Unless of course you walk over one of the unsecured borders.
I find it ironic that the government passed healthcare reform which will require citizens to show proof of insurance cannot stomach requiring citizens to show proof of identity/citizenship. I guess being an American citizen isn’t as important as it used to be.
[...] and considering claims and counter claims of extremists, the misinformation is amazing. HERE is a site where you can read the exact language contained in the law and determine for yourself the [...]
I am not a lawyer nor have I ever taken part in law enforcement. That said, it seems to me that the crux lies in the definition of “lawful contact” and its implications, not adequately covered in the law. It may be that Mr. Kris Kobach, and other who have defended the law with knowledge of it, ought to have at least made a stab at defining “lawful contact.”
It appears near the top of the law, after “B.” “For any lawful contact made by” various law enforcement officials and agencies, “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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.”
Mr. Kobach’s remarks suggest that “lawful contact” includes, say, traffic stops when cars are speeding, or wavering, or for any other reason that anyone in law enforcement may want to deal with someone for some probable cause. “Lawful contact” apparently would not entail stopping children or adults on the street for no other reason than the inquiry. The expression has to be defined for the laity, like me, to understand what it entails.
One can expect that tech-savvy people in San Francisco will produce fake IDs of various kinds for newly arrived illegals to use. Asking for papers and questioning all people lawfully contacted would derail the charge of “racial profiling.”
Alfred,
“Lawful contact” foes not require probable cause it even reasonable suspicion. It’s just the legal term that identifies anybinteractiom a police officer has with the general public while the officer is on duty.
During any lawful contact, no citizen is required to give any information to, or answer any questions from, the police, other than his or her name. CitiEns are free to walk away at any time unless the officer officially detains then, which requires reasonable suspicion. This I the so-called “Terry Stop” that you can easily research on the Internet.
This law empowers the police to force you to prove your citizenship. If you can’t or won’t, you can be detained, arrested, and transported to a distant location against your will.
It is the beginning o the end of Amercan personal liberty and freedom.
What packetguy wrote may be totally correct. However, in extreme situations, governments and people adopt extreme measures. The United States has undergone an invasion of people from the south, mostly peaceful, and far larger than any occupying army. A demagogic and fanatic leftist President seeks to mine the situation for maximum political advantage and will not support Arizona for trying to block the invasion tide, one that has contributed to California’s debt burden–our Greece is not in the East.
One cannot blame the people streaming north. The solution requires an international effort to develop the economies to our south. It also requires a national effort better to protect our border to the south, modify present laws, e.g., the “anchor baby” provision, and better enforce existing laws.
None of that will happen. Sometimes, one has to choose between bad and worse. That was the case in the recent presidential elections, and the people preferred the much worse choice. Here, Arizona may have (I can’t fully concede the point) made a bad choice. To do nothing was worse.
[...] HTML version from keytlaw.com a business law firm situated in central Phoenix, Arizona [...]
Alfred,
Sorry, but that’s bunk. The Constitution was created to prevent just this sort convenient erosion of personal liberty. Patrick Henry had it right: “Give me liberty, or give me death.” We do NOT need to abandon the fourth amendment to deal with illegal immigrants. That’s the refuge of idiots and cowards. Anyone who gives up their liberty for a little security is a fool.
Reading these posts I just have to wonder if “Packet Guy” or Marc are for or against banning guns…I wonder if they show the same passion in protecting the second amendment right to “keep and bear arms” as they do to thier opposition to this Arizona law?
Mike –
You didn’t mention me, but my position re: the 2nd amendment is, if you can show me the use of the gun is associated with a well-regulated militia, then let’s talk. We can debate whether the militia you bring to me is well regulated or not, but I am guessing the number of guns ever associated with any militia are few and far between.
Mostly I am pretty indifferent to it though, and I have stared down the wrong end of a gun on more than one occasion. I find it wholly unrelated to the topic at hand.
Mike,
reread my posts, friend. I’m am adamant proponent of the right of citizens to own, carry, and use guns.
Barry,
The founders used the term “well regulated” to mean “well functioning”, not “centrally controlled”. — as in a well-regulated clock. All the first ten amendments enumerate _individual_ rights, so the second amendment can’t be talking about a government-run army. That’s a fantasy of gun-seizing liberals.
The founders state that all these rights come from God, which even further precludes government prohibition against the personal right to bear arms.
Pacxketguy -
Despite your being a Tea arty guy I have generally agreed with you on this thread.
Until now.
I am going to be frank. First of all, you are either lying or deliberately lying. regarding the Founders. In Madison’s notes from the Constitutional convention it is as crystal clear as “See Spot Run” that there was no intent to create a theocracy of any sort what so ever. The foundation for their writings that is the Constitution is 100% secular. You ignore that at your intellectual peril.
As for the wording of the 2nd Amendment, I don’t want to derail the main topic of this thread beyond saying that the clause is unclear. it is, as you stated, worded differently from the other 9 in the Bill of Rights, and so we must take that difference as important and significant.
I agree with you that “well regulated” does not mean “centrally controlled” – it is clearly separate from the military for instance.
But it does not mean “well functioning” either, although that might be closer to the mark. The issue is, is the gun part of a militia effort, and is the militia itself somehow internally “well regulated”.
As I said, when you can tie a gun to a militia, and the People can see that the militia is “well regulated” in some acceptable sense, then we can talk.
Personally, I have never heard any gun advocate come even close to trying to meet those plain standards that the 2nd lays out. Until I do, I would simply have to say the NRA and others are missing the mark – they should be busy organizing well regulated militias, and there would be no problem.
First and foremost, this law is within the guidelines of the Federal law that’s not being enforced. This is far from any type of drastic measure as it’s being portrayed.
Secondly, there are times in our country where drastic measures have been used, with success. Affirmative Action, far more severe than the AZ bill, would certainly be in that “drastic measure” category. Lincoln’s, “Confiscation Act of 1861″ took away all guns (and more) definitely a “drastic measure”.
When we have AT LEAST 12 million, over the age of 18, illegal immigrants out of 160 million working Americans, that’s an invasion of 7.5% of our working population. That requires drastic measures, like building multiple fences, the National Guard, and the much tamer, implementing the federal law that exists currently, with a little more teeth.
Hey Victor -
I clicked through your link, I was sorry to find out you live in my hometown. really, your insistent parotting of “Affrimative Action” success is laughable – we know you are no fan of Affirmative Action, and even if you are, you live in a City (Baltimore) where it is perfectly clear that it has NOT been an unqualified success.
Your ideas are truly frightening, imposing, as you yourself say “drastic measures” on up to 93% of the population just to maybe take a wild-ass attempt at “solving” a problem.
But you know what the absolute most fortunate thing in your life is?
Even though you have grown to adulthood without the least understanding of the principles of liberty, those of who do understand them, and we come from all parts of the political spectrum, fight for you and your kind regardless.
Maybe you should say thank you sometime, and learn a little about it. There is a fine public library over there on Cathedral Street where I am sure any librarian will be happy to help you for free.
Nice to think you Know what I think. I was for Affirmative Action. It was instituted as a temporary action to solve a huge problem. I’ll simplify my comparison so even you might grasp the correlation. There are close to 8% illegal immigrants in our country in 2010. There were just over 8% Black Americans in our country in 1961. Black Americans were being denied THEIR civil rights as Americans. America took “drastic measures” to ensure their civil rights.
In 2010, illegal immigrants are affecting the civil rights of legal citizens. We have ignored our Federal Law for over 20 years. By ignoring that law, this problem has grown into an epidemic. As a nation of laws, we need to fix this epidemic. AZ., after watching one of their cities become the second largest kidnapping city in the world, (which is mind-boggling), AZ decided to move forward to protect the civil rights of their citizens.
While this will inconvenience some legal citizens, it will help the them as a whole.
Just like Affirmative Action inconvenienced some citizens, to help everyone as a whole.
Victor -
I only know what you think based on what I read here, and without a doubt, what you say is in the code of this generation’s Archie Bunkers. There are thousands of them where I live. They are not as coy as you are trying to be though.
It has already been explained to you by an attorney here (Marc) that you are badly misinformed about the laws you pontificate about. Did that make any impression on you whatsoever?
Like I said, it is not necessary for you to understand the nature of your liberty in order to have and enjoy it.
But don’t mistake your not understanding it for carrying any weight whatsoever among anyone except your equally misinformed peers.
The rest of us will fight for OUR liberty, against you if need be, and then we will not kvetch that you get to have it in the end with us even though you don’t even know what you have now or in the future.
Because that my friend is the true nature of liberty.
Oh Dear! It’s time for the March of the Maroons – lol.
Look Mike, I have killed more of “god’s own creatures” than you could ever hope to and own a variety of weapons, including an assortment that require the payment of taxes, which I tender happily, I have been offered funding by the ILA to litigate provisions of our current arms regulations and one of my kids was a varsity shooter. Try and stay focused and quit with the name calling and pathetic attempts at character assassination (always the last stop for those who can’t manage an informed discussion.) But, just to toss the odd grenade, the 2nd Amendment was in part a response to the Brits attempt to seize the militia armory in MA though the militias were often more trouble than benefit during the war, the Federalists would be horrified by what passes for personal armament today, and nothing in the Constitution bans registration.
And I used the “g word” because as noted, our FFs were almost entirely Masonic deists to whom the word “god” had a meaning that would be entirely foreign to much of our current populace (indeed, many of our FFs wrote about how foolish the concept of a “personal god” was; think Marx.) But that, as also noted, is also OT.
Victor, how about if you stop and review the previous posts. You need to develop an understanding that the law is not monochromatic. It is a complex dynamic involving multiple branches of multiple hierachical sovereigns. Per Kolender and its progeny the AZ law is unconstitutional. Period. And the Supremes have indicated that while they have a 5-4 majority for the watered down Nevada statute, it is unlikely they can manage a majority for the AZ statute, hence the carefully worded caveat. People come to the US for work and they will stop coming when there is no more work. The fact that there is work makes a mockery of your claims, as it suggests the jobs the aliens are taking are seen as unacceptable employment by legal citizens who are too cheap and too ignorant of economics to understand that rising water floats all. In a very real sense, Walmart is why you have illegal immigration, Victor. Really, you need to watch more South Park dude!
National health care taxes those who like the grasshopper don’t worry about the costs of care until too late. While healthy they tout Rand, and then scurry into the local hospital to get care they can’t pay for which gets passed on to, yes, the rest of us ants. It is in fact an inappropriate burden on me as a policy holder and indeed, the very worst form of welfare, most often engaged in not by the lowest economic strata but by the angry white employed, who have been pitted against other unfortunates by fear-mongering politicians protecting corporate interests in low wages, no benefits, and casual employment.
As always the problems with the security state is the abuse of power, as Ike argued before many of you were born. The antics we saw during the Bush years vis-a-vis domestic surveillance give ample examples of that. And just because the SCt said concentration camps were OK, doesn’t mean such pronouncements, like Dred Scott, should not be eventually acknowledged as really bad ideas. People do incredibly stupid things out of fear and ignorance, and AZ’s law is only the most recent example of that human propensity.
Now…. the question of a Natinal ID program, what that might look like, how it might function and the potential ramifications on the public are altogether different questions, but my guess is that the very people squealing for the AZ law, against gun registration and against the recently passed heath care bill (largely built on GOP concepts) would squeal like stuck pigs over a comprehensive National ID program. Amazingly enough, white people cruising black neighborhoods don’t like getting stopped anymore than anyone else….. and I have been shown to the edge of town by officers while trying to buy lunch because, they said, “We don’t your kind hereabouts”
Marc,
“The antics we saw during the Bush years vis-a-vis domestic surveillance”
You mean the one that says:
“the Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order, but only if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.” ?
That was actually Jimmy Carter”s Exec Order# 12139, executed on May 23, 1979.
Sorry…
Or, were you referring to the one that says “…the program authorizes warrantless intercepts where the government ‘has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda,’ and that one party to the conversation is ‘outside of the United States’ ” ?
That was one XO executed by Bush, predicated on Jimmy’s XO from 25 years earlier.
Heck, Roosevelt even did it during WW II… It wasn’t just a “Bush thing”…
“[T]here will be some collateral damage, a few LEGAL Americans will be detained and inconvenienced [because of the color of their skin], but for the good of the whole, it’s a necessity.”
Victor,
I don’t think that sacrificing individual liberty for the “good of the whole” is a conservative ideal. It’s a scary one, but I don’t think its a conservative one.
Spoken like a lawyer, Barry. I choose the Military and Police for my liberty, over a lawyer any day of the week. As for healthcare, your so wrong about that it’s astounding. “IF” it goes into effect, it will be far more costly than people going into the emergency room, far more. Many of those same people that go to the emergency room, are people that wait till the last minute to do anything anyway. The others? The most common ailment for the uninsured that go to the emergency room in America….are gunshot wounds, the second are puncture wounds. So your “scurry taxes healthcare” rant is idiotic rhetoric, verbal diarrhea, regurgitated from a South Park/Chris Mathews show.
If there is any real indication of the amount of over use and abuse, that is to come from National healthcare, look at all the hospitals where thousands of people have showed up and called to make appointments for their free healthcare that Obama passed. And who became irate when they were told it didn’t go into effect until 2014.
The fact is people will abuse the “free” aspect like they were samples at a Sam’s Club or Halloween candy left on the stoop in a bucket.
Oh, and was it fair to “all” when white guys were passed over for college, jobs, or promotions, during the last 50 years of the “temporary” Affirmative Action? The answer is NO. But, just like in war, we have to sacrifice a few for the good of the whole. We need “Equal Justice” in America, Not “Social Justice”. And in order to get that sometimes, A few have to sacrifice for the whole. If we’re talking about Hispanics in AZ, then the legal Hispanics should step up as a whole and say that provided the LEO treats us with civility, respect and a smile, when asking for ID during an encounter, then we will reciprocate by kindly offering it to the LEO. That’s the American thing to do.
During WWII, Thank God You guys weren’t around when rationing was expected of every American.
Unlike some posters here, I’ll not refer to those who give erroneous statistics “Liars”. Here are some totally offbase numbers given so far, and the corrections:
“There are close to 8% illegal immigrants…were close to 8% blacks in 196x”. Apples to oranges. The best guestimates today are that a total of 12 millioin illegals are here, out of the US population of 310 million equals 3.8%. If you just compare working populations, then the illegal ratio gets closer to 8%, but nobody knows the percentage of working illegals vs family members. Certainly a large fraction are non-working children. I suspect the actual working population of illegals is more like 5%. In 1960 blacks numbered 18.9M, or 10.5% of the population. By 1990, the African American population reached about 30 million and represented 12% of the U.S. population. So comparing illegal and black populations is pointless.
“The most common ailment for the uninsured that go to the emergency room in America….are gunshot wounds, the second are puncture wounds.” A quick survey of numerous Internet sources reveals this is wrong. Flu and URI infection are the most common complaints among the uninsured, followed by MVAs. GSW and “puncture wounds” (are you implying knives or nails?) are far down on the list. The most common cause of accidental death among the uninsured are MVAs, with GSWs below even drownings.
I can point you to some sources if you like, but it’s easy to find.
> As for healthcare, your so wrong about that it’s astounding. “IF” it goes into effect, it will be far more costly than people going into the emergency room, far more.
See, that is how far off base you are. Try to track the conversation please. I haven’t mentioned healthcare one way or another.
> Spoken like a lawyer, Barry. I choose the Military and Police for my liberty, over a lawyer any day of the week.
I am not a lawyer, so I don’t know if that is a compliment or not.
Actually, the military and police do not provide you any freedom whatsoever. For one thing, you may not know it, but the military can not be deployed at home, and for another, even you know that the police powers are limited to law enforcement at best, that freedom does not flow from law enforcement. Wherever did you get that crazy-ass concept?
> Oh, and was it fair to “all” when white guys were passed over for college, jobs, or promotions, during the last 50 years of the “temporary” Affirmative Action?
I am a white guy and I wasn’t passed over for college, in fact I was invited in earlier than my peers, and the diversity that I encountered there changed my life profoundly for the better. I became an innovative leader in exporting US technology to markets around the world as a result.
Victor, if you feel you were “passed over” for college, I am pretty sure the reason wan’t because of the color of skin of some other guy.
> That’s the American thing to do.
Actually, that is the lease American thing to do it is possible to imagine. As I said upthread, AZ was complicit when the US interred American citizens of Japanese descent during WWII due to public hysteria (as we are seeing now) and with the exception of slavery, it is the single most universally regretted action of our country during our entire history.
But glad to know you don’t regret anything and are eager to lock up American citizens simply for not having papers in their pocket, as this law provides for.
What America did you grow up in anyway? Care to share what schools are responsible for teaching you ANY of what you are spouting here?
[...] the Arizona immigration law (edit: related discussion here). Here’s the text. And here are snippets with comments. A. No official or agency of this state or a county, [...]
I wasn’t passed up at all, and have not been affected by A/A at all. I’m comparing the 2, to show that
#1 the AZ law has been immensely blown out of proportion. It closely resembles the current Fed Law that is not being imposed.
2. A/A was an inconvenience to many whites over the last 50 years who were passed over ONLY because of the SKIN COLOR.
3. The AZ law is only inconveniencing, if you are pulled over or stopped by police and they have reasonable cause. It’s not asking to much, in my opinion, to be inconvenienced for a few minutes if you are a legal Hispanic vs. a white person having a life changing inconvenience from getting into a favorite college or getting a job or getting a promotion solely because of skin color.
Gee, Victor, spoken like a…. wait for it….. angry white guy, lol….
Let’s see if we can work through some more of your stuff….
While you still have not acknowledged you were cvompletely off the wall with respect to school fundings, perhaps you will acknowledge that the US Census states that “blacks” composed over 10% of the US population in 1960. While you are off by only two per cent that is a curiosity as to why anyone would argue that there were 8% in 1961 especially as census data is so easy to obtain, though irrelevant to your argument. The number of Americans of Japanese descent placed in concentration camps was miniscule, but they still lost property, rights and years of their life while persons of German origin went about their business supporting the Reich and spying for it…. And don’t even get me started talking about the Aleuts. Not to put too fine a point upon it, but how would you like to be held accountable for reparations for the involuntary servitude of the thousands of people kidnapped, enslaved and abused in this country for 100 years or so?
As far as ER data, Injuries, which include stabbings and gun shot wounds account for about a third of all ER visits, but when you look at guinshot wounds and stabbing, HCUP data indicate that these run less than ten percent, while treatment for the over 60 crowd for COPD, stroke, etc accounted for some 40%. In fact DOJ has estimated all ER visits resulting from interpersonal violence as under 2% of ER visits.
Now, Obama did not pass health care… that would be unconstitutional. The Congress, OUR representatives passed health care, and the bill was condemned by “liberals” because it was largely built on GOP talking points. It is certainly a far cry from what is available to the Swiss, the Taiwanese, the Germans, the Japanese, the Canadians, the Brits, etc, etc. But in targeting our current president you are finding a handy scapegoat to salve your understanding that you and your ilk represent maybe 20% of the LEGAL population of the US based on estimates from folk like Newt.
Now, the last bit… the attempt to paint people that are not pathetic xenophobes as being seditionists or some such, that is truly as laughable as your wish comment about siding with military as opposed to the lawyers, whatever that was supposed to mean. Lawyers, of course, answer to their clients, which in the largest sense is YOU. SO you are saying you don’t want help from professionals obligated to help you, you want help from people obligated to serve the state. Yet you are constantly whining about how the state is corrupt, misguided, etc.
We have come full circle. You really don;t know what you are talking about, Victor, and your arguments are circular. Math teachers might call that going in circles….
Marc,
It’s all about the costs that you and I and the other 49% of people who actually pay taxes will bear. You said:
“…but when you look at guinshot wounds and stabbing, HCUP data indicate that these run less than ten percent”
It’s too bad that few people on this blog like to cite their sources for the rest of us to see. Unfortunately I find that figure to be questionable, at best.
In my research, I found this article, which says:
“Mount Sinai Hospital on Chicago’s Southwest side admitted 1,779 patients to its trauma center in 2009. Thirty-five percent of those had been shot or stabbed.”
and this article…
ER costs:
“Violence Prevention Center: The annual medical cost of gun violence in the nation is $100 billion”
Source:
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=156166
$100 Billion?? That’s not chump change…
=============
By contrast:
“The total cost of stroke to the United States is estimated at $43 billion per year.”
Source:
http://www.theuniversityhospital.com/stroke/stats.htm
The difference? Most gunshot victims do not have insurance (YOU AND I pay for it), and most stroke victims do (THEY pay for it).
Packetguy, the working population of both was about the same. out of 19 million Black Americans in 1960, 12 million would have been adults. Out of the 12 million illegal immigrants very few are under the age of 16, mainly because of the journey to get here. But my point is that the temporary inconvenience of some legal Hispanics, to help our country send the illegal Hispanics back to Mexico, is no difference than the white people having a to endure life changing inconvenience to give Black Americans an equal opportunity in America.
As to flu or MVA, first of all, I was referring to (cost and frequency) so I wasn’t including cold and flu. As to MVA, it would be an accurate estimate that half of those MVA’s are not the medical uninsured persons fault and half of those have car ins., so I stand by my statistic. And you’ve have added to my point as far as people with the flu, because most will still go to the emergency room regardless.
Off the wall with school fundings? While I still contend its 30%, you said a either “mostly or majority” then you came up with your stat of 40% which is still not either a Majority or mostly. And Iam far from an angry white guy, I merely point out that people should enter our country legally, and that there is an epidemic of illegal immigrants in this country. Also the costs of healthcare will increase by far, if National healthcare goes through in 2014. I said most of the costly uninsured visits to the emergency room are from gunshot wounds and stabbings, and will not change in 2014. The GOP on healthcare was built on fact, not talking points. Obama’s claim it would save money was wrong. The numbers given to the CBO were wrong, and the liberal numbers on Tort reform were wrong.
Lawyers in general, do more damage than good. There are some that do good for America, but the stereotypes are true. From the billions of car insurance scams in the 90′s (that still go on) to the ridiculous malpractice claims of today. There is only ONE reason why a doctor cannot start his own practice….wait for it… Malpractice ins. They are forced to go into business with at least 5 or 6 other doctors, and its still a struggle. You definitely do more harm than good.
Victor,
“Lawyers in general, do more damage than good”
I just had to chuckle when I read that. It brought to mind the lawyer of questionable ethics who actually convinced some poor schlop that she was a “victim” and “entitled” to MILLIONS because she was too stupid to actually know that coffee is served hot, and that she should’t have to make sure the lid is securely fastened on her McDonald’s coffee cup because personal responsibility should not be a requirement of having some common sense.
Today, most McDonald’s will hand you the lid and make you put it on yourself-thus putting the responsibility where it truly lies-with the individuals who actually have some common sense.
Rock on…
The U.S. Canadian border extends 5,525 miles and is lightly protected. I am of French-Canadian descent, speak French passably, and have backpacked to the Canadian border. I could have walked farther north through the woods and perhaps passed as a Canadian. Canadians have like entry points to the U.S. In 2000, the INS reported, an estimated 47,000 Canadians were in the U.S. illegally. Some number of Americans slipped north during the Vietnam War and stayed. But neither country has large numbers of illegals from the other anything close to the numbers flooding in from Mexico.
So what separates that border and that with Mexico? Economies of like success. The immigration problem from the south will not be solved until government leaders of the United States, Mexico, and Latin-American countries get together for an unprecedented international effort to lift the economies closer in success, without notably, if at all, dropping our economic performance. For the left, please remember we have a sufficient challenge with improving the education, job prospects, and economic problems of our own underclass, whatever their skin color.
Unfortunately, the U.S. has a demagogue, fanatic, and deeply prejudiced man as President who is also a calculating and cold-blooded political strategist and fraud: I know of no national leader quite like this member of the secular clerisy. (His Christianity has the same value as his commitment to private enterprise.) I can think of few people so obviously ideological who would say, in a public meeting, “I am not an ideologue. I’m not.”
It may also not help if Mexicans would like to regain territory lost to the U.S. in the 19th century. It definitely does not help with Democrats, always sensitive to their party interests, opposing trade agreements that do not impose first-world job and environmental standards on far poorer nations. The President, who is bullying Israel, has offended the government of Poland, insulted the Prime Minister of Japan, distanced himself from the government of Great Britain, has a Secretary of State who publicly blabbed while in Canada for a G-20 meeting, with words to offend the government of Canada, and his ambassador to Honduras chose to insult the present democratic government there, whose government had forestalled a Chávez-like takeover, and most of that in one month. He can be careful, e.g., with the governments of Iran, Venezuela, and Russia.
He is not the leader to solve the immigration problem, not in any way. He believes it is to his and his party’s political advantage NOT to solve the problem, but to use it to maximize Hispanic votes for his party, so that minority can be as sold a part of his party’s base as the blacks. And he most definitely does not want to see heavy party losses in Congress this fall; he needs a majority of Democrat zombies there to effect the rest of his ruinous agenda for America.
US-Canadian in the fist line: missing hyphen. And “solid” rather than “sold” in the 2nd to last line. I regret nothing else. This country badly needs to solve the illegal immigration problem; we already have a huge underclass of many colors ill-educated and with substandard housing and food, and few chances for solid jobs. They have to be a far more important concern for both parties than they are now and the fundamental solution, provided above, ought to be articulated by people with the power to be heard. I am religious and believe all humans are my brothers and sisters.Sensible action to improve the lot of the immigrant underclass and our own resident underclass must be undertaken.
Given Arizona’s problem–someone was shot near the border tonight–a lot other than the hysterical reaction to the law is needed. The Arizonans are not Nazis nor is what they want to do Nazi-like.
What seems to be missing from this entire discussion is the element of jurisdiction. If a state or local law enforcement officer encounters a person during other duties – traffic stop, call for service, disturbance, whatever – and finds that there are people there who he or she reasonably believes are illegal aliens, the officer cannot hold or charge them under the Federal law. Unless there is a valid Federal warrant, the officer can only notify ICE/Border Patrol and have them respond to the scene. This response has to be “reasonable” in respect to time to comply with the 4th Amendment. So if ICE/BP is going to be longer than 30-45 minutes, the officer cannot hold the suspect.
The Arizona law simply gives the officer the power to hold someone suspected of being in the country illegally for a reasonable period of time so that his or her status can be determined. State and local officers are empowered to enforce state laws. Federal officers enforce federal laws.
Will there be abuses? Sure. Will it be a positive way to help federal officers identify illegal aliens and take appropriate actions? Sure.
Just my opinion.
k
Thanks to all for a very enjoyable time. While you may or not be correct, you are passionate. This is the nature of our legal system, and the efforts of lawyers, judges and bloggers to interpret to their own advantage what others create.
One concept must be irrefutable (but it will be refuted by those so inclined)- a nation is not a sovereign entity unless it can and does control its borders, and thus those who seek to cross those borders. Whatever emotional or ideologic reason one creates so as to justify allowing persons to enter and remain contrary to law, such action is illegal- against the law.
Work it out, argue, diddle with the wording, take your time. But it must be dealt with.
This is getting tiresome.
Victor, read the post and do the math. 40% of school funding comes from LOCAL property tax. Add to this the portion that comes from STATE property taxes and you are closer to %70%. Add to that regressive tax applied to schools (sales taxes, for example, which everyone pays) and you at clearly at MOST…. and there is no sense “contending” since the data is available, as I have noted previously in seconds…. try citing an authoritative source once in a while.
Again, data from CDC H-CUP etc show that you are simply wrong about uninsured visits to EDs so again, if you have a source for your claims other than Hannity. O’Reilly or Limbaugh, out with it… This sounds like more of the welfare carping we heard while those doing the carping were offended when the impact government handouts to the lower middle class were compared.
Now, there are also those who sound authoritative but are misrepresenting the authority of law enforcement officers to enforce the laws of higher jurisdictions. While jurisdictional issues are always to be considered, any local or state police officer can arrest for violation of a law of a higher authority, and indeed this is one of the issues playing out in states that adopted medical marijuana laws in that state officers can still arrest for violation of federal law. Typically, this is addressed by an informal decision by state LE advising LEOs to “look the other way” if possible. Now, if local LE arrests a person for unlawful activity and that person at arraignment appears to be an illegal immigrant, that person will not likely obtain bail because of the flight risk. If the person is not arrested then the question becomes the basis for the LEO’s articulable basis for believing a person is an illegal alien. I have yet to hear much in the way of acceptable examples beyond, “I witnessed the subject attempting to cross the broder at a location clearly marked no access” or some such. I am ready to listen to submissions…. In any case, if an LEO has probable cause to believe a federal crime has been committed there is no reason that LEO would not arrest the individual on the spot. It is not a federal crime to be without ID if a citizen, so there could be no probable cause to arrest an alien for being without ID unless there is probable cause to believe the person is an alien, and that would be very difficult to obtain…. And, in AZ, Kolender applies, so as noted above, the police can’t arrest solely for failure to tender physical ID. Period.
SO we are back to the same point. While everyone is entitled to an opinion, uninformed opinions and opinions that simply refuse to acknowledge the reality of a situation are going to be accorded less weight…. so, if one wants to be heard by, say, their representatives, having an informed opinion helps….
Frankly, if one reads through this thread, one notes that those arguing from data are not more accurately characterized as moderate Republicans than radical democrats (and Obama is about as centrist as one gets, even a bit to the right of Clinton, not a radical demagogue, which appellation can only be derived from racist tripe promoted by the likes of that intellectually bankrupt noisome wretch, Beck…) who support LE, are involved in the justice system, are literate and able to find, review and analyze data as well as own and use guns, BUT, know a red herring when they smell one and understand political grandstanding (like refusing to engage in development of a bipartisan health care reform bill, finance reform bill, etc) does not in any way serve the polity.
Many comments here, including at least one from Packetguy, are no longer “operative,” if they ever were. Gov. Brewer signed into law important changes. [KEYTLAW now shows key changes, near the top, after “A.”] “Lawful contact” has been amended to, “”lawful, stop, detention or arrest.” That implies, of course, the “probable cause” concern of Packetguy and also clarifies what “lawful contact” was intended to encompass.
Also, Arizona’s law enforcement agencies and officials originally “may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.” The word “solely” has been stricken. It should not be necessary to explain why the change: to deal with the Big Hate (or Big Fear, if you prefer that) charge of “racial profiling.” It’s not about that; it’s about enforcing the law, something not done in San Francisco and other such lawless places.
Inept, partisan, even propagandistic AP reports, along with reports by other parts of the “mainstream” news media, have made it impossible for most Americans to grasp what the law contains and will mean, or why it was written. How can our democracy function effectively if the national news media cannot or will not report truthfully and fairly, and, I should add, intelligently, on issues and developments of significance in the spheres of government, politics, and culture?
Should I have written x x x That invalidates, of course, the probable cause concern x xx? Think so. Tat clarifies my meaning. People who write laws and who write posts have ideas and intentions in their heads, but the words they choose do not always convey them. So they amend them, as the Arizona lawmakers did.
> Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.
Alfred:
This sentence in the bill remains both unchanged and the basis for my concern, which, I note, no one has even tried to dismantle as it is airtight.
It is perfectly clear that any *citizen* or *lawful immigrant* who is arrested MUST prove, to the satisfaction of LEO, that one is in one of those two groups, prior to being released.
That is tantamount to a new requirement on legal rsidents and citizens to *show papers* before crossing a LEO checkpoint (e.g. the jail gates).
Regardless of anything else, this is plainly unacceptable, and a radical break with the fundamental nature and history of our country. We simply do not now, and never did, have to “show papers” to travel internally, and now, in AZ, if the law goes into effect, we would. And there is good reason why we don’t have to show papers,
I will leave it as an exercise to the reader to demonstrate a basic understanding of our system of laws and history of our country in order to show why that is.
Barry,
The reason the jails do that is to ensure” (1)they have correctly identified the person and that (s)he is not using an alias, (2)that (s)he is not on some sort of list like Interpol’s wanted list or a known terrorist watchlist, or (3) (s)he is not wanted in a foreign country and seeking to sneak in here to hideout and avoid arrest or a trial.
I’ve had to “show my papers” about 5 times this week alone. My bank wanted to see my ID to cash my paycheck, even though they know me on a first-name basis. The DOT inspector at the weigh station wanted to see my Commercial Driver’s license prior conducting the inspection on my truck. I had to present my ID to the shipper in order to pickup my pre-loaded trailer that was going to Houston. I had to present my ID to cash a Comcheck at the truckstop yesterday. I even had to present my ID in order to rent a freaking DVD movie last night! (hello?)
The “papers” to which I am referring does not mean my birth certificate, nor does it mean that in the context of a law enforcement action you cited at a jail. (Can you name one foolish person who carries their birth certificate around in their wallet?) My birth certificate is stored in my safe inside my closet at home. I haven’t had to show it to anyone since I got marriage license years ago. In fact, my “papers” are collecting dust. My everyday “papers” consists solely of my valid Commercial Driver’s License (CDL), which does just fine as my main form of identification and legal status.
I am curious as to how have you managed to live without an ID? I am also curious how you have managed to drive on a public highway without a valid driver’s license? (er, uh, excuse me, I meant to say “papers”) I do hope that you know that it is against the law to not carry your driver’s license when driving on a public highway. In fact, I want to see you attempt to go one week without “presenting your papers” and see how far you get. You are trying to equate “papers” with a legal form of identification. That is ludicrous. Report back here and let everyone know how that turned out. I’ll be waiting right here…
One final note, the connotation of the phrase “show me your papers” is, obviously, a reference to Nazi Germany. The major difference between that context and the current situation is that in Nazi Germany, people were trying to get OUT of the country. Today, terrorists and illegal immigrants are trying to get IN. In Nazi Germany, if you didn’t have your “papers”, you could have been shot on the spot. That obviously doesn’t apply in our free country because we are not Nazis and do not randomly shoot people who do not have “papers”. In fact we enjoy the freedom to travel across state lines without having to “show our papers” to anybody. I do it every day of the week, and I make a good living doing it.
I have tried to discuss the Arizona law. But Marc. . . . What facts support his opinions of President Obama, former President Clinton, and Mr. Beck? “Obama is about as centrist as one gets”? In current Cuba, perhaps, or the former Soviet Union, but the United States? “Even a bit to the right of Clinton.” Evidence, please. Not a radical demagogue? He has argued for a “transformation” of American society. He has complained about the “negative” aspects of the U.S. Constitution, which lay out limits on the federal government and rights retained by the people. Is his argument to set up a whole new set of rights, while ignoring others, not radical? (FDR proposed a similar set; his misguided policies delayed recovery from the Depression, as Mr. Obama’s government-centered initiatives are delaying recovery from the recession.)
Mr. Obama has demagogued against big banks, as if Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the financial meltdown, or pressure on lenders from Democrats and such as ACORN to make bad housing loans; his concentration on banks has ignored the many societal errors that made the good times seem better than they were. E.g., many people bought too much house for their needs and resources, expecting or hoping for continuing price rises. Many borrowed heavily, racking up sizable credit card charges. What happened to those charges? Have you read anything about that lately? (One assumes employed people spend more prudently now.)
Mr. Obama has demagogued against physicians. Remember the surgeon who would saw off a foot for the extra money? He demagogued against health insurance companies. The companies blundered by not fiercely correcting the ignorant and false things the Monster said about health care and its costs. (No tort reform? Of course not. They help to fund the Democrats.) Mr. Obama promised Hope and Change. He gives us Hoax and Chains.
As to Mr. Beck, what can Marc cite to support his characterization of him as an “that intellectually bankrupt noisome wretch?” Mr. Beck’s 5 p.m.(EDT) program has no precedent in American television. It is intellectually rich, the result of considerable work by Mr. Beck and his brilliant staff.