Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Even Republicans Think Arizona Law Is Wrong


As you probably know by now, Arizona has passed a new law aimed at taking over the federal government's constitutional mandate to control immigration. The law would force Arizona police to engage in racial profiling and would force Hispanics in Arizona to carry identity papers (failure to do so would result in a $2500 fine and six months in jail, with a second offense being a felony).

The racist and unconstitutional law was instantly met with outrage by liberals and Hispanic groups. It has also resulted in a warning issued by the Mexican government to its citizens planning to visit Arizona. Mexican officials called the law "discriminatory" and said it would create a "negative political environment" for Mexican visitors. They went on to say, "As long as no clear criteria are defined for when, where and who the authorities will inspect, it must be assumed that any Mexican citizen may be harassed and questioned without further cause at any time."

But now it's becoming clear that it's not just liberals, Hispanics and the Mexican government that believes the new Arizona law is wrong. Some Republicans and other right-wingers have also come out against the law. Here are some examples of opposition to the law from the right:

Former Bush Advisor Karl Rove -
"I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill. I wish they hadn't passed it, in a way."

Right-Wing TV Host Joe Scarborough -
"It does offend me that when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one of three citizens who, if they're walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they're walking their child to school, and they're an American citizen or a legal, legal immigrant, can now put a target on their back and make them think every time they walk out of their door, they may have to prove something. I will tell you that is un-American. It is unacceptable, and it's un-American."

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) -
"It doesn't represent the best way forward."

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-Florida) -
"I strongly disagree with the Arizona immigration law."

Florida Republican Senatorial Candidate Marco Rubio -
"From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. . .I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with 'reasonable suspicion', are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens."

You know a law can't be good when it has people from both sides of the political spectrum opposing it. This is just a bad law, and the sooner it is taken to court and declared unconstitutional, the better for our country and all of its citizens -- regardless of color or ethnicity.

2 comments:

  1. James Melaney5/03/2010 3:47 PM

    First off, where does it state in the bill that we are going to pull people over, yank them out of their cars and beat them with a rusty pipe? Cause that is the way everyone is speaking here. The bill, if you actually read it, states that if an officer of the law already has someone pulled over for another reason or has some official reason to speak with them, that only then they can ask for their identification.

    "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.

    Now, I know that it is rather hard to read, but what this is saying, I think, is that if an officer of the law has someone pulled over "Lawfully" or has contact with someone and has reason to believe that they are not here legally, then they can ask for identification. Is that not what they do anyway? Do they not ask for the identification of anyone that they pull over or have to talk with on the side of the road? I, again, could be wrong here, but this does not seem that unreasonable to me.
    I know, you are all going to tell me how racist I am, how stupid I am, how I am just regurgitating the "hate-speach" of the right, but may I ask, what race am I? Am I a Democrat or a Republican? I could be any. I like to find the truth in things and go from there. If I am wrong, AND YOU CAN PROVE IT, then do so and I will gladly agree with you. But don't just give me the same dribble of how I am to stupid to figure things out and all that crap. Heard it too many times from both Democrats and Republicans. I am neither, by the way, and if someone's civil rights are being violated, then I am wholly behind that person and against the word of law, but lets at least read the entire thing before just jumping on band wagons and shouting, "LIAR, HATER, ETC."

    ReplyDelete
  2. If this is what police "do anyway", then why was the new law necessary?

    By the way, I think you are white, male and a right-winger who will vote Republican in November.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.