« A Call To Arms | Main | You say you can't pray for someone who's done you wrong? »

Hostages

I make no bones about being a political animal. It is one of my greatest obsessions. But even I recognize that there are times when it doesn't apply. Hell, I am an active participant in two other forums that have nothing to do with politics, and I get mad as hell when politics intrudes there.

Likewise, in the real world. As important as politics are, there are times and places when it should not be relevant. And the Arizona immigration law situation is demonstrating that in spades.

In Illinois, a girls' high school basketball team had done exceptionally well, They had earned a slot in a national tournament, and the team members had raised money for the trip. It was going to be a great experience for them.

Until a school administrator found out the tournament was being held in Arizona, and she unilaterally canceled the trip. Because one person -- Assistant Superintendant Suzen Hebson -- doesn't like the new law, the girls are being punished.

The new law isn't popular in California, either.The state has decided to cancel a lot of pending contracts with businesses in the Copper State, specifically citing the immigration enforcement law. Some Arizonans haven't taken that too well, and have started their own individual boycotts of California -- which has some Californians whining.

Others are pressuring major league sports to get in on the boycott fun. The Phoenix Suns have already held a night where they wore uniforms emblazoned with "Las Suns" (although wouldn't "Las Sols" be more accurate), which led to some wags suggesting that people sneak into the game and refuse to leave if caught, and now other teams who have training facilities there are feeling pressured to pull out. Further, Arizona is slated to host Major League Baseball's All Star Game next year, and there's a lot of talk of moving that.

There are two possible responses to this kind of pressure. The first is to hit back just as hard, to organize counter boycotts and "buycotts" (where people go out of their way to patronize a boycotted business or state). That's already being done -- and with some slight early success; witness the squealing coming out of San Diego as they see their summer profits stay in Arizona.

There's another way. And that's to fight not the boycott, but to fight the boycotters.

This is one of those situations that calls for what I call "shotgun problem solving." That's where you try several solutions at once, and hope at least one of them sticks. The advantage is that you tend to fix the problem fairly quickly; the disadvantage is you often don't know which worked or what the precise problem was in the first place. It's not always the best answer, but it works often enough to merit its consideration.

First up, challenge the boycotters. Ask them why they are so opposed to Arizona simply trying to solve its problems on its own. The legislature passed the law; if it doesn't work, they can repeal it. And ask them why the hell Arizona should have gotten to this point -- why hasn't the federal government actually accepted its responsibilities and handled the illegal immigration problem itself?

Second, there's the shame angle. Why do these boycotters want to carry their political fights into so many places where it isn't appropriate? Is there a really justifiable reason to punish high-school girls in Illinois because you don't like a law passed in Arizona?

Third, there's the threat. Look, your boycott is already causing some backlash. People are going out of their way to support Arizona and punish those persecuting the state. Are you sure you want to start this fight?

The Arizona law has already been demogogued halfway to death, and it won't even take effect for a couple of months. It's time people actually started talking reasonably about it, discussing the subject in a rational matter.

Alternately, those of us who have been supporting Arizona's law should start taking very, very careful notes on the tactics used by its opponents, and applying them to things like the ObamaCare health care takeover...


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39089.

Comments (46)

The really funny thing abou... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:

The really funny thing about all the California whining? They have a similar law.

Liberal leaning educators a... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Liberal leaning educators are notorious for using children to make statements about their political ideologies. Denying those young girls the opportunity to play basketball in Arizona is another example and I am sure is of little surprise to most people here. Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm.

California is highly depend... (Below threshold)
jim2:

California is highly dependent of tourism dollars. This has a fine chance of hurting them more than they obviously expected.

Consider that Arizona is their second highest source of domestic, out-of-State visitors. Nevada and Texas are first and third.

http://www.visitcalifornia.com/Industry/Research/CaliforniaStatisticsTrends/default.htm

From the link Anon Y. Mous ... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

From the link Anon Y. Mous offered - "I cannot go to Arizona today without a passport," Los Angeles Councilman Ed Reyes, a Democrat, said before the vote. "If I come across an officer who's had a bad day and feels the picture on my ID is not me, I could be summarily deported -- no questions asked. That is not American."

Los Angeles better rethink voting for this putz again for City Council. The Arizona government (nor the feds) have planes, or any other vehicle, standing at the ready to toss people in willy-nilly for summary deportation with "no questions asked".

Idiot.

My husband and I thought we might go out to San Fran this year for vacation and to visit friends, but we've decided not to now. In fact, we enjoyed Arizona so much last year we think we'll go back there instead.

It's idiot considering most... (Below threshold)
TexBob:

It's idiot considering most states have the same law on their books, but no one bothers to read them. They just take the MFM at their word.

Likewise, in the r... (Below threshold)
ryan a:
Likewise, in the real world. As important as politics are, there are times and places when it should not be relevant. And the Arizona immigration law situation is demonstrating that in spades.

So who determines when and where this issue is relevant, Jay?

First up, challenge the boycotters. Ask them why they are so opposed to Arizona simply trying to solve its problems on its own. The legislature passed the law; if it doesn't work, they can repeal it. And ask them why the hell Arizona should have gotten to this point -- why hasn't the federal government actually accepted its responsibilities and handled the illegal immigration problem itself?

Well, because this is Federal jurisdiction, and the last thing we want is a bunch of states coming up with their own immigration policies and procedures. Do you think that it makes sense for all of our border states to enact their own border policies?

Also, does it really make sense to use local law enforcement as proxy ICE agents? Does this mean that local police will be retrained to deal with these issues? Do they have the time and resources to deal with immigration and everything else on their plates?

Or should the Feds step up and deal with this issue?

The second part of your question is really important, and the Federal management of immigration/border security has been a problem for a long time. And this is a problem that does need to be dealt with, absolutely. This isn't just something that has come about because of Obama or Bush. How has this happened? Well, maybe it would make sense to look at the histories of US immigration policy to find out--it's not like the current situation just appeared out of nowhere.

One thing that I also think needs to happen: people need to start figuring out a way to separate immigration (people who migrate across the border to find work, etc) from border security issues (drug trafficking, etc).

One of the real problems is finding ways to differentiate between laborers and drug runners. Farmers and laborers from southern Mexico aren't the ones carrying Ar-15s and smuggling drugs, after all. We have a couple of different problems here, and treating them all as THE SAME issue doesn't help.

It's time people actually started talking reasonably about it, discussing the subject in a rational matter.

I completely agree.

"Well, because this is Fede... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Well, because this is Federal jurisdiction, and the last thing we want is a bunch of states coming up with their own immigration policies and procedures."

FYI, many already have laws stating that their LE "SHALL" cooperate with Fed Immigration officers. If they come across someone here ILLEGALLY, they are supposed to do something about it. That isn't "coming up with their own immigration policies and procedures."

And don't pull that "some illegals are worse than others" bullshit. ILLEGAL = ILLEGAL.

NO AMNESTY until the borders are SECURED. Like we were PROMISED by the bastards in 1985. AFTER THE LAST AMNESTY!

GarandFan:"FYI, ma... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

GarandFan:

"FYI, many already have laws stating that their LE "SHALL" cooperate with Fed Immigration officers."

Of course they should cooperate with ICE...but that doesn't mean they should attempt to do their jobs.

"And don't pull that "some illegals are worse than others" bullshit. ILLEGAL = ILLEGAL."

Right. And since jaywalking is illegal and murder is illegal, should we just treat all jaywalkers and murderers the same way? Of course not. You see, according to our legal system, there are in fact different gradations in crime, law, and law enforcement.

So you think that someone who runs drugs, carries high powered weaponry, and is prone to violence should be placed in the same category as people who are migrating to find work? Why?

"NO AMNESTY until the borders are SECURED. Like we were PROMISED by the bastards in 1985. AFTER THE LAST AMNESTY!"

I didn't say anything about amnesty.

I think the young ladies an... (Below threshold)
914:

I think the young ladies and parents have a lawsuit against Hebsen if they choose to pursue it.

A few thoughts..Ar... (Below threshold)
Hank:

A few thoughts..

Aren't the libs, those ever tolerants folks, dis-enfranchising the voters of Az?

As with spending other peoples money, it's easy to use it in other ways for easy, no courage needed, political gain.

Wonder how many boycotting libs have actually, you know, read the law. As long as the law doesn't have too many large words, I'm sure most liberals will be able to understand it. If not, they can always look to that paragon of civic virtue, Martha Coakley, who cleared it all up by stating:

"Technically it is not illegal to be illegal in Massachusetts."

ryan a: "Of course they ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

ryan a: "Of course they should cooperate with ICE...but that doesn't mean they should attempt to do their jobs."

Out here in California we have the California Highway Patrol. Apparently you believe that if they see you murder someone they shouldn't apprehend you as long as you drive away within the speed limit.

What's the politically corr... (Below threshold)
Roy:

What's the politically correct term for backlash? They'll need to learn it PDQ.

Justrand:"Out here... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Justrand:

"Out here in California we have the California Highway Patrol. Apparently you believe that if they see you murder someone they shouldn't apprehend you as long as you drive away within the speed limit."

What? Where did you get that from? Did you actually read what I wrote?

I said that local law enforcement is not supposed to do the job of Federal ICE agents. Is that really so difficult to understand? Of course law enforcement officers--like the California CHP--are supposed to do their jobs. Are you arguing that you think the CHP should take over for the border patrol and ICE??? How will that work?

glad to see that Obama's "a... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

glad to see that Obama's "auntie" can now legally stay in the US AFTER violating a deportation order several years ago. Wonder where she gets her money from to live on?

Someone want to explain the... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Someone want to explain the concept of hyperbole to 'ryan a' ?

"Someone want to explain th... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

"Someone want to explain the concept of hyperbole to 'ryan a' ?"

Right, it wasn't a stupid comment, it was just an obvious hyperbole! Ya, that's it. Thanks for your linguistic intervention, Mike.

Too bad Justrand's comment was more off point than it was an exaggeration of anything that I said. In fact, that comment didn't have a damn thing to do with what I am arguing for. But thanks for playing comment referee.

Arizona's law does NOTHING ... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Arizona's law does NOTHING to usurp federal authority, ryan a. Perhaps you should read it before making a fool of yourself.

If it is inappropriate for ... (Below threshold)
Matt:

If it is inappropriate for state/local to enforce federal immigration laws, then it should be inappropiate for them to enforce other federal laws.

The State of AZ should stop enforceing laws that the DEA, BATF, IRS, FDA, FEC etc already enforce. It would save us a lot of money and a lot of headaches.

I would boycott California, but I already have a longstanding rule not to visit communist countries and countries that don't like Americans.

Jim,"Arizona's law... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Jim,

"Arizona's law does NOTHING to usurp federal authority, ryan a. Perhaps you should read it before making a fool of yourself."

Just to keep thing clear, here is what Jay Tea asked:

"Ask them why they are so opposed to Arizona simply trying to solve its problems on its own."

My reply has been that I think this is a Federal issue. And this means that the Federal government needs to do something about this instead of letting the issue get worse. Do you think that all over our border states should start coming up with their own ways of dealing with immigration and border issues, or do you think that all of these states should work to actually enforce one federal policy?

I do not think it is a good idea for various states to start tackling this issue as they see fit--hopefully the reasons for that are pretty clear.

First of all, the left lean... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

First of all, the left leaning asshole has no comprehension about the issue and is ignorant to the billions of dollars the border STATES have to raise to take care of the illegals because the Fed's do not. How about we border states not take care of them, just bus them up to DC where your great Fed's can handle them?

Our government has ignored this problem so long that it is a joke. All the while, California, Arizona, New Mexico and the great state of Texas gets stuck with this problem. Thank God Arizona decided not to listen to the feds bullshit anymore and is taking care of their own state and legal citizens. Hopefully, the other border states will follow suit quickly. I know there are some Texans on this site, but this is an issue you really need to experience the impact of before you just spew bullshit like ryan a is doing. ww

Why wouldn't the officers i... (Below threshold)
Rich:

Why wouldn't the officers involve ICE if they find someone illegal under the new law? Isn't part of what they are supposed to do is check with federal if they find an illegal alien? Isn't it like a local cop catching a criminal who the Feds are looking for and turns them over?

Well, ryan, if the fucking ... (Below threshold)

Well, ryan, if the fucking federal government would do its job, then Arizona wouldn't have to. But they refuse to, have steadily refused to, and no one can compel them to do so.

So, what should Arizona do? Keep sucking it up?

"Feds, PLEASE do your job!"

"No, Arizona. We don't wanna."

"We'll sue you to do your job!"

"You can't."

"Fine. If you won't do it, we will."

"Nope. You can't do it."

"You expect us to just sit here and keep taking it? Phoenix is the US kidnapping capitol thanks to Mexican drug gangs, our border residents are getting literally killed by illegals, and our hospitals are closing down their ERs because of illegal aliens skipping on their bills. We're getting wiped out here!"

"Tough shit. We won't do it, and you can't."

J.

It IS a Federal issue, but ... (Below threshold)
Laura:

It IS a Federal issue, but the Feds aren't doing anything. Arizona is merely enforcing Federal law.

Aren't the states allowed to enforce Federal law?

Great smackdown on the clue... (Below threshold)
apb:

Great smackdown on the clueless weasel, WW.

The real problem is with the Hebson-thing. The moralistic preening of an edu-tard is almost as bad as the crap emanating from Eric "I didn't read the bill" Holder. Just think - this is the level of nuck-fut that's responsible for our disastrous education system.

gee, ryan a, my CHP "hyperb... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

gee, ryan a, my CHP "hyperbole" really tweaked you...good!

your response was actually laughable! did you read your own response?? :)

"Of course law enforcement officers--like the California CHP--are supposed to do their jobs."

Wow...so "law enforcement officers" are supposed to do their jobs! The name would seem to imply that their job is: ENFORCING THE LAW!

When you put their job description together with the people in question, "ILLEGAL aliens", well...I'll leave you to it!

if you cross the broder ill... (Below threshold)
Jeff:

if you cross the broder illegally you are not an imigrant or migrating (like a bird ?) ... you are a f'ing CRIMINAL and it doesn't matter why you are breaking the law. A Big fence will solve the drug dealer and "worker" and freeloader problems all at once. This is not an immigration issue.

Mr Willie,<blockquote... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Mr Willie,

First of all, the left leaning asshole has no comprehension about the issue and is ignorant to the billions of dollars the border STATES have to raise to take care of the illegals because the Fed's do not.

There are both costs and benefits when it comes to these populations--don't forget to look at all sides of the equation. So yes, states have to deal with many of these issues, but state economies like California and Arizona also benefit from these immigrant populations (legal and illegal) economically.

Thank God Arizona decided not to listen to the feds bullshit anymore and is taking care of their own state and legal citizens.

Ya, by alienating a significant portion of its own citizens with ambiguous legalese. That was a great idea. Well, they have created plenty of media attention, that's for sure. But drafting questionable legislation isn't the way to deal with it. At least they modified it, but not after creating an unnecessary political debacle in the process.

Yes, there is a definite need to actually do something about our immigration issues...but there is no need to go about things as AZ has done.

Jay Tea,W... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Jay Tea,

Well, ryan, if the fucking federal government would do its job, then Arizona wouldn't have to. But they refuse to, have steadily refused to, and no one can compel them to do so.

So, what should Arizona do? Keep sucking it up?

The Feds haven't been doing their job for a while, have they? What should Arizona do? I think they should push for immigration reform, but I do not think that SB1070 was the right way to go. I also think they should avoid following the model that pleases the followers of Sheriff Joe down there in Maricopa. Creating more divisions between different American citizens is not the way to deal with this, IMO.

ryan, the whole "are they n... (Below threshold)

ryan, the whole "are they net financial gains or losses" argument is a false one. What matters is the diminishing of our sovereignty -- our right to set our borders and immigration policies, and enforce them.

I categorically reject anyone who interferes with my rights and excuses them as "being for your own good." If someone takes my car and runs errands with it, then returns it with a full tank of gas, they have still stolen my car.

If someone breaks into my home, sleeps in my bed, then makes the bed and leaves a mint on my pillow, they have still violated my home.

The same principle holds for illegal aliens. We made no deal with them, and ought to reject this fait accompli argument. No matter what "benefits" they claim to provide.

J.

Justrand,... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Justrand,

Wow...so "law enforcement officers" are supposed to do their jobs! The name would seem to imply that their job is: ENFORCING THE LAW!

When you put their job description together with the people in question, "ILLEGAL aliens", well...I'll leave you to it!

Yes, CHPs and other law enforcement officers are supposed to uphold the law. But this does not mean that it makes sense to turn local law enforcement agents into proxy ICE agents. That is not their main objective, nor should it be. Of course local law enforcement should cooperate with ICE and other federal agents, but I don't think it makes sense to start making immigration the task of local cops.

There is a reason why we have federal agents who do this. And I agree with all of you who argue that the feds need to actually get off their asses and do something about this. Illegal immigration only creates more problems, obviously.

ryan a - "Ya, by aliena... (Below threshold)
Marc:

ryan a - "Ya, by alienating a significant portion of its own citizens with ambiguous legalese."

Just for the record, and sake of argument, care to quote the "ambiguous" sections[s] of the law?

"At least they modified it, but not after creating an unnecessary political debacle in the process."

The political debacle was created by nitwit press members and politicians (including demagogue-in-chief obama and holder) spouting off without reading the bill or purposefully lying about it for political advantage.

"but there is no need to go about things as AZ has done. "

I'd guess with at least 8 other states looking at enacting similar laws they feel there is a need.

Ya, by alienating a sign... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Ya, by alienating a significant portion of its own citizens with ambiguous legalese. That was a great idea. Well, they have created plenty of media attention, that's for sure. But drafting questionable legislation isn't the way to deal with it. At least they modified it, but not after creating an unnecessary political debacle in the process.

Mr. Ryan A,

I have read the new immigration law and the modification to it. I only have a 12th grade education, from AZ schools at that, and I understood it in one careful reading. I also understood the modification reading it the first time. There is nothing questionalbe about it. The law is only ambigous if you wish it to be.

Illegal Immigrants are not AZ citizens. Every poll that has been taken has verified the majority of AZ citizens support the new law. I don't care if we have alienated persons from CA, politicians from D.C, or Illegal Immigrants.

With one exception, I don't believe Illegal Immigrants provide a positive enhancement to the AZ economy. If you look at the generally stable, well paying jobs that ICE brings into the state, that might be a benefit. Illegals don't pay income taxes, and are hired so the employers can avoide paying various employer taxes as much as possible. If they have families with them they wind up costing more in medical and special educational requirements than any taxes that might come in.

Jay Tea,r... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Jay Tea,

ryan, the whole "are they net financial gains or losses" argument is a false one. What matters is the diminishing of our sovereignty -- our right to set our borders and immigration policies, and enforce them.

Well, the whole history of US immigration is filled with discussions about gains and losses. That's why policies have changed over time.

I agree with you that illegal immigration is a serious issue--there are all kinds of problems that arise when people (whether laborers or drug runners) are entering the country without regulation.

So, when it comes to the current debate about our border with Mexico, there are two key issues. One is drugs. As long as there is this massive market for drugs--billions of dollars--no wall or immigration reform is going to stop the traffickers, IMO. The demand is incredible, and as long as that's the case we are going to be dealing with traffickers. The second is labor. People who cross into the US are certainly finding jobs--otherwise they would not be coming here. We have to find a way to set immigration limits that allow a reasonable number of people to cross legally, efficiently, and safely. We do not want to have all of these people going AROUND our system, obviously. Of course, those are just a couple of issues on THIS side of the fence.

There are plenty of international issues, ranging from problems with trade subsidies to the terrible socio-economic conditions in sending communities in places like Mexico.

This isn't going to be solved by only looking at certain parts of the problem and ignoring the rest. So ya, this is about sovereignty, but it's also about some other things as well.

"And I agree with all of yo... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"And I agree with all of you who argue that the feds need to actually get off their asses and do something about this."

The Feds haven't DONE anything since 1985. When they PROMISED to secure the borders in exchange for political cover for granting amnesty to 2 MILLION. Also saying "Never again". Well Ryan, THEY FUCKING LIED!

Is the response then to continue to DO NOTHING, waiting for the Feds to do THEIR JOB?

"It's time people actually ... (Below threshold)
Maddox:

"It's time people actually started talking reasonably about it, discussing the subject in a rational matter."

That is the usual liberal line, i.e. lie. They want others to be reasonable when they are losing the argument but use their power to tell the opposing voices to shut up and get out of the way.

Bring it on libs, we have learned well from your example. There are more of us, let's see who can afford the boycotts. Arizona is a beautiful place to vacation, California is broke.

Marc,"Just for the... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Marc,

"Just for the record, and sake of argument, care to quote the "ambiguous" sections[s] of the law?"

Paragraph B of 11-1051. Especially "lawful contact" (which was changed to "lawful stop"), and the wonderfully ambiguous "reasonable suspicion." Both phrases leave a lot of room for interpretation, especially the latter. The phrase lawful contact means almost nothing.

Maybe you think this phrasing is clear as a bell; I don't.

"It's time people ... (Below threshold)
ryan a:
"It's time people actually started talking reasonably about it, discussing the subject in a rational matter."

That is the usual liberal line, i.e. lie.

Well, that was Jay Tea's line.

'wonderfully ambiguous "rea... (Below threshold)
apb:

'wonderfully ambiguous "reasonable suspicion."'

Kind of like a wonderfully ambiguous "reasonable doubt." Plenty of room for interpretation there too, eh?

Simp.

apb:Reasonable dou... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

apb:

Reasonable doubt is part of a court or law during criminal proceedings, and requires extensive evidence. Reasonable suspicion, while also a legal term, and used in law enforcement, is not really comparable. Reasonable suspicion is based on trust, and requires less evidence than probable cause (which is required for arrest). "Reasonable suspicion" is nothing new, but that does not mean that the term avoids ambiguity or possible misuse.

Conflating these two terms just because they share the word "reasonable" is kind of sloppy. Nice try though.

Just to clarify: Reasonable... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Just to clarify: Reasonable suspicion is based upon trust of the officer's judgment in a particular situation. This is very different than reasonable doubt, which is built up with extensive argumentation and evidence. Yes, experience, judgment, and a certain amount of evidence has to back up "reasonable suspicion," but this whole comparison with reasonable doubt is pretty lame. One is more about intuition and limited evidence (and is pretty open to interpretation), and the other is arrived through complex court procedures. There's really no comparison.

which led to some wags s... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

which led to some wags suggesting that people sneak into the game and refuse to leave if caught

And demand free food and drinks as well.

ryan a - "Maybe you thi... (Below threshold)
Marc:

ryan a - "Maybe you think this phrasing is clear as a bell; I don't."

Well as least you admit wording was changed.

As for reasonable suspicion...

The entire law enforcement community operates under reasonable suspicion so what's the frigging problem?

Don't think so... you "ryan a" have just been muggged by a 5.6 foot tall Asian man wearing a SF Giants baseball jacket and blue shorts.

Oh... and BTW you are in Chinatown San Fransisco.

Do ya think the police will have "reasonable suspicion" to stop every "5.6 foot tall Asian man wearing a SF Giants baseball jacket in the immediate area in an effort to catch the perp?

bonus question: If they stop and question EVERY 5.6 foot tall Asians is that "profiling?

Marc:"The entire l... (Below threshold)
ryan a:

Marc:

"The entire law enforcement community operates under reasonable suspicion so what's the frigging problem?"

The problem is that it's open to misuse, especially from folks like the Sheriff down in Maricopa County. The example you gave about SF and Chinatown is based upon specific incidents and details, including articles of clothing. Looking for a particular 5'6" individual wearing blue shorts and a Giants cap is different than looking for anyone and everyone who just might look like they are in the US illegally.

With the AZ law, what exactly does it mean to have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is here illegally? Because they "appear" to Latino? Well, that's not illegal. Because they "dress like a Mexican"? Not illegal. Because they speak Spanish? Again, not illegal. Because they are walking on the street instead of driving? Not illegal. Because they are taking the bus? Because they use public laundry facilities?

Look, I fully understand the issue here, and I understand why you take the position that you do. I happen to disagree with some aspects for specific reasons. I think that laws like this one in AZ will just push people further underground. And that's not going to help. The drug runners are already way off the radar, and I think this kind of law will push more of the labor immigrants into this area--and to me it makes more sense to separate the labor-migrants from the drug runners, instead of criminalizing them all in the same way.

Of course, I don't have all the answers and these are just my opinions.

"With the AZ law, what e... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"With the AZ law, what exactly does it mean to have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is here illegally? Because they "appear" to Latino? Well, that's not illegal. Because they "dress like a Mexican"? Not illegal. Because they speak Spanish? Again, not illegal. Because they are walking on the street instead of driving? Not illegal. Because they are taking the bus? Because they use public laundry facilities?"

If they're driving, and are pulled over, do they have a driver's license? Registration for the car? Insurance?

No?

Have they got ANY sort of ID?

No?

There would seem to be a 'reasonable suspicion' at that point that they're not here legally.

How about if they were shoplifting? Do they have ID?

No?

There would seem to be a 'reasonable suspicion' at that point - enough (at least) to be worth checking out.

If they're legal immigrants, they're ALREADY required to carry their papers - we have a guy who immigrated legally from Ivory Coast - and he had to carry them until he naturalized. And was he ever proud of doing that!

You might want to check the doc out for yourself - I'm looking over it and not finding anything objectionable. (Except the darn thing's got major sections written IN ALL CAPS, DAMMIT, AND I DON'T LIKE BEING SHOUTED AT but that's a minor quibble.)

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

I'm thinking at this point no matter what we do, someone's going to be screaming about it. The screaming which should have the most attention paid to it, in my opinion, is of the LEGAL residents of this country, and the LEGAL immigrants who have played by the rules and jumped through all the hoops to show they're willing to be citizens - not folks who've come over the border for a quick buck to send the folks back home.

I've got sympathy for them - but they need to follow the rules.

"ryan a" (I just love peopl... (Below threshold)

"ryan a" (I just love people who think they are "above" orthography--cluebat: there was only one e.e. cummings, and he wasn't all that great)--

Listen to someone who knows what she's talking about instead of spouting more blather:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShkpO9Rf1bo

"ryan a" (I just l... (Below threshold)
ryan a:
"ryan a" (I just love people who think they are "above" orthography--cluebat: there was only one e.e. cummings, and he wasn't all that great)--

Thanks for the insight, Mr Orthography. I hope you feel better now.

Listen to someone who knows what she's talking about instead of spouting more blather:

Gabriella has her point of view, and I don't necessarily disagree with everything that she says. I do think that this bill leaves room for misuse and abuse of the law, and I think that it could have been written with quite different language. Immigration reform is definitely needed, but I think that this AZ bill is heading in the wrong direction in its intent and framing. A lot of it is fine, but there are some key parts that are problematic.

But I have already made these points above, and instead of addressing specific points, you have resorted to a lame orthography complaint and a not-so-interesting YouTube video. Gabriella seems like a reasonable person and all, but I am not exactly blown away by her arguments. I think she has some good points in there, yes. But I think she misses some of the problematic issues with SB 1070.

So, Dave, beside grammar, do you have a point that you can actually express on your own?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy