« My Favorite Performance on the American Idol Finale | Main | The Sestak Scandal In A Nutshell »

A Tea Bag The Size Of An Elephant

We keep hearing from reliable liberals about the potential danger of the Tea Party movement. How the anger that is among the driving factors could, at any moment, erupt into rage and wreak havoc.

Kind of like, say, this unannounced protest in Seattle last week, during which the protesters blocked traffic, assaulted civilians, and essentially sealed off a federal building.

But not like that, of course, because that protest was organized by La Raza, demanding "comprehensive immigration reform" (which, thanks to my handy-dandy "Liberal-BS-To-English Translator," means "amnesty for illegal aliens"). That's different. That's a righteous passion for justice, that's standing up for the common person, that's sticking it to The Man, that's speaking truth to power.

Then, perhaps, they're worrying about this incident in Maryland, when about 500 people descended, unannounced and apparently escorted by DC police, on the private home of an official with whom they were displeased and held their protest on their lawn, shouting into bullhorns, waving signs, and in general terrifying not the official (who was not at home) but his 14-year-old son, who was in the house alone.

No, not like that, of course. Because that stunt was pulled by the SEIU, protesting Bank Of America's foreclosure practices (you know, actually enforcing the terms of the loan contracts they signed with home buyers) by descending on the home of one of BofA's top execs, unannounced and with only two observers (SEIU's pet blogger and a reporter who coincidentally lived across the street) as they terrorized a teenager for the "sins" of his father. No, this wasn't done for public consumption, but private -- the message was clearly intended to be heard only by the target and his colleagues at the bank that, purely by an astonishing coincidence, also holds almost $200 million in loans to the SEIU.

No, this home invasion (well, property invasion) was different. This was a righteous passion for justice, this was standing up for the common person, this was sticking it to The Man, this was speaking truth to power.

The Tea Parties, though... they're different. You can tell they're not actually for the common person, because they're actually organized by the common person, and not some overarching group that loudly proclaims its noble intent. Everyone knows that the common person simply isn't smart enough to know what's in their own best interest and act accordingly -- they need unions and race-based groups and "community organizers" to tell them how they're getting screwed, who's screwing them, and how and when to yell back.

I suspect that's a key part of what has the liberals so pants-wettingly hysterical about the Tea Party movement -- it has no clearly-defined leadership. First up, that means that their favorite Alinsky tactic -- "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it" -- is worthless. The people aren't following a person or a group, but an idea. And worse, a very generalized idea, not a specific notion.

The second problem is actually somewhat parallel to the War On Terror Overseas Contingency Operations Confronting Violent Extremism (oh, screw it) War Against Militant Islam. One of the biggest challenges we've had is the utter decentralized nature of the threat. There is no single leadership, there is no geographic center, no uniting banner that is readily identified with the enemy -- which means we have no single foe we can conquer, no leader who can surrender, no place we can destroy to certify our victory.

Likewise, the left is similarly flummoxed by the Tea Party movement. In the past, they could deal with an opposition force through its leadership. They could be discredited, accomodated, or bought off, and the threat would go away. But here, there is no recognized leadership, and only minimal cooperation among the countless factions. That's why they are trying so desperately to find someone they can crown as the "leader" of the Tea Party -- Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or whoever. If they can just find (or fabricate) a leader, then they can apply their tried-and-true tactics.

In the meantime, though, they can keep trying that "the Tea Parties are big, scary, violent, stupid, hypocritical trailer trash RAAAAACISTS who want to destroy the government, and did we mention they're RAAAAACISTS too?" stunts.

Too bad for them that so far, their side has pretty much a monopoly on political violence in recent history. That means that while they talk about what the Tea Partiers MIGHT do, we can point at the actual, real political violence going on by their allies and ask them why they aren't worried about that.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39186.

Comments (81)

Jay Tea: You have a working... (Below threshold)

Jay Tea: You have a working "Liberal-BS-To-English Translator"? Mine's broken. It just bleats.
At least I think it's broken!

If the Tea Party movement w... (Below threshold)
epador:

If the Tea Party movement were to ever become violent, it would not be in the streets, or at a private home, but in the halls and meeting rooms of government. But I think for now that we'll settle for the violence of the ballot box.

"Comprehensive Immigration ... (Below threshold)

"Comprehensive Immigration Reform" means "free sh*t for me" not "amnesty for illegal aliens." They want way more than amnesty, they want the entire Southwest, funded by what's left of the USA.

Trying to think like the (l... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Trying to think like the (lunatic) liberal for a moment here: "It seems to me that since I know my candidates are going to get "slaughtered" in the fall elections, that's a clear threat of violence. Isn't it? Yes, I feel that it is."

Ok, I back and I just gave myself a headache. Going to go have a bit of a lie-down now.

Jay, you forgot about Allee... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Jay, you forgot about Allee Bautsch in NOLA. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that she and her boyfriend were beaten by Leftwing protestors.

Oh, I haven't forgotten abo... (Below threshold)

Oh, I haven't forgotten about it, Eric. While I agree with you that it was most likely leftist extremists who sent her and her boyfriend to the hospital with quite a few broken bones, it hasn't been proven yet.

But I have tremendous faith in the New Orleans government to get to the bottom of this case any day now...

J.

I'm encouraged by recent si... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

I'm encouraged by recent signs that the Tea Party movement is not delivering the votes.

Palin's hand-picked goober failed in Idaho:

In the midst of one of the most precipitous political crashes in the Mountain West, Sarah Palin made a mad dash into Boise on Friday, urging the election of a man who had plagiarized his campaign speech from Barack Obama, had been rebuked by the military for misusing the Marine uniform and had called the American territory of Puerto Rico a separate country.

And why not? Vaughn Ward, the Republican congressional candidate from Idaho, has the dubious character trifecta of the Palin brand: bone-headed, defiant and willfully ignorant. When told that Puerto Rico was not a country, he said, "I don't care what you call it."

On Tuesday, this Palin protégé was routed in a huge upset, despite a big early lead in the polls, a 6-to-1 fundraising edge and that Friday fly-in by the former half-term governor, who has Idaho roots.

And as a liberal I can't thank Rand Paul enough. He's done more in the last week to reveal the ass-hatted stupidity and inherent racism of the Liberterian faction of the Tea Party movement than any of us would have hoped.

That particular brand of racism that says all Americans are equal, but (on the right at least) the rich white folks still run the show - so move on to the back of the bus.

It's been a spectacular week of Tea Party failures. Here's to more of the same.

Lee sees racism everywhere.... (Below threshold)
just bob:

Lee sees racism everywhere.

Congrats, Lee! You've found... (Below threshold)

Congrats, Lee! You've found the diamond in the dung heap!

Well, to be more accurate, the turd in the diamond heap.

That's one. How about the rest of the races? Arlen Specter? The governorships of New Jersey and Virginia? The MA Senate seat? Blanche Lincoln in Virginia? The US House seat from Hawaii, covering the area where he was allegedly born?

You've found one exception where Obama's blessing has NOT been the Kiss Of Death.

And I see you're back to your old plagiarizing games, Lee. You quote a report from somewhere, but you don't give proper credit to the original author.

You were a much better plagiarist before you ran Blue into the ground. There, you'd quote whole articles without giving credit. This time, it looks like you only took a part of someone else's work.

Unless, of course, you really are Timothy Egan of the New York Times. But I doubt that. Egan, at least, can write coherently without descending into frothing, impotent rages.

J.

When you've got Arizonians ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

When you've got Arizonians writing racist laws while claiming that runaway violent crime makes their streets unsafe -- and then you have the release of crime statistics showing that was a lie.

As Illegal Immigration Rises in Phoenix, Crime Falls The Wall Street Journal's Evan Perez reports that, from 2008 to 2009, violent crime "plunged 16.6% in Phoenix, despite a perception of rising crime that has fueled an immigration backlash." Violent crime fell 5.5% nationally. "For the first quarter of 2010, violent crime was down 17% overall in the city, while homicides were down 38% and robberies 27%, compared with the same period in 2009. Arizona's major cities all registered declines." CATO's Daniel Griswold adds, "One of the clinching arguments for Arizona's tough new law aimed at illegal immigration has been the perception in that state that crime has been rising, and that undocumented workers are largely to blame."

So why are Arizonians lying about crime in order to clamp down on immigrants? They hate non-whites so much, that's why.

And not only did the crime rate drop dramatically in Arizona in 2009 as compared to 2008, but the immigration crackdown is supposedly a "crime-reducing" move - begging the question "If you're trying to fight immigrant-related crime why are you doing this?" since...

"...police chiefs from several of the state's and the nation's largest cities" agree that "Arizona's new crackdown on illegal immigration will increase crime in U.S. cities, not reduce it, by driving a wedge between police and immigrant communities. ... Arizona's law will intimidate crime victims and witnesses who are illegal immigrants and divert police from investigating more serious crimes." These police chiefs are not arguing that any immigration enforcement increases crime, only that Arizona-style extreme enforcement can increase crime.

Crime is down in Arizona but they lie and claim the opposite?

Racism.

The new law in Arizona is needed in order to "reduce crime" but it'll have the opposite effect -- so why do it?

Racism.

Are these racists cognizant of their racism?

In most cases I'd say no. They don't look and sound like skin-headed extremists, but their actions reveal their inner-workings. They lie in order to stamp down on non-whites in their communities.

Racism.

Oh, and Lee: no defense of ... (Below threshold)

Oh, and Lee: no defense of the violent protests I cited? Come on.

Oh, yeah, I forgot. You don't do defense. You only do offense. You're 100% attack, 100% of the time, lashing out, never offering anything the least bit constructive.

Come on, Lee. Tell us how those "protests" were entirely justified and fair, and the people targeted had it coming anyway.

Just this once.

J.

And the spectacular failure... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

And the spectacular failure of the right to take PA-12 last Tuesday, Murtha's old district, despite early claims by the GOP that they would snatch that seat away from the Democrats?

That's right. The only election last Tuesday that pitted Republican against Democrat was yet another sign that the Tea Party and the GOP are not delivering on their promise, and are sputtering in failure.

Plagiarized material deleted for reasons of legal liability. Lee, cite your sources or GTFO. -- J.

FAIL!

Palin can't deliver the votes.

Railing against ObamaCare can't deliver the votes.

The Tea Party is becoming a spectacular, sputtering failure.

Lee, it's sad. Not only are... (Below threshold)

Lee, it's sad. Not only are you sticking to your old tricks ("quick, change the subject!"), but you're not even coming up with new lies to back up your old ones.

Phoenix is STILL the kidnapping capitol of the US, and 2nd in the world, only behind Mexico City.

But we're not talking about Arizona here, Lee. We're talking about La Raza and the SEIU, Obama's personal Brownshirts (but in more stylish purple).

Oh, and congrats on getting banned from Shawn's articles, Lee. I know you'll respect that banning and not continue to comment on his articles, because that just might constitute a site-wide banning offense.

Oh, not from me. But I'm not the only wielder of the Hammer.

J.

LeeWard brings teh stoopid ... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

LeeWard brings teh stoopid once again.

It won't be a slaughter of ... (Below threshold)
Deke:

It won't be a slaughter of the socialist/facists in November, those like Bwaney Fwank are in safe, consolidated, gerrymandered districts and will still be there when it's over. The ones who will pay are those that rode in on Obamalini's coat tails in more conservative/independent leaning districts. What we will probably see is a House and Senate with a slim Dem majority. There will be no middle ground in there and both camps will be firmly entrenched and marching to the tune of their leadership.

The real fight will take place after the census is done. The South and West, both strong conservative areas, will see the biggest increases California and the Northeast, both strong left-wing areas, will see the largest losses. After the court approved gerrymandering of districts based on racial lines in the South, can you believe our founders would envision such a thing? Is over; then Conservatives will be in the majority.

The real fun is going to be re-districting in the NE and Left Coast. Which of the economic Facists will be left standing, oh the in-fighting will be glorious.

Lol. Here a repeat of comme... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Lol. Here a repeat of comment #12 with a link.
---------------

And the spectacular failure of the right to take PA-12 last Tuesday, Murtha's old district, despite early claims by the GOP that they would snatch that seat away from the Democrats?

That's right. The only election last Tuesday that pitted Republican against Democrat was yet another sign that the Tea Party and the GOP is not delivering on their promise, and are sputtering in failure...

An aide to the late Democratic Rep. John Murtha won a special election to fill the final months of his boss's term - a nationally watched contest considered a potential bellwether for this fall's midterm election.

In a tight race to the end, Mark Critz brushed back a strong challenge from Tim Burns, a Republican businessman. The GOP had hoped to capture the seat Murtha held for 36 years by playing off growing opposition to congressional Democrats, tea party-driven discontent and unhappiness with President Barack Obama's health care law.

The two national parties made the race about more than simply who fills the last seven months of Murtha's term, auditioning themes that might sway voters in the fall. Each poured more than $1 million into the campaign, most of it negative.

For Democrats, the test was whether they could hold on to a blue-collar district where they have a 2-to-1 registration advantage but that voted for Republican John McCain in 2008. The GOP used the race to gauge the effectiveness of portraying Obama's health care overhaul as a disaster and his energy-climate change bill as a jobs destroyer.

FAIL!

Palin the half-term half-wit can't deliver the votes.

Railing against ObamaCare can't deliver the votes.

The Tea Party is becoming a spectacular, sputtering failure.

Amazing. Lee CAN learn. Som... (Below threshold)

Amazing. Lee CAN learn. Something.

Just gotta hit him upside the head with a cudgel.

Now, Lee, kindly explain why I shouldn't delete your quote on the grounds of irrelevance.

We're talking about your buddies, the jackbooted thugs of La Raza and the SEIU. I know that you would do ANYTHING to avoid admitting that they're a hell of a lot more dangerous than the Tea Parties, and you're insanely jealous that Joe McGinniss and Andrew Sullivan get far more press for their obsessive stalking of Palin than you could ever hope for, but TRY to stay on topic.

Er... address the topic. "stay on" implies you ever were.

Or should we take your refusal to discuss the actual issue an admission that you got nothing to dispute about it?

J.

Keep in mind that when some... (Below threshold)
James H:

Keep in mind that when some of us on the left say "racist," we actually have a legitimate concern in that direction. The anti-immigration movement (Minutemen, etc.) make me nervous precisely becauase anti-immigrant movements in this country are tied up in a history of racism -- earlier movements targeted Chinese, Irishmen, Germans, and so forth. And I can't help noticing that today, the main target is Hispanics re: immigration, and Muslims and Arabs re: the war on terror. In particular, I'd point you to surveys taken in the years after 9/11 that showed a minority of Americans, around 20-30 percent, favoring curtailed civil liberties for Muslims and Arabs. Including a lovely sentiment that Muslims should be compelled to carry special identification.

So you'll pardon me if I take that concern a bit more seriously than you do.

zaugg, Lee always brings te... (Below threshold)

zaugg, Lee always brings teh stupid 'cuz he ain't got nothing else. And nowhere else to go.

J.

Hey Lee don't forget to men... (Below threshold)
John:

Hey Lee don't forget to mention that the democrate that won in PA ran against Obamacare, ran against cap and tax, ran against stimulus in other words ran away from Obama as fast as he could. He also had to do that in a district that is 2 to 1 democrat. Sounds like he might have been a racist teabagger in democrat clothing.

Oh and thanks for the racist commentary you are truly a one trick pony.

James, I respect your conce... (Below threshold)

James, I respect your concerns, but we can't let the possibilities that laws might be abused alone stop them. The Arizona law was a bit lax as originally crafted, but has been amended to decrease its potential for abuse, and can be revised again if it proves necessary.

As I said before, though, I think in this case there will be such intense resistance and scrutiny as soon as the first person is arrested under the new Arizona law, with a whole battalion of ACLU lawyers parachuted in, that officials will go to extremes to stay within the law.

J.

As a small-L libertarian, I... (Below threshold)
mojo:

As a small-L libertarian, I do not initiate violence. But I have no problem responding in kind.

You know the thing that is ... (Below threshold)
Deke:

You know the thing that is funny is that Lee attempts to do just what the post is about, he attempts to set up Palin as the leader of the Tea Party, putting a face on it to be attacked, yet isn't the whole idea that there is NO leader?

If Bwaney Fwank beats a Rep. challenger in his district is that an example of the "failure" of the Tea Party? This district is more than 2 to 1 Dem and very liberal, yet the candidate was forced to run from Obama and state he would have voted against the Health Care bill and it was still very close. That does not bode well for the rest of the country, especially in areas without huge Dem. majorities.

Remember Lee that during the Revolution the country was broken into 3rds, loyalits, patriots and neutrals, it's all about tides,the Patriots had the stronger tide, you and the Facists had yours and it's about spent, the Conservative one is building and will sweep forth, it ususally takes longer to build but fort., for Conservatives, Obamalini is so inept and polarizing he's hastening the tsunami.

Jay Tea:I'm not ta... (Below threshold)
James H:

Jay Tea:

I'm not talking about laws as much as I am the sentiments surrounding the political movements.

-- Superior J.

You know the thing... (Below threshold)
You know the thing that is funny is that Lee attempts to do just what the post is about, he attempts to set up Palin as the leader of the Tea Party, putting a face on it to be attacked, yet isn't the whole idea that there is NO leader?

DAMN, Deke, you're dead right, and I didn't see it. I am hanging my head in shame.

J.

James, we can't regulate se... (Below threshold)

James, we can't regulate sentiments. What we can regulate are laws and behavior.

In other words, we'll always have assholes. But we can control their assholery.

J.

Every squirrel finds an aco... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Every squirrel finds an acorn on occasion lol

Of course we can't regulate... (Below threshold)
James H:

Of course we can't regulate sentiments, Jay Tea, and I wouldn't even try. But I will keep an eagle eye on people's motives.

"But I have tremendous f... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"But I have tremendous faith in the New Orleans government to get to the bottom of this case any day now..."

Well, regardless of what the New Orleans police or government is actually doing we haven't heard a peep from the media about it. Not even their local media who at least reported on it briefly after it happened.

Of course we can't regul... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Of course we can't regulate sentiments, Jay Tea, and I wouldn't even try. But I will keep an eagle eye on people's motives.

Absolutely James, it is our duty to keep an eye on our government and demand better, something we have been too complacent about over the last 50 or so years.

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
-- Wendell Phillips

I think that quote from one of our founders is most apt.

Lee, let me introduce you t... (Below threshold)

Lee, let me introduce you to a little reality here:

1) You do NOT get to set the topics here.

2) You do NOT get to ask off-topic questions and raise off-topic issues and then demand others answer them.

3) You had those rights, when you ran your own blog, but you ran that right into the ground. You crashed and burned that right out of existence.

4) You could start your own blog, where you get to choose the topics and control everything, but we both know that you'd run that right into the ground again. Even if I tossed you a bit of linky-love as a parting gift.

For everyone else: from now on, I'm going to give my own comments where I respond to Lee a negative vote. That way, those who have chosen to filter out down-voted comments to avoid his blather will not have to wade through my answers as well.

J.

"The Tea Party is becoming ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"The Tea Party is becoming a spectacular, sputtering failure."

Well that explains the unions putting up $100 MILLION to support Democrats in this fall's elections.

James, there is no doubt th... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

James, there is no doubt that there are those who are anti-immigration. I think they are a distinct minority. The vast majority are simply anti-illegal immigration and they want the government to show that they have at least a passing interest in enforcing current laws.

While you are concerned with those who have motives or intentions you disapprove of there is another side to that coin. There are those who want open borders -or- lax immigration for the express purpose of breaking down our society and weakening us. They have a grudge and they want our southern border states to be part of Mexico or they just want to be able to slip in without resistence to further their own agenda of personal gain at the expense of the lives and welfare of others. There are some who want to kill us. They are also a minority. Their intentions are not good.

The difference between the two is that we are still a sovereign nation with laws that we have a reasonable right to expect to be upheld and enforced, no matter some individuals' intentions. The federal government has shown us that they simply will not do that. In fact, the 1,200 National Guard being sent in will not even be there to enforce immigration law. (Let's not even try to guess how many of those are pencil pushers who will do nothing but check each others administrative work)

Frankly, I'm sick of it. I don't blame Arizona one bit. In fact, I applaud them.

No one cares that California's laws are virtually the same. You know why? Because it's nothing more than platitudes. No one cares because they know California has no intention of enforcing them. They're afraid that Arizona will.

"Well that explains the ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"Well that explains the unions putting up $100 MILLION to support Democrats in this fall's elections."

As I quoted and linked in #16 above.

The two national parties made the race about more than simply who fills the last seven months of Murtha's term, auditioning themes that might sway voters in the fall. Each poured more than $1 million into the campaign, most of it negative.

For Democrats, the test was whether they could hold on to a blue-collar district where they have a 2-to-1 registration advantage but that voted for Republican John McCain in 2008. The GOP used the race to gauge the effectiveness of portraying Obama's health care overhaul as a disaster and his energy-climate change bill as a jobs destroyer.

RESULTS: Equal dollars spent, and a district that went for GOP (McCain) in 2008 goes Democratic in 2010.

Yes, there is an anti-incumbent sentiment nationwide (I doubt Murth would have won re-election), but that hasn't translated into votes and wins for Tea Partiers. At least not yet. In fact, PA-12 was a sputtering failure for the Tea Party movement, as was the Idaho primary.

"Anti-incumbent" does not equal "pro Tea Party" or "pro GOP."

Lee, let me make your comme... (Below threshold)

Lee, let me make your comment marginally relevant:

Unions have spent millions and millions on buying elections for their selected candidates, especially the SEIU, which is now looking to shake down the bank that loaned it much of the money it used to help buy the White House for Obama.

The message is clear: don't give loans to unions. At least, don't bother calling it a "loan;" just call it quasi-legal extortion.

J.

"No one cares that Calif... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"No one cares that California's laws are virtually the same."

"Virtually the same" except for at least one big difference.

In California, you have to be arrested first in order to be investigated for immigration violations. In Arizona you can be suspected of jaywalking and be investigated.

The "arrest" hurdle is a huge difference.

NO ARREST IS NEEDED in Arizona, which opens the implementation of the law to racial profiling and discrimination.

Lee:NO AR... (Below threshold)
James H:

Lee:

NO ARREST IS NEEDED in Arizona, which opens the implementation of the law to racial profiling and discrimination.


I looked at the law. This is no longer the case. The original bill gave police the ability to check immigration status after any "lawful contact," which was open for wide interpretation. Amendments to the bill limit such checking to lawful arrests or detention.

I believe the potential for abuse is still there. I oppose the law. But I do not concur with your interpretation.

You are wrong.

James, you read the law? Ho... (Below threshold)

James, you read the law? How DARE you! Everyone knows that just reading the law will give you cooties and the heartbreak of psoriasis!

No, the only way to deal with that law is to nuke it from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.

J.

I believe the potential ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

I believe the potential for abuse is still there.

The potential for abuse is there in any law. (Heck, just take a look at the IRS, or the Kelo v. City of New London eminent domain grab.)

What we need to look at from time to time is if the need for the law outweighs the potential for abuse, and rewrite the law as needed to take care of the possibilities of abuse.

I did read it, in fact. I ... (Below threshold)
James H:

I did read it, in fact. I largely concluded that I need to read it again. Also, the Arizona Republic has some really useful supporting material about it. They went out and talked to legal experts about the law, and they have a page that lists the suits brought so far.

I still have problems with it, but I need to take time to think about the law, think about its consequences, and understand the legal challenges to it.

Feel free to quote and link... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Feel free to quote and link to show where that's the case, James, since the reports I see and what I've read indicate that portion of the law was not changed.

May 27, 2010:

According to the law, police do not need a warrant to arrest a person if they have probable cause to believe that the person is in the country illegally.

Area protesters say they have no problem with immigration reform, but think Arizona's policy will lead to racial profiling. They claim the law breeds hatred and intolerance.

Here's the change in the law that took place a month ago (May 1, 2010)

Lawmakers on Thursday night changed the language to require scrutiny only of people who police stop, detain or arrest. They also changed a section of the bill that barred officers from "solely" using race as grounds for suspecting someone is in the country illegally; opponents had argued that that would allow race to be a factor. The legislators removed the word "solely" to bar race from being used by officers enforcing the law.

The law, post change, still permits the police to investigate anyone who is "stopped" - an arrest is not required.

Lee sees racism... (Below threshold)
Lee sees racism everywhere.
Except where it really is, in his own mirror.
Link for my May 27 quote ab... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Link for my May 27 quote above:

http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?ID=1234546

Another way Lee might be ma... (Below threshold)

Another way Lee might be marginally relevant: how many of the thugs in Seattle do you think were illegal aliens? And is it any surprise that they held their little riot outside of Arizona?

J.

"In California, you have to... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"In California, you have to be arrested first in order to be investigated for immigration violations. In Arizona you can be suspected of jaywalking and be investigated."

Got news for you Lee, if you're illegal and I stop you for an "infraction" - which is NOT considered an arrest - I could end up turning you over to the BP. Happens all the time.

A "stop" is a form of deten... (Below threshold)
james H:

A "stop" is a form of detention, if you will. It means that the police officer has some reasonable suspicion to interact with you. It is not formally equivalent to an arrest, but it serves the same function ... and it requires reasonable suspicion a law has been broken.

The amended law can be found on the Arizona House Web site here I encourage you to note the following amended language:

For any lawful 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 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. (Emphasis added)

In essence, this bars detention of a person solely on suspicion he is an illegal immigrant. It requires that there be some suspicion of a violation of another law before there is some interaction. I do not believe this will preclude all instances of bad behavior on officers' part, but it has at least the minimal function of requiring some reason to question the person.

Second, the Arizona Republic asked legal experts to weigh in on a scenario involving the law. I encourage you to read it.

"A "stop" is a form of d... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"A "stop" is a form of detention, if you will. It means that the police officer has some reasonable suspicion to interact with you. It is not formally equivalent to an arrest, but it serves the same function ... and it requires reasonable suspicion a law has been broken.

Not arguing that - but the California law requires an arrest first. The Arizona law doesn't.

A "stop" can be jaywalking, or spitting on the sidewalk... or any reason a racist cop might want choose to warrant his "stop".

"In essence, this bars detention of a person solely on suspicion he is an illegal immigrant."

I understand that, and I'm not arguing the opposite; I replied to Oyster's claim that the California law is "virtually the same." Since California law requires an arrest first and the Arizona law doesn't -- that is far from "virtually the same" in my book.

I cannot convey how utterly... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I cannot convey how utterly useless the lefties have made the word "racist" become. It used to have a very serious impact on someone or things life and garnered the attention. But now that the left calls racism at any disagreement the populace reacts like they do when they hear a car alarm go off.

JT, good post, but I am surprised you allow Liar Lee to take you off your game. He is getting the attention he wants from you. We all know he is mostly irrelevent. ww

Lee Ward - proven wrong - w... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Lee Ward - proven wrong - will now expound on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

A "stop" can be ja... (Below threshold)
James H:
A "stop" can be jaywalking, or spitting on the sidewalk... or any reason a racist cop might want choose to warrant his "stop"

Well, yes, pretextual stops are possible. But you don't have enough ground here to make the point you want to make.

As I've said before, this law will be quite vulnerable to as-applied challenges, but I think it will survive facial challenges.

"The law, post change, s... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

"The law, post change, still permits the police to investigate anyone who is "stopped" - an arrest is not required."

False.

From the law:

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.

[emphasis mine]

"I cannot convey how utt... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

"I cannot convey how utterly useless the lefties have made the word "racist" become."

As opposed to the over use of say.. "Socialist"?

People who have no clue whatsoever what "Socialism" is toss it around constantly.

And, personally, I see the label of "racism" being applied more and more to the right wing - accurately.

Last week's stunning meltdown by Rand Paul exposed the inherent racism of someone who thinks the Civil Rights Act on 1964 is just swell but that restaurant owners should still have the right to segregate "coloreds" in their own seating section.

Rand Paul does not view himself as a racist, I'm sure. He doesn't think that by opposing the portion of the Civil Rights Act that stem discrimination that he himself is racist. I get that.

Let's all agree that not all racist acts are performed by people (left and right) who see their actions as racist.

But suggesting that the portion of an Act that protests minorities from discrimination is wrong in and of itself enables racism through that opposition.

Paul would rather protect racist restaurant owners rights than the rights of law-abiding minorities.

I call that racist. Your mileage may vary. It wouldn't be the first time two Americans disagreed.

People who have no clue wha... (Below threshold)
Oyster:

People who have no clue whatsoever what "Racism" is toss it around constantly.

And, personally, I see the label of "Socialism" being applied more and more to the left wing - accurately.

Lee "Idiot" Ward"A... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Lee "Idiot" Ward

"According to the law, police do not need a warrant to arrest a person if they have probable cause to believe that the person is in the country illegally"

So answer this.

If you are stopped for say drunk driving and arrested did the officer have to get a warrant first?

If you are seen feeling from a store which has just been robbed with a gun in your hand and a bag of cash do the cops need a warrant before arresting you on suspicion of robbery?

You are truly an IDIOT. The cops can arrest you for suspicion of just about anything that breaks the law without a warrant. Then the prosecuter has to decide if he will prosecute.

Warrants are issued under specific circumstances or when things like ICE raids take place. They arent issued everytime an arrest takes place.

Congrats on putting both feet in your mouth. Not that we expect anything less. The IQ average goes up in a room by 50 points just by you leaving it.

As James notes "pretextual ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

As James notes "pretextual stops are possible". Been that way since day one that police forces were formed and legislators began writing laws.

For the uninitiated, a 'pretextual stop' has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court. A pretextual stop is one where the officer stops an individual for violation of a law, in practice usually a very minor one (spitting on the sidewalk to use Lee's example). The real purpose of the stop is actually to investigate something else. IIRC, in the SCOTUS case it involved drug transportation. The Arizona law bashers have hung their hats on this. But the majority of the American public is not buying it.

You might say that the Arizona law bashers are using a PRETEXTUAL PROTEST to further some other political end. Nah, they wouldn't do that, would they?

Lee (idiot) Ward says: "I c... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Lee (idiot) Ward says: "I call that racist."

Oh hell, you call everything racist.
Funny thing is, when talking about the president of the US, all you seem to see is a black man in the white house.

I call that racist.

You will note that Lee Ward... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

You will note that Lee Ward has moved off to another......oh look, a rabbit!

Re: Pretexual stops. ... (Below threshold)
James H:

Re: Pretexual stops.

GarandFan is right, and I've read the cases that prove him right. But I will add that if a police officer is using these pretextual stops and it turns out he's stopping 99 percent Irishmen, then he'll get in trouble.

Holy crap. I agreed with G... (Below threshold)
James H:

Holy crap. I agreed with GarandFan again. I can't make this a habit.

"...it turns out he's stopp... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...it turns out he's stopping 99 percent Irishmen, then he'll get in trouble."

And I got someone fired exactly for that. No, not "exactly", they were Hispanic, not Irish. But Lee will never believe that, as all cops are RACIST!

Garand:Actually, I... (Below threshold)
James H:

Garand:

Actually, I had a hell of a lot of discomfort with the initial draft of the law. The phrase "lawful contact," I thought, was far too ambiguous.

"The phrase "lawful contact... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"The phrase "lawful contact," I thought, was far too ambiguous."

Agreed. Another of those cases where "EVERYONE knows what it means", that can come back and bite you in the ass.

"Holy crap. I agreed with G... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

"Holy crap. I agreed with GarandFan again. I can't make this a habit."

Better be careful, the 'Reality Based' crowd will kick you out for actually acknowledging that there IS such a thing as reality and it's not an artifact of their consensus.

I've worked with a number o... (Below threshold)
Mike G in Corvallis:

I've worked with a number of scientists and engineers who are legal resident aliens -- Brits, Irish, French, Germans, Indians, Japanese, Chinese, Australians. You would not freakin' believe the hoops they have to jump through to stay legal in the eyes of the immigration authorities. And if they want to become citizens, they have to wait ... and wait ... and wait.

There is one -- count it, one -- demographic group that does not jump through these hoops. In fact, a few years ago they were legalized en masse while the foreigners who played by the rules were left out in the cold. Not only do they ignore black-letter federal immigration law, but the federal government wants to ignore its own law, for this one demographic group. And guess what? That demographic group does not consist of Brits, Irish, French, Germans, Indians, Japanese, Chinese, or Australians.

Looks like racism to me, lefties.

Without trying to insult an... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Without trying to insult anyone, but if you do not live in a border state you really do not have a feel for the huge problem illegal immigrants cause. No idea at all. School systems are effected. Healthcare institutions carry billions in debt, social services are overrun, crime rises, diseases spread (TB has made a huge comback in the border states) the list goes on. So, it is not an "academic" exercies trying to get a handle on this problem. Arizona is simply trying to wake the fed's up about the problem. ww

The problem, WildWillie, is... (Below threshold)
James H:

The problem, WildWillie, is that that need to address illegal immigration needs to be squared with other laws, including antidiscrimination law. And it's especially important to ensure that in the zeal to find illegal immigrants, resident aliens and citizens of certain ethnic extractions do not face discrimination.

James HThe problem... (Below threshold)
retired military:

James H

The problem is the nonenforcement of the law on both sides since they want the immigrants to become voters for their party and are more worried about that than actually doing something about the problem. It was bad under GW Bush and it has gotten worse under Obamalama.

Oh, hell, I confess. I only... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Oh, hell, I confess. I only brought up the racism bullshit because I wasn't about to admit that I have no problem with liberals getting violent, because the people they target deserve it. Rethuglicans have no business complaining about violence.

"discrimination"Ay... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"discrimination"

Aye, and that's the rub. Unbeknown to people like Lee, those who cause the MOST damage in discrimination are not the ones running around in white sheets or shaved heads with swastikas tattooed on their foreheads. Those people are a joke - anyone who listens to them for a moment realizes their innate stupidity. People come to know who they are and invariably stay away from them.

The true villain is the 'closet racist'. They pretty much keep their opinions to themselves, but when placed in a position of authority, can and do cause a lot of misery.

Unfortunately, those 'with pure hearts and pure motives' then counter with "The only reason you stopped me/him ___________ is because you're RACIST!"

Now that really helps the issue.

Sort of like Barry and his comment 'I don't know all the facts, but the cop acted stupidly.'

If I might add:I'm... (Below threshold)
James H:

If I might add:

I'm also wary of strong enforcement at the state level because I don't want the illegal immigrants to be afraid to use certain services. I'm not talking about schools. I'm thinking more along the lines of situations involving violent crime, domestic violence, and general emergencies.

You might be here illegally, but that doesn't mean that you should be a victim of a (legal resident/citizen) domestic abuser, or that you should be afraid to come forward to report a violent crime because you might get deported. Or that (for example) you should have to be under the thumb of a pimp because he threatens to turn you in to the authorities.

To me, the "good" of general law enforcement outweighs the "good" of deporting illegal immigrants.

A friend of mine used to work as state government investigator, and he said that illegal aliens' unwillingness to work with law enforcement was often an obstacle to his ability to do his job.

James - and there's where y... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

James - and there's where you hit the Gordian Knot of the "problem".

Oh for the wisdom of Solomon!

For the record: I have iden... (Below threshold)

For the record: I have identified the commenter impersonating Lee Ward above, and have taken steps to make damned certain it does not happen again. That shit is NOT tolerated here.

J.

Garand:Which is wh... (Below threshold)
James H:

Garand:

Which is why language in the Ariz. law to the effect of "would not impede an investigation" is important. One of the non-textual problems with this, though, is that the immigrant community is mostly going to hear about the onerous penalties for being an illegal immigrant or sheltering an illegal immigrant.

Which is one of my greatest fears in a bill like this.

The other is, as you mention, the closet racists who get in a position of some authority. No matter how much anti-racism language you throw into a bill, one of those yahoos is going use it as an excuse to exercise his prejudices.

"...one of those yahoos is ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...one of those yahoos is going use it as an excuse to exercise his prejudices."

And that's when you drop the hammer on THAT individual.

I'll let you in on a 'dirty secret'. Promise now, you won't tell another living soul.

Our county DA's office (and I know of two others) has had an arrangement with the BP for at least as long as I was a cop. They get visas (or some kind of permit) issued to - gasp! - ILLEGALS, who've either been victims of or witnesses to crimes. The DA does this to get them into court. Guess what happens when that victim or witness is no longer needed? Deported? Nope. Turned over to BP? Nope. They walk. In that instance, they 'got a pass'. They get stopped again in future. Well.

Several times have had to call Paramedics for Oaxacan's who'd had their stomachs opened by someone else from the home village (carrying the family feuds north with them). Sometimes the other workers or the victim would tell you who did it. Sometimes they'd just tell you "we'll settle this ourselves".

WildWillie also has a point. Had an illegal riding the rails north. Fell or jumped from the train. Lost part of his foot. Several days in the local hospital. During that time a lawyer from the railroad went to see him. The illegal signed a wavier holding the railroad harmless. In exchange he got a check for $75,000 (IIRC). The illegal skipped out of the hospital the next day. He DID NOT stop by the cashier's office to pay his medical bill.

The visa arrangement strike... (Below threshold)
James H:

The visa arrangement strikes me as a good thing, Garand, although I stand by what I've heard from acquaintances about the difficulties of extending what amount to life-saving services to illegal aliens.

"...the difficulties of ext... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"...the difficulties of extending what amount to life-saving services to illegal aliens."

Only things I've ever heard are those situations which are NOT 'immediate and life threatening'. A case of "you're going to need". There are those who say that WE should then provide that service. Others like ME, say "Oh, and is Mexico going to pay for this? Ah, no. Then why can't this person go back to HIS country and get this service?"

Garand:I'm not goi... (Below threshold)
James H:

Garand:

I'm not going to make that argument. If you're here illegally, that does not give you the right to get your kids into taxpayer-funded schools, to take advantage of taxpayer-funded food stamps, or any of that.

I may, however, occasionally question whether it is economical to force schools, civil-service agencies, etc. to always check immigration status.

I don't think you'll argue ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

I don't think you'll argue with the statement that we are one of the most charitable nations on this earth. Every year, doctors (Doctors without Borders) go to other countries to provide services, either pro-bono or under the auspices of some charitable group. Every so often the local rag has a tear-jerker about some kid flown in to this country for some type of exotic operation, paid for by some church group. That's in addition to the MILLIONS we all contribute to various charities.

What bugs me is when my own state says that in order to balance it's budget, it is FORCED to start cutting medical services to indigent CITIZENS. If liberals say that "The US should not be the world's policeman", then why should we be "The world's defacto charity ward"?

...um? Guys? As enlightenin... (Below threshold)

...um? Guys? As enlightening as this discussion is, the Arizona law was NOT the topic of this post. I can't bitch out Lee for going off on his own pet crusade if you guys play along.

J.

Jay Tea:It's Lee's... (Below threshold)
James H:

Jay Tea:

It's Lee's fault.

Sorry J - oh crap! Almost ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Sorry J - oh crap! Almost dinner time and Momma's gonna be home from work!

IT'S YOUR FAULT JAMES! I'M BLAMING YOU IF DINNER'S NOT READY!




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