« Financial Reform Vote Fails As Senator Levin Channels Sarah Palin | Main | Obama's Cartoon Diplomacy »

"there is an effort to criminalize enforcing the law"

Rush today on the Arizona law meant to deal with that state's illegal immigration problem:

Isn't protecting our legal citizens from an invading army of illegal aliens who are using our services and taking our jobs, a basic notion of fairness?

Isn't that in the Constitution in where is the fairness to American citizens on here? Where is it being applied?  How come the fairness here is being denied to American citizens?  Fairness is a casualty because of the behavior of American citizens.  What about the basic fairness of state and federal governments to protect the American citizens?  So it looks to me like what's going on in Arizona -- and it's not the first time -- there is an effort to criminalize enforcing the law.  And leading this effort is "Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm," leading the effort to criminalize the enforcement of the law.  It's like on 9/11. Obama seems to only have empathy here for the perps.  He doesn't have any empathy or sympathy for the American people in Arizona, for the American citizens out there.

Of course, Obama has his supporters, particularly amongst the pious left:

Foreigners Out!

"The pizzas you eat come from Italy, your numerical system from the Arabs, your script from the Romans, your toys from Hong Kong, your electronic equipment from Japan, your clothes from Taiwan, your wealth from trade with the rest of the world. And then you shout 'Foreigners out!'?"
~ A church sign in Offenbach, Germany
(via Ekklesia)"

U.S.'s Toughest Immigration Law Is Signed in Arizona" (New York Times) 

Notice how the law is portrayed by Obama and his misguided followers. It's either racist or it's a violation of civil rights or it's xenophobia when in reality it's about a state attempting to do something to ensure that laws on the books are enforced, that rampant crime is dealt with, that the state's citizens are protected.

The new legislation (that link brought to us by Steve Schippert in an email to a blogger's distribution list I belong to) isn't complicated and far shorter (17 pages) than I expected.

An interesting clause in the relevant passage contains this most cogent (and under-reported) language:


Seems plain enough don't you think?


In the mean-time, there are those who in the attempt to clean up the border area, have come across some interesting items:

At the fence, we saw garbage everywhere including the Mexican side. We even heard a man clearing his throat on the other side of the border fence. We found a backpack with clothes that were wet from a newly opened water bottle that had spilled. We have every reason to believe there was someone in the wash we were walking who heard or saw us and took off. It was an eerie feeling. And yes, it only takes 3 seconds to hop a border because we found something that is never shown on the news or in distributed pictures: crossbars on both sides of the fence that are welded into the metal posts to serve as footholds. This is the handywork of illegals - not the way the fence was constructed. One can also witness the areas where a sledgehammer was used to break the footholds - probably done by border patrol. All someone has to do is slip their foot onto the cross bar to hoist themselves up, climb to the top bar and jump over. It's that easy! And that's what protects you and me from millions of unknowns.

The Arizona law is but yet another step by decent law-abiding citizens to take their country back.  Decent law-abiding citizens who are being misrepresented, slandered, and portrayed to be people they aren't by people who claim to hold the moral high ground.


I fail to see how these alleged moral high grounders can do these things in good conscience.

Crossposted at Brutally Honest.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "there is an effort to criminalize enforcing the law":

Comments (38)

Have you ever noticed that ... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

Have you ever noticed that those who want to put a fence on our border never suggest one be placed along our border with Canada?

Nice white folks up in Canada.

Apparently we don't need to keep white folks out, only the dark-skinned kind down south.

"The pizzas you eat come fr... (Below threshold)

"The pizzas you eat come from Italy, your numerical system from the Arabs, your script from the Romans, your toys from Hong Kong, your electronic equipment from Japan, your clothes from Taiwan, your wealth from trade with the rest of the world. And then you shout 'Foreigners out!'?"
~ A church sign in Offenbach, Germany

See, this is a prime example of the irrational nature of the liberal mind that somehow they have no problem conflating international trade/commerce with immigration law. Plus I would be willing to bet that despite all the brouhaha over immigration in this country, we remain more accommodating to foreigners than every one of those countries mentioned in the above quote. Maybe some of those Germans who attend that church would like to take in some Greeks in need of employment?

Lee Ward, I'd say you can't... (Below threshold)

Lee Ward, I'd say you can't be that dumb...but of course, you are.

Do we have 20+ million Canadians living illegally here and mailing money home? Do we have rampant kidnappings and drug wars on our Canadian border?

Yes, there are occaisionally problems with ANY border. But our Southern border has ALWAYS been a problem. The Mexican government has never been anything BUT corrupt. Thus the Mexican population, which expands at 3 times the pace of the Canadian one, is always looking to come North.

NO ONE I KNOW is against LEGAL immigration. But ILLEGAL entry (which is NOT "immigration") is a crime!

as I posted on my website t... (Below threshold)

as I posted on my website today:

Just over the hill from where I live is a place called "Atherton". One of the wealthiest districts in the country.

If I break into one of the houses there I will be arrested and sent to prison!

But, if I break into one of them and bring my whole family...I guess I can stay as long as I want...right??

@ Lee Ward in #1:P... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

@ Lee Ward in #1:

Playing the "RAAAAACISM" card awfully early, are we not?

Or are you just going for the "Offensive Troll" award?

A church sign in O... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
A church sign in Offenbach, Germany

So now we're getting sanctimonious tips on human rights from krauts, of all the people on the face of the earth?

Judgment Day must be nigh.

Note to krauts: You have no fucking place lecturing anybody about human rights for the next thousand years, if then. Got that, you Nazi blockheads? So shut the fuck up.

A guy in the shop immigrate... (Below threshold)

A guy in the shop immigrated from Ivory Coast. Thick accent, lousy technician, but he was willing to learn. And we had a party for him when he became a citizen. He'd gone through a hell of a lot of hoops for it.

Play by the rules - and welcome to the game. Don't want to play by the rules? Then go home until you do! Fools like Lee want to pretend it's all about color - and for THEM, it is!

For the rest of us? Hell, just play by the rules - immigrate legally, assimilate, and welcome to the game!

Since when do laws apply to... (Below threshold)
Caesar Augustus:

Since when do laws apply to Democrats?

The blatant, open racism be... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

The blatant, open racism being practiced in Arizona by the GOP, as exemplified by this legislation, will backfire on the good people of Arizona at a time that their economy is already struggling.

The boycotts are going to stack up quickly.

Just as they did when these same racist bigots decided Arizona didn't need to celebrate Martin Luther King Day a few years ago.

But, as we all know, racists are energized by Obama's election. Just another sign of the times, and a sign of how utterly stupid racists can be.

They aren't protecting their state, their sinking it.

should read: "They're sinki... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

should read: "They're sinking it"....

The blatant, op... (Below threshold)
The blatant, open racism being practiced in Arizona by the GOP, as exemplified by this legislation
The blatant, open ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
The blatant, open racism being practiced in Arizona by the GOP, as exemplified by this legislation, will backfire on the good people of Arizona at a time that their economy is already struggling.

Flea, where in the Constitution do you find the right to immigrate illegally?

For my part, I'd be perfectly happy for Mexicans to immigrate to the U.S., if for everyone a liberal left. (No pun intended.)

For the record, Lee Ward is... (Below threshold)

For the record, Lee Ward is accusing 70% of the people in Arizona -- including 51% of that state's Democrats -- of "blatant, open racism."

And of being Republicans, which the 51% of Arizona Democrats would undoubtedly consider the worse insult.

Aren't those who work to st... (Below threshold)

Aren't those who work to stop the enforcement of laws guilty of obstruction of justice?

If no one is above the law, arrest the politicians who are obstructing justice.

Lee, if the Canadians were ... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Lee, if the Canadians were streaming in illegally in the numbers coming over the Mexican border, there would be reasons for concern. As you know, that is not the case, but since you have no rational argument against illegals being found and deported, you attempt to divert the issue entirely with the favorite non sequitur of the brain-dead left: RAAAAACISM!!!!!


The vignette on the fence-jumping illustrates why a border fence is no panacea. It's ideal for areas like San Diego with high traffic, where enough Border Patrol can be assigned to watch it. In more rural and remote areas, it will always be breached, and we cannot possibly afford enough agents to stop that, so other methods will need to be used.

But well-monitored and maintained fences in the higher population centers, where the biggest numbers of crossings occur, are extremely effective.

Obama wants to stop the Arizona law from being enforced, because it places him in a lose-lose situation. He wouldn't allow any illegals deported (except maybe Jews) if he had his druthers, but the first guy he lets loose who commits a violent crime is going to come back to haunt him. So he will try to stop enforcement at the state level, to preserve his master plan.

Here's the deal:Th... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Here's the deal:

There is one, and only one, way to stop illegal immigration in the US:

Jail the CEO's of the businesses that hire them.

Every other solution, from either party, is a straight-up sham.

This Arizona law is particularly ridiculous, and the politicians pushing it don't care. The local cops who will have to enforce it ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT this law.

It will not do one thing to solve the problem; but what it will do instead is erode yet another aspect of US citizens legal rights not to be harassed because a policeman has a *suspicion* they might be illegal.

Already a US citizen trucker went to jail because he wasn't driving with his birth certificate.

So count me among the many millions who don't think a "Show us your papers" law is a good idea, in what we'd like to keep as the Land of the Free.

Hey, Lee One-Note has found... (Below threshold)

Hey, Lee One-Note has found the flip side of his broken record. He's given up calling everyone who disagrees with him a "liar" and moved on to "racist."

I can just see Lee Ward in a hospital ER: "Why did you only put a tourniquet on the patient's left arm? Are you prejudiced against right arms?"

"But the patient's right arm is fine -- the left one is the one that's half-severed!"

"You bigot! You can't treat the two arms differently! Put a tourniquet on that arm, too, or take the one on the left off!"

Oh, and Lee, I'm still waiting for you to back up your accusations of me being a liar with a verbatim quote that meets the definition of "lie." You know -- false statement, spoken by someone who knows it's false, with the intent to deceive.

But I'm not going to threaten to ban you if you refuse. If you want to keep running away from me every time I bring it up and then slink back in a few days later, I'll keep reminding you of your hypocrisy and cowardice.

All part of the service, Lee.


I just want you to know, Ja... (Below threshold)

I just want you to know, Jay, I did NOT read Lee's comments.

I applaud you Oyster. Why ... (Below threshold)

I applaud you Oyster. Why can't we be as wise? I did read it, and it's nothing more than unsubstantiated bullshit trying to provoke (re: basically, "Arizonans are racists").

The REAL STORY here is who is this Jan Brewer and why haven't I sent her flowers before?

Jim, I once shared your ide... (Below threshold)

Jim, I once shared your idea about punishing those who hire illegals. I thought a hefty fine was the way to go. The problem now is many are not coming here to work. They have learned to game the system of government handouts. Jobs are scarce and the only solution is to return them whence they came. Sadly, our own government refused to enforce the law and caused this problem just like they have with everything they tried to "fix."

Maddox, besides the point t... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Maddox, besides the point that fines wouldn't solve it - companies would just subtract the fines from their profits...

Statistically that is simply NOT TRUE. Illegal immigrants are in fact paying more in to government services than they are receiving, because many of them have taxes deducted from their pay which they never see benefits from.

But even if that WAS true, this law wouldn't solve it - anymore than passing a law against the ocean will stop it moving. If this is a serious problem, it must be addressed in a way that solves it. Not some meaningless symbolic crap that actually gets in the way of local law enforcement AND erodes rights of the innocent citizens who were BORN here.

Constitutionally, if this law stands it is yet another erosion of everyone's liberty. Far worse, in fact, than anything that any President, Democrat or Republican, has ever done since before the Civil War.

Is there some reason we can... (Below threshold)

Is there some reason we can do both, fine the crap out of employers that hire illegals (like $1,000,000 per) and deport those we find amonst us. Why oh why does it have to be one or the other.

On another point why are there "undocumented workers" in a country with 9.7% unemployment.

John, it can be both, but m... (Below threshold)
jim x:

John, it can be both, but mandatory jail time has to be there. Otherwise the company will just deduct the fine out of the profits.

And there are undocumented workers in a country with 9.7% unemployment, because companies would rather pay them than US citizens. Because they can pay undocumented workers illegally low wages, and basically treat them as a disposable labor force.

I have noticed that most of... (Below threshold)

I have noticed that most of the race pandering is being done by people who live outside of Arizona. I have been asking myself this question. Why is that? The only answer that I can come up with, is that they are afraid that the state they live in, will pass the same or a similar law that Arizona passed and that has them scared spitless.

Stan, if you mean a law tha... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Stan, if you mean a law that will also erode the freedoms of innocent citizens while actually doing nothing to solve the problem of illegal immigration, yes you're right. There is a lot of fear that this useless law will be passed elsewhere.

What I don't understand is why so many conservatives who would absolutely ***freak the eff out*** at the thought of a mandatory Medical ID card, have no problem with a law that makes it mandatory for the police to check the *other* ID's of anyone they want to.

Jim x, the text of the law ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Jim x, the text of the law specifies checking the immigration status of those they have stopped for a lawful reason in the performance of their duties. It does not authorize the police to stop people simply to check their immigration status.
I know that the facts will probably just bounce off and not make any impression, but the facts remain. Arizona's law is no different from that allowing police officers from asking for your license and registration when they pull you over. You're driving: are you legally entitled to do so? You're here: are you legally entitled to be? What's the difference?

The blatant, open ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
The blatant, open racism being practiced in Arizona by the GOP, as exemplified by this legislation, will backfire on the good people of Arizona at a time that their economy is already struggling.

So let's see. Arizona will lose some money because a few liberal numbnuts may not go there. BFD. On the other hand, Arizona will gain a lot of money if they don't have so many impoverished unskilled illegal aliens running up the cost of healthcare (by using ERs), of crime, and of welfare (by undercutting the wages of low income Americans). Sounds like a winner to me.

Note that illegal aliens will now be more likely to move to a liberal-infested state (e.g., CA) that won't do the same thing as AZ, thereby running up CA's costs when the state economy is firmly in the crapper.

So which state is smart, and which dumb? Hmmm?

Jay G., here's the actual t... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Jay G., here's the actual text of the bill in question, as it was sent to AZ's governor and signed into law. Hopefully these facts won't bounce off *you*.


Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

Definition of "lawful contact"? Nope. *You don't even have to drive badly*. Could be a conversation on a sidewalk.
Definition of "reasonable suspicion"? Nope. Could be that the subject likes a foreign movie.
Requirement of probable cause of some other crime before asking for papers? Nope.

All three of the above make this ENTIRELY different than the "routine traffic stop" you want to believe this law means.

Please read the facts.

Police cannot just stop and... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Police cannot just stop and question anyone just for the hell of it. That would be an "unlawful contact." Just as they cannot search anyone just for the hell of it. That would be an "illegal search and seizure." In the absence of a warrant, police may only question and/or search someone when they have a good faith basis to do so. (Watch Law and Order, if necessary.)

A warrant or a good-faith basis - which you can be sure will be tested by a public defender - makes police interaction with a citizen a "lawful contact." The term isn't defined explicitly in the AZ law because it is defined elsewhere, and is well understood.

Try again.

Btw, Arizona did not define... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Btw, Arizona did not define "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" in this legislation for a simple reason: the terms have already been defined by the Supreme Court, over 40 years ago in Terry v. Ohio. (See http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stop+and+Frisk).

Arizona law is subordinate to rulings of the Supreme Court. Not only would it be superfluous for Arizona to define these terms, it would be inappropriate.

It's becoming apparent how ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

It's becoming apparent how and why people become liberals. They're apparently not only left-wing in politics, but left-wing in the IQ distribution as well.

Lee (and those who agree wi... (Below threshold)

Lee (and those who agree with him) read Mexico's immigration policy - lets adopt and live by their policy.

olsoljer, it's just exasper... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

olsoljer, it's just exasperating to deal with such mental midgets. "Well, Arizona didn't define what a citizen is!"

Of course not. That's not within Arizona's purview to define. Neither is "lawful contact" or "reasonable suspicion." These are all terms defined by authority a lot higher than that of the Arizona legislature. It's not as though the AZ legislature can pick and choose which parts of Federal law it likes, and redefine the parts it doesn't like.


Sheesh indeed. The link you... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Sheesh indeed. The link you provided doesn't define "lawful contact" in any way.

So, as some of the flaming hippies at Free Republic have noted, the fact that the bill doesn't define this either is especially troubling.


Specifically, as I originally stated, this could mean a policeman could simply be talking with someone on a sidewalk and then demand to see their papers.

Sorry if you don't like the facts, but don't get mad at me - I'm just reporting them to you. As your other news sources apparently are not.

Finally, it is becoming apparent to me that many resort to insulting others' intelligence rather than actually refute their arguments.

Please prove that you are NOT one of these people, and respond with facts and reason rather than meaningless insults.

What fewer people ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:
What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."


That is certainly Kris Koba... (Below threshold)
jim x:

That is certainly Kris Kobach's opinion. What is strange is that he is apparently the *only* person who has that opinion of what "lawful contact" means - and that it ONLY means occurring during a stop for some other reason.

I've found no other legal use of that term - either pro or con. Just a bunch of other people, like me, looking for a well-defined legal use of that term.

Here's another flaming liberal who also has issues with the "reasonable suspicion" portion of this bill - Marc Rubio.


"Everyone is concerned with the prospect of the 'reasonable suspicion' provisions, where individuals can be pulled over because someone suspects that they may not be legal in this country. I think over time people will grow uncomfortable with that...That's not really something that Americans are comfortable with, the notion of a police state."

Finally, here's another opinion on another aspect of the bill, from a different set of lawyers:


The Arizona law appears to be "facially unconstitutional," Manheim said. "States have no power to pass immigration laws because it's an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can't have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can't have their own immigration laws either."

I'll see if I can dig up any other uses of the term "lawful contact" in a legal sense tomorrow.

Jay G, I looked, and was un... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Jay G, I looked, and was unable to find the phrase "lawful contact" defined in ANY legal reference. Let alone defined as claimed, that "lawful contact" must mean the person has been stopped by the Police for some other possibly criminal matter first.

So if you can find any other legal authority that defines "lawful contact" as Kobach claims, please do so.

Otherwise, I have to conclude that Kobach's claim that "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law", has no be the interpretation he intended - but it isn't backed up or defined even in the law he helped write.

I'm further not comfortable with a cop being able to demand to see my birth certificate because my taillight is busted - but this law doesn't even restrict it to something like that.

And I honestly think that's something that should bother all Americans, whether liberal, conservative, Independent or whatever.

Sigh...preview is my friend... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Sigh...preview is my friend...mean to say:

Otherwise, I have to conclude that Kobach's claim that "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law", has no basis besides his opinion. That may be the interpretation he intended - but it isn't backed up or defined even in the law he helped write.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


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