Tea Party Tangent

[sirs]

It's been argued that because conservatives in the Tea Party ranks, who advocate limited government and constitutional adherence to DC spending are being "inconsistent" when they support a state taking the initiative to do what the Fed is SUPPOSED to be doing.  So, AZ passes a law, that largely mirrors that of the Federal government's current immigration law, and somehow THAT's supportive of "big government"

Couldn't be farther from the truth, but lets attempt to delve into this strange differing definitions of limited government

Existing law, one that is to be enforced by existing law enforcement agencies, does not equate to bigger government.  
New law, depending on the scope of that law, could require a larger bureacracy to deal with the new law (read Obamacare)
New law, can also be largely the same agencies handling their normal duties, but if there is reasonable suspicion on the part of law enforcement, to determine if a person is here in this country ILLEGALLY, does not automatically require "bigger government".  NOR is it support of "bigger government".  It's support of EXISTING LAW, no more

Now, it appears that support of rule of law and the Constitution apparently is somehow analogus to support of "bigger government".  Sounds to me, like a devoted effort to try and demonize a movement, based on a predisposition of supporting some form of much less restricted immigration, if not open borders.

My recommendation would be to focus on the latter and its reasons, vs trying to erroneously paint a movement like the Tea party, as being hypocritical in their desire for a more limited government and even more so, more responsible spending habits by this Federal Government

Let me also add that if the Fed were to be actually doing their job, in enforcing EXISTING law, this new AZ law would have never come to pass.  This is simply 1 state doing what the Fed is mandated to do, but refuses to, for whatever PC reason, to do so

[sirs]

Liberals (and some Libertarians apparently) Want to Ignore Immigration Law

The ink hadn't even dried from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer?s signature on the anti-illegal immigration law written by the state legislature before the shrieks and howls and wailing and gnashing of teeth began in earnest in the media.

"This is racial profiling!" they screamed. "What about civil liberties?" "All this does is discriminate against Hispanics!" they moaned.

Wow, what a fuss. Fury erupted because Arizona lawmakers had had enough and decided to become the first state to have the guts to give police the authority to do the unthinkable: enforce the law.

Some concept, huh?

Actually letting cops do their jobs. So when an Arizona police officer pulls someone over for speeding or weaving through traffic and they discover that the driver has absolutely no identification on them and is barely capable of speaking English, that officer might conclude that the driver is in Arizona illegally. Ask any cop and they'll assure you that it doesn't exactly take a forensics team from NCIS to figure out that someone is an illegal.

But ACLU-loving, America-hating bunch that seems to think illegal immigrants deserve weekly ticker-tape parades down Main Street is mortified at Arizona?s chutzpah. They're upset that at least in ONE state, the jig is finally up.

For too long now, the apologists for illegal immigrants have played a little game. They pretend to understand that the act of sneaking across the border and taking up residence in America is against the law. They even profess discomfort at illegals getting free health care, taking jobs that could belong to American citizens, and occupying seats in our country's already overcrowded classrooms.

But they expect everyone to ignore the problem. They insist that illegal immigration is a federal concern and therefore oppose any effort for local law enforcement -- the real soldiers in the trenches -- to be able to do anything about it. It's as if they believe there's a magical, mythical federal army of illegal immigration watchdogs that just hasn't quite yet gotten around to arresting illegals.

But it's just a game to these folks. They resist enforcement of our illegal immigration laws and pretend to pawn the problem off on the feds so that the problem will never get solved.

Well, Arizona just took a giant step towards rectifying the situation. Polls show over 70% of state residents support the Senate bill that Gov. Brewer signed into law. I'll bet the national percentage is even higher.

We are, after all, a nation of laws. And we live in a culture where carrying a form of identification is as normal as keeping your car keys in your pocket. When any of us walk into a grocery store and cashes a check, no one skips a beat when asked to present our driver's license. If a police officer is looking for a criminal, he or she might stop a number of people in that particular area and ask to see their driver?s license. No one bellyaches about civil rights or privacy issues. We?re just happy the cops are trying to find the bad guy.

Hispanics have expressed concern that Arizona police officers will abuse this law and harass and intimidate "people of color." Well, most logical, clear-thinking people don't worry that cops are going to start rounding up Hispanics, throwing them in the trunk of their police car, and haul them out to the woods somewhere and beat them to death.

If any person -- white, black, brown or yellow -- objects to having a police officer potentially ask them for their ID, it makes me wonder what that person is trying to hide.

The classic media meltdown over the Arizona law came on CNN where a young Hispanic Army medic about to be deployed was interviewed by a reporter named Thelma Gutierrez (heaven forbid someone named "Buffy Smith" would be assigned this story). The young man was busily lighting candles on the steps of the state house, explaining that his family brought him here -- illegally -- when he was two years old and they all eventually became naturalized citizens. Now, he's so ashamed of Arizona that he practically doesn?t want to live there anymore.

I honor his service to our country. I'm sorry his parents set such a lousy example for him that their illegal act became part of his life story. But I wonder if he realizes that roads between the United States and Mexico run north AND south. And I hope CNN does a follow-up interview with him when he, God willing, returns safely from Iraq and describes how soldiers do more than a little ?racial profiling? in their ongoing battle with terrorists.

But here in the United States, Arizona just became the torch-bearer in doing the right thing when it comes to dealing with illegal immigrants.

Here's hoping the other 49 state legislatures are paying attention. Let's not make Arizona be alone in its act of bravery.

Who's next?


Commentary

[Universe Prince]

Existing law, one that is to be enforced by existing law enforcement agencies, does not equate to bigger government.  
New law, depending on the scope of that law, could require a larger bureacracy to deal with the new law (read Obamacare)

Any new law cannot be bigger government if existing law is never bigger government. Any new law becomes existing law as soon as it becomes a law.

New law, can also be largely the same agencies handling their normal duties, but if there is reasonable suspicion on the part of law enforcement, to determine if a person is here in this country ILLEGALLY, does not automatically require "bigger government".  NOR is it support of "bigger government".  It's support of EXISTING LAW, no more

Supporting new laws is is supporting existing law... at least if it does what you want government to already do. So all those big government liberals are really just supporters of existing law. Yes, that sounds absurd, but that is because your argument is absurd.

Now, it appears that support of rule of law and the Constitution apparently is somehow analogus to support of "bigger government".

And that is more absurd still. Support of new law that expands the role of a government is support for that government getting bigger. Nothing about that means that support for the rule of law is support for bigger government. You are the only who seems to be trying to conflate new law with existing law.

Sounds to me, like a devoted effort to try and demonize a movement, based on a predisposition of supporting some form of much less restricted immigration, if not open borders.

It may sound that way to you, but you might try asking someone else if that is the case, rather than just accepting it as true because that is more convenient for you. Otherwise, the only one demonizing is you.

[Universe Prince]

We are, after all, a nation of laws. And we live in a culture where carrying a form of identification is as normal as keeping your car keys in your pocket. When any of us walk into a grocery store and cashes a check, no one skips a beat when asked to present our driver's license. If a police officer is looking for a criminal, he or she might stop a number of people in that particular area and ask to see their driver?s license. No one bellyaches about civil rights or privacy issues. We?re just happy the cops are trying to find the bad guy.

Hispanics have expressed concern that Arizona police officers will abuse this law and harass and intimidate "people of color." Well, most logical, clear-thinking people don't worry that cops are going to start rounding up Hispanics, throwing them in the trunk of their police car, and haul them out to the woods somewhere and beat them to death.

If any person -- white, black, brown or yellow -- objects to having a police officer potentially ask them for their ID, it makes me wonder what that person is trying to hide.

Ah yes, the old "if you're not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about" bit. He's going to love the police state. He must look forward to that day with great anticipation.

[sirs]

- Existing law, one that is to be enforced by existing law enforcement agencies, does not equate to bigger government. 
- New law, depending on the scope of that law, could require a larger bureacracy to deal with the new law (read Obamacare)
- New law, can also be largely the same agencies handling their normal duties, but if there is reasonable suspicion on the part of law enforcement, to determine if a person is here in this country ILLEGALLY, does not automatically require "bigger government".  NOR is it support of "bigger government".  It's support of EXISTING LAW, no more

Supporting new laws is is supporting existing law... at least if it does what you want government to already do. So all those big government liberals are really just supporters of existing law. Yes, that sounds absurd, but that is because your argument is absurd.

oy, the only absurdity here is this continued insistence that black is blue, that support of less government is support of bigger government if one supports enforcing existing law.  NEVERMIND anything and everything else that we wish was more limiting in Government overreaching.  No, this 1 area = complete support of bigger government  That's what's really absurd

Now, it appears that support of rule of law and the Constitution apparently is somehow analogus to support of "bigger government".

And that is more absurd still. Support of new law that expands the role of a government is support for that government getting bigger.

NO, ITs NOT, because your theory is flawed in claiming that this will epand the role of government.  This law simply allows greater authority for EXISTING local law enorcement to better enforce EXISTING LAW

Sounds to me, like a devoted effort to try and demonize a movement, based on a predisposition of supporting some form of much less restricted immigration, if not open borders.

It may sound that way to you, but you might try asking someone else if that is the case, rather than just accepting it as true because that is more convenient for you. Otherwise, the only one demonizing is you.

And who would I be demonizing Prince??  Criminals??  Egads, the nerve of me

[Universe Prince]

oy, the only absurdity here is this continued insistence that black is blue, that support of less government is support of bigger government if one supports enforcing existing law.

No one said either of those things. Well, no one but you.

NO, ITs NOT, because your theory is flawed in claiming that this will epand the role of government.  This law simply allows greater authority for EXISTING local law enorcement to better enforce EXISTING LAW

I just realized; you don't see what you're saying.

And who would I be demonizing Prince??  Criminals??

No, not criminals. Wow, you're being slow.

[Plane]

I wonder If I could walk around downtown here with an RPG on display.

I could walk right by the Sheriff , the police cheif , the State patroll ...

No Problems right , not till I met a federal marshal because the restrictions on that wepon are federal law and no concern of any other law enforcement.

Right?

Why is there an apparent prohibition on state or local enforcement of Federal Immagration laws?

[Universe Prince]

I'm not sure anyone said there was one, Plane. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure nobody said there was one,

[sirs]

oy, the only absurdity here is this continued insistence that black is blue, that support of less government is support of bigger government if one supports enforcing existing law.

No one said either of those things. Well, no one but you.

Naaa, that'd be a summation of the current debate tactic you've taken on this issue

NO, ITs NOT, because your theory is flawed in claiming that this will epand the role of government.  This law simply allows greater authority for EXISTING local law enorcement to better enforce EXISTING LAW

I just realized; you don't see what you're saying.

Perfect example

And who would I be demonizing Prince??  Criminals??

No, not criminals. Wow, you're being slow.

Educate us Prince, who else could I dare be demonizing if not the criminals breaking the existing law, I've been talking about all this time??  and best subtract the increasing level of mental slurs.  It's unbecoming of a Prince

[sirs]

On Monday, Matt Lauer of "Today" interviewed Joe Arpaio, the Maricopa County, Ariz., sheriff who's made a national name for himself cracking down on illegal immigration. Lauer noted that Arizona's new immigration bill has the support of 70 percent of Arizonans. "But get this," Lauer added, "53 percent of those same people said they worry it could lead to civil rights violations."

Lauer and other commentators seem to think that there's something of a contradiction here. I don't see it, perhaps because it describes my own position so well. I support the Arizona law, but I'm also worried that it could lead to civil rights abuses.

It seems that whenever government expands either its powers or its enforcement efforts, you should be worried that it could go too far. But such worries have to be balanced against necessity.

I agree that there's something ugly about the police, even local police, asking citizens for their "papers" (there's nothing particularly ugly about asking illegal immigrants for their papers, though). There's also something ugly about American citizens being physically searched at airports. There's something ugly about IRS agents prying into nearly all of your personal financial transactions or, thanks to the passage of ObamaCare, serving as health insurance enforcers.

In other words, there are many government functions that are unappealing to one extent or another. That is not in itself an argument against them. The Patriot Act was ugly -- and necessary.

Consider California's decision to "lead by example" on global warming. Environmentalists argued that Washington was negligent in fighting climate change at the federal level. Hence California had no choice but to tackle a national problem at the state level. California implemented standards that are considerably more strict than those required (for now) by Washington.

Arizona's law is more humble than that. While California pushed a stricter standard than the one Washington was enforcing, Arizona seeks to enforce the federal law that Washington isn't enforcing.

The constitutional and legal issues make the parallel less than perfect, but the principle remains the same. Indeed, I'd wager that the costs of illegal immigration -- economic, social and environmental -- on Arizona dwarf the costs on California from global warming, at least so far.

President Obama seems to get this, sort of: "Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona."

This is awfully tendentious since he takes it as a given that Arizona's effort to take some responsibility for a problem is best understood as "irresponsible," as if continuing to do nothing at the local level while too little is done at the federal level would be more responsible. Of course, "irresponsible" is lavish praise compared with charges of "apartheid" and "Nazi" coming from some opponents of the law, including Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony.

Regardless, Obama is right insofar as Arizona's effort is the inevitable consequence of Washington's inability to take illegal immigration seriously.

Which is why the Democrats' sudden decision to push for "comprehensive" immigration reform is so disappointing. If this were a sincere effort at reform, it would be laudable. But it's almost impossible to find anyone in Washington not paid to spout Democratic talking points who believes this is anything but a naked political ploy. Even such reliably liberal bloggers as Josh Marshall and the Washington Post's Ezra Klein concede that this is first and foremost a partisan stunt and wedge issue intended to split the GOP and woo Latinos, particularly in Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs a game-changer to avoid crushing defeat in November.

Now, I don't mind wedge issues per se -- though liberals have been decrying them for decades. Still, this is beyond the pale. Ginning up a lot of anger on both sides of the issue without any serious hope of success will in all likelihood send the signal that Washington still thinks it's all a big, unserious game. And that is precisely why we will get more laws like Arizona's and make real immigration reform all the harder, if Washington ever tries to pursue it seriously.


Commentary

[sirs]

The state is only seeking to enforce the nominal immigration policy of the United States; the federal government should try it sometime.

In the case of the new Arizona immigration law, the reductio ad Hitlerum occurred instantly.

Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote in a blog post, "I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques." The president of the Hispanic Federation said the law "reminded me of Nazi Germany." Cooler heads merely compared it to apartheid or 1960s-era civil-rights abuses.

And here I thought the tea partiers were befouling America's political discourse with their overheated words. They don't hold a candle to His Eminence or the assorted other hysterics decrying the rise of totalitarianism in the American Southwest.

Arizona's offense is to attempt to enforce the nation?s immigration laws, in the absence of any serious commitment to do so on the part of the federal government or our political class.

The Arizona law makes it a state crime for aliens not to have immigration documents on their person. This sounds draconian, except it's been a federal crime for more than half a century - U.S.C. 1304(e). Has the open-borders crowd forgotten that it calls illegal aliens "undocumented" for a reason?

Police officers asking for papers may be redolent of old World War II movies. But consider the offending provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person."

Hitler would be crestfallen. This hardly reeks of extremism. It means the vast majority of requests for documentation will occur in the course of other police business, like traffic stops.

The police already have the power to stop illegal aliens, a power the Arizona courts have upheld;
They already can ask about someone?s legal status (the U.S. Supreme Court noted in 2005 that it has "held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure" under the Fourth Amendment);
And they already can detain illegal aliens.
The Arizona law strengthens these existing authorities.

Will they be abused? Upon signing the law, Arizona governor Jan Brewer issued an executive order for a training program on how to implement it without racial profiling. No matter what her intentions, of course, it's unavoidable that Latino citizens will be questioned disproportionally under the law; nationwide, 80 percent of illegal aliens are Latino, and the proportion in Arizona must be higher.

Once millions of illegal aliens are in the country, there's no neat way to get them back out. It's much better to endeavor to stop them at the southern border, something Washington still refuses to do. During the last eruption of the national immigration debate, Congress passed a law mandating a fence along the border. The Bush administration bid it down to a high-tech "virtual fence." And the Obama administration has ceased constructing even that. If the federal government had been in charge of building the Great Wall, it wouldn't have been great or a wall.

It used to be that San Diego and El Paso accounted for most illegal entries. As the border became more secure at those points, Arizona became the hub. The state has an estimated 460,000 illegal aliens out of a population of 6.6 million. They impose countless millions of dollars in schooling, health-care, and incarceration costs, more than $1 billion a year in one estimate. Phoenix has become a kind of lawless Ellis Island, with smugglers holding migrants in "stash houses" there until they can be moved out into the rest of the country.

Arizonians needn't, and shouldn't, tolerate this. Critics accuse the state of unconstitutionally devising its own immigration policy. If it had unilaterally declared its border open to the poor, violence-plagued country to its south, this charge might have had force. Instead, Arizona seeks only to enforce the nominal immigration policy of the United States.

Perhaps the federal government should try it sometime.


Hysterics & Reality

[Universe Prince]

oy, the only absurdity here is this continued insistence that black is blue, that support of less government is support of bigger government if one supports enforcing existing law.

No one said either of those things. Well, no one but you.

Naaa, that'd be a summation of the current debate tactic you've taken on this issue

Oh. Taking lessons from Michael Tee and claiming your complete misrepresentation of what I've said is a summation? I see. Interesting.

Educate us Prince, who else could I dare be demonizing

I am tempted to mock you for not figuring this out on your own.

and best subtract the increasing level of mental slurs.  It's unbecoming of a Prince

Mental slurs? What? Because I said you were being slow?

[sirs]

oy, the only absurdity here is this continued insistence that black is blue, that support of less government is support of bigger government if one supports enforcing existing law.

No one said either of those things. Well, no one but you.

Naaa, that'd be a summation of the current debate tactic you've taken on this issue

Oh. Taking lessons from Michael Tee and claiming your complete misrepresentation of what I've said is a summation? I see. Interesting.

Nope, pretty much nailed it, the 1st go around

Educate us Prince, who else could I dare be demonizing

I am tempted to mock you for not figuring this out on your own.

Ahh, no answer to a direct question.  And who's mimicking Tee again?     

[Universe Prince]

That'd be you, Mr. distort-anything-you-say-and-claim-it's-true.

And by the way, if you don't want mental slurs, don't act like an idiot.

Come on, Sirs, who else could I have possibly thought you might be demonizing? Who? Who else could you have been demonizing in your comments to and about me? Who, Sirs? Gosh, this is just so (not in the least little bit) hard to determine.