After changing my brake pads this morning (with a requisite post if I get around to it), I came home and decided to settle the matter of what was in the Arizona immigration bill. So as I begin, my first question to you is: Have you read the bill?
If not, here it is. Be sure you've read it before continuing and/or making a comment or you're either intellectually dishonest or a douchebag. Seriously, it's not that long and you can skim over half of the legalese. It took me longer to write the post than to read the bill.
(for even more of the actual law, click here)
SB_1070_Signed
Ok, now that you've read the actual text, rather than what has been reported in your preferred media outlet and blogs that really have no clue what the hell they're talking about, here's the questions:
1. In what way does this empower local law enforcement that either contravenes, or supersedes Federal immigration law?
2. What burden does this place on any individual (citizen, legal foreign resident, or illegal alien) that did not already exist?
3. What provision authorizes actually stopping people and demanding papers?
I'll wait for your responses as to how a state's steps to bolster federal law when the feds are dropping the ball on something that is a Constitutional duty is unconstitutional. I didn't find anything.
The reason I didn't find anything is because there isn't. There is the potential for abuse, but that's where laws against that activity come in, as well as some sensible watchdog work from groups like the ACLU, as well as the scrutiny of courts, come in. I welcome that. Because this bill, as written, passes the tests.
So if you read this bill, and you still want to scream about boycotting Arizona after you've read the facts, you're an asshat. And intellectually dishonest.
3 comments:
Well Patrick, this is what happens when you actually expect people to read either your post, or the aforementioned content.
I am not one to call for a boycott, but I will say this.
If anyone for a moment thinks that in their legal enforcement of laws, there are not going to be abuses, they are nuts.
There will always be bad apples and to think that a few of them won't break a few tail lights, thereby making a traffic stop "legal" they too are not being intellectually honest.
But to the extent that this forces the Feds to act, I think it will be good.
But, taken in context, this law, a ban on ethnic studies, and a ban on English teachers with accents, all coming in the last few weeks, it is hard to deny a climate of "we are coming after you."
Now while that may be justifiably aimed at people here illegally, to, again, think that legal US citizens are not going to feel the impact is, to use your term "asshattery."
1. If everything is covered by the Federal Law, why not just enforce that? Why the need for a state law? It would be like Indiana making a law allowing freedom of religion...It would just be redundant.
2. This means only brown people have to carry proof of citizenship. Do you carry your proof of citizenship with you at all times? Why should Hispanics have to if their family has been in the US for 3 generations?
3. 23:"where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an Alien"
25: "A reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable"
Define reasonable. Not blonde with blue eyes? Speaking Spanish? Driving one of those vans with a Barbarian airbrushed on the side with shag carpeting for interior?
Define practical??
To that asshole sheriff in AZ, reasonable to him would not be reasonable to most people...You just gave him an excuse to be unreasonable.
Now, if this law said everyone in AZ had to present papers, I would oppose it but it wouldn't be unconstitutional... Just annoying.
Dave: If anyone for a moment thinks that in their legal enforcement of laws, there are not going to be abuses, they are nuts.
Agreed. But you could make the same argument in arming law enforcement with guns and tasers. There will always be those who will break the law in the practice of enforcing it (and in this case, dead bodies ensue). That doesn't mean you don't pass the law. It means you do your best to prevent it (which is what the executive order (from the link above) does.
However, it looks like the Feds are going to act to take out this law (despite the fact it mirrors the law they don't enforce). The fact they keep misrepresenting what the law says proves that.
Toad: If everything is covered by the Federal Law, why not just enforce that?
Because the Feds haven't! That's why they passed the law.
2. This means only brown people have to carry proof of citizenship.
Bullshit. If you get pulled over by the cops, they'll check ID. If there is a reason to suspect (like no ID, 8 people in a 4-seater, no one else has ID, no one speaks English and everybody is skittish. If the cops can ID you from info you give, then no papers necessary.
Define reasonable.
Define practical??
Get a dictionary. And then look above. It means if you have a car full of squirrley bastards, you have to cuff some people, and it looks like you have a pound of paperwork, then it's time to break out the extra paper. With the amount of info in government computers, most citizens will check out.
Now, if this law said everyone in AZ had to present papers, I would oppose it but it wouldn't be unconstitutional...
Do me a favor. Send me your address so I can get you a pocket copy of the Constitution, because you obviously need to read it. No wonder this law upsets you so much. Something about talking out of your ass and no understanding of what the word unconstitutional means.
Post a Comment