Republicans "all in" against Hispanics

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Republicans "all in" against Hispanics
145
Wed, 04-28-2010 - 9:47pm

Palin and the radical Republicans are "all in" against hispanics in supporting the Arizona immigration law.

This is the same law that says Mexican looking people can be pulled over based on a new unconstitutional standard of "reasonable" suspicion. It goes even further and says that citizen activists can sue law enforcement officials for not pulling people over based on this unconstitutional standard.

There is a reason that at least one prominent Arizona sheriff say he will not enforce this law. There is a reason that former Republican Homeland Security Chief Tom Ridge is not comfortable with the law.

There is a reason even Republican svengali Karl Rove is having second thoughts. Karl knows hispanic voters he spent years pandering to are rightfully going to say thanks but no thanks to Republicans over this.

Karl also knows that independent voters will have serious doubts about Republicans over this, and that the measure will drive Democrats to the polls to enable reform.

This hateful unconstitutional law that Palin and the Republicans have gotten behind will have a just effect on their ability to convince people to vote for them this fall.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-27-2009
Thu, 04-29-2010 - 11:29pm

Here's a very good article regarding the AZ law.


April 29, 2010


Reaction to Immigration Law Worse than Law Itself

By Robert Robb



The new state law making illegal immigration a state crime is badly drafted, poorly thought out and goes too far. It shouldn't have been enacted.


However, the hyperbolic reaction to the law is actually much worse than the law itself. The most despicable and irresponsible reaction came from Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.


According to a column Gordon wrote for the Washington Post



GA_googleFillSlot("RC_300_by_250_top");
//-->





(republished in Monday's Arizona Republic), the new law "requires" the Phoenix Police Department to profile "people with brown skin . . . based on stereotypes and insufficient information."


The only way the law will have that effect is if the Phoenix Police Department decides to violate rather than implement its provisions.


The law adopts by reference two provisions of federal law making failure to complete or carry an alien registration document a federal misdemeanor. The new law makes them state misdemeanors as well.


However, as an example of its poor draftsmanship, the law then nullifies the state misdemeanor for failing to carry a registration document by declaring that it doesn't apply to "a person who maintains authorization from the federal government to remain in the United States."


So, that leaves being in the country illegally as a new state offense.


The law then requires that local police officers, in the context of a "lawful contact," follow up on "reasonable suspicion" that someone is in the country illegally, unless that would jeopardize an investigation, such as by inhibiting the cooperation of victims or witnesses.


The mandatory nature of the follow-up is where the law goes too far. It in essence prioritizes illegal immigration over other claims on the time and attention of local law enforcement, rather than leaving that to the judgment of the beat cop based upon real-time circumstances.


However, the law is carefully sculpted to remain well within the limits the Supreme Court has established to ensure that investigative stops and inquiries don't exceed the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. Contrary to Gordon, it is not permission, much less a mandate, to conduct ethnically-based fishing expeditions.


In virtually all cases, for people of all races legally in the United States, encounters with the police will not materially change. The law specifically states that an Arizona driver's license, the first thing the police ask for in most stops, creates a presumption of lawful presence.


Gordon is hardly alone in his hyperbolic reaction to the law. Claims that Arizona has become a police state or the new segregated South have become commonplace.


Now, all power is abused. It's the nature of power.


So, there will be some beat officers who will misuse this new authority to follow up on suspected illegal status. And there is a real danger that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, under Joe Arpaio, might systematically misuse the authority.


In fact, Arpaio is the real problem with the law. The other law-enforcement agencies in the state can be trusted to implement the law in good faith and in a way that most legal residents of all races wouldn't notice a difference.


But even with the worst that Arpaio can do, and with the regrettable occasional misuse of the authority by other law-enforcement agencies, Arizona will not be a police state or the segregated South. Such claims can only be made by either the historically ignorant or those who simply don't care about maintaining important distinctions.


There are honorable arguments to be made that local police departments shouldn't be involved in enforcing federal immigration laws. The vast majority of the people of Arizona, however, disagree with them.


In his column, Gordon boldly claims that a majority of Arizonans oppose the new state immigration law. If that's so, then the logical reaction should be to mount a referendum campaign to put it on the ballot. It would not go into effect until voters decided.


There is such an effort under way, but my bet is that it will get little support. Instead, opponents will continue to rely on protests, boycotts, lawsuits, calls for federal intervention and hyperbole.


My suspicion is that opponents don't really want the voters of Arizona consulted.


Robert Robb is a columnist for the Arizona Republic and a RealClearPolitics contributor. Reach him at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com. Read more of his work at robertrobb.com.


Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/04/29/reaction_to_immigration_law_worse_than_law_itself_105347.html at April 29, 2010 - 08:00:05 PM PDT



iVillage Member
Registered: 09-07-2009
Thu, 04-29-2010 - 11:34pm

I am not sure about driver's license, when my daughter got her permit we had to have her birth certificate, not sure if that is regular in all states.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-14-2010
Thu, 04-29-2010 - 11:51pm

"If I'm stopped and I have to prove I'm a citizen, that's not constitutional."


How so? Ever been stopped for no reason for a sobriety, I mean safety check?


How about when you had to prove citizenship to get a job? That impinge on your personal freedoms too?


We lose billions a year to social services, education and overpopulated prisons not to mention the added crime of having an extra 18 million illegals in our country. The left thinks that's simply unfortunate and we should bear it because... Oh My Gosh... Someday someone might ask me to show my ID.


Give me a break.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-07-2009
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 12:06am
and then there is that, and buy they way you do have to give you id when stopped with cops
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 12:09am

>>> What is a "reasonable suspicion"?

No ID...can't speak the language...can't answer certain basic questions...um...gathering outside a Home Depot...is selling bags of oranges on highway offramps...is one of 64 people riding in a single van...you know, stuff like that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 12:18am

>>> Palin and the radical Republicans are "all in" against hispanics in supporting the Arizona immigration law.

With their usual dishonesty, lefties seek to conflate illegal immigrant with all hispanics.

>>> This is the same law that says Mexican looking people can be pulled over based on a new unconstitutional standard of "reasonable" suspicion. It goes even further and says that citizen activists can sue law enforcement officials for not pulling people over based on this unconstitutional standard.

Well...um...er...police can pull ANYONE over for a "reasonable suspicion"...but again, the dishonesty of libs rears it's ugly head by making up lies about a law that they've never read and obviously lack the ability to comprehend. There is no "new" standard at all in the law...in fact , it's a mirror of existing Federal law, and "citizen activists" can already sue law enforcement officials for not upholding the law...but they'll have to prove that the officer actually shirked his/her duty by not arresting someone...which pretty much means that any "citizen activist" would have to prove that the person the police officer didn't pull over was actually an illegal alien...LOL!...and that will be some trick!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-02-2009
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 12:25am
I would

"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 12:34am

<< This was approved by 70% of the Arizona people, 30% of them are Hispanic.>>

>>> Just because a bunch of people like it doesn't make it constitutional.

Just because a minority doesn't like it doesn't make it unConstitutional.

<>

>>> Yes, and U.S. citizens are not required to prove they are citizens to the police. See the problem?

Really? Every time I've been stopped by the police I've been required to produce ID...as well as proof of insurance and a vehicle registration.

<>

>>> Wow! Who's hateful again?

Libs...and racists too.

<< It is not hateful nor unconstitutional, >>

>>> It is certainly unconstitutional under the 14th amendment and most likely will also be shown to be unconstitutional under the 4th amendment the first time a U.S. citizen is detained for "looking illegal."

Nope...you'd first have to prove that the police officer detained the "suspect" solely because of their ethnicity. Better get the lib mind-police working on that.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-24-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 12:38am

Why is Bush to be given credit for trying to get immigration reform done during his term when he accomplished nothing except to watch the problem get a lot worse, while Obama is to be criticized for "putting it on the back burner" before he has even reached the midterm elections and has had to deal with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression?

And by the way, no one has responded to this response of mine to a post by conservwife:

""you are on the wrong side of the issue"

Since you claim to be so personally connected to this issue with your family in the area, how do you explain this prominent local sheriff who said he will not enforce the law because it is racist and unconstitutional?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

In fact, the Sheriff said existing law already allows his police to turn over illegals to immigration, which his department does at a high rate. How do you explain that?
Again, Republicans are "all in" behind this anti-hispanic measure. It seems not well thought out at best and racist at worst like the good sheriff says."

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-01-2010
Fri, 04-30-2010 - 12:39am

>>> I respect our Constitution enough that I think it should be abided by under ANY and ALL circumstances.

Unless it's more convenient for libs to ignore it when it suits them.

>>> This law isn't going to do anything to solve the illegal immigration problem,

It sure will in Arizona...the illegals will likely bolt for more liberal sanctuary states...until those states suffer like Arizona and then watch the fun when those libs turn on illegals.

>>> but will most likely trample on the rights of U.S. citizens. That is not acceptable, ever.

Unless it's libs trampling the rights of others by forcing them to purchase health insurance so that the libs can get free or subsidized insurance. But I guess it's ok to trample other people's rights as long as libs are getting something out of the deal.

Pages