There has been tremendous controversy over the new Arizona immigration law (SB 1070), including protests and national boycotts against Arizona from a number of cities.
Can we all step back, take a deep breath and... for crying out loud, can we just read the bill?
I’m normally not one to call for a resignation based on the brainless remark a politician makes, but the U.S. attorney general should consider resigning. Attorney General Eric Holder has threatened to sue our state over the constitutionality of the new law. He has, in effect, put the legal and political muscle of the White House behind the allegations that SB 1070 leads to racial profiling. He has given legitimacy to their arguments and fueled the rhetorical fire.
Can the U.S. attorney general sue a state? Absolutely, but the problem lies in the fact that Holder hasn’t even read the immigration bill.
Holder was taken to task during a recent House Judiciary Committee hearing by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX), who had the audacity to inquire if he even read the new Arizona law. Holder’s answer stunned the committee. “I have not had a chance,” he said.
Fortunately, Holder reassured the committee members by informing them that he would eventually get around to it.
In short, the attorney general has threatened to sue a state over the constitutionality of a law that he has never read. Really? How can an individual wielding that kind of power be that ignorant and still have a job?
What about Los Angeles city council member Janice Hahn, who helped pen the L.A. boycott against Arizona? When asked by On The Record’s Greta Van Susteren if she read the bill, she vagrantly avoided the question.
Also, news reports indicate that Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, our former governor, has only skimmed the bill.
It is propagandist tactics like these that have lead to misconceptions over the bill. As a result of these boycotts, Arizona is expected to lose millions of dollars in revenue and leave thousands more unemployed. All because many who oppose the bill, such as Holder, are making misleading statements about a bill they haven’t read.
Most people I know who oppose the bill, including those from the Hispanic community, have admitted they haven’t read it. Had they read it, they would know that 1070 simply mirrors existing federal law. The bill does not authorize police to racially profile. Law enforcement cannot pull over someone or stop them because they “look” like an illegal immigrant.
The opposition’s argument implies that the majority of police officers are crooked. The position that we should eliminate 1070 because a handful of officers could abuse the law and racially profile is ignorant and irresponsible.
The bottom line concerning the bill is that law enforcement can “only” ask a person where they are from after they have engaged the person in another police matter. If a person can’t show any form of identification, then a police officer can ask for paperwork verifying their immigration status. Most people with common sense understand that this isn’t asking too much from those of us blessed enough to be in this great country, and it surely isn’t racial profiling. So, for crying out loud, can we just read the bill?
—
Michael Weinstein is cohost of the “The Mike & Winey Show” heard at 7 a.m. Saturdays on KKNT (960 AM) or on the web at www.kknt960.com.
mexican posted at 5:05 am on Fri, May 21, 2010.
Hey Mike great article and you touched on some great points. I would hope though you would write another article explaining the true reason certain people are afraid this law passes. First, you know as well as I do that the President and all his cronies including Janet are very aware that there is nothing wrong with the bill SB1070. Why? because it is the same as the federal law. This is all about votes for them. They can't have it pass. They are will aware that this has nothing to do with racial profiling and there is nothing in the bill that indicates that. They are doing their best to cause racial tensions in hopes this bill goes away. There are those who are less educated and just because of their ethnic background are against the bill. They too have never read the bill and never will because it is not about the law it's about the belief brought on by our elected leaders that their hispanic makeup is being attacked. This is a smoke screen by certain leaders who could care less about the hispanic community unless they are voting for them. Case in point, when Janet N. was our Gov. she lashed out at Pres Bush and the federal government for not doing more to protect our boarders here in Arizona. She stated they were out of control and it was the Feds responsibility to fix it. Wow how soon we forget when we (Janet) becomes part of that federal government. If there is a law on the books and the feds won't enforce it then let the state of Arizona take that same law and they will enforce it.
Rich posted at 7:15 am on Fri, May 21, 2010.
"...for crying out loud, can we just read the bill?
"
I did. It's unconstitutional. We have a system built on responsibilities of government in levels, this bill violates that system. And when you violate the system itself you always do more harm than good. Having a state involved in immigration policy is rather like assembly line employees taking over the accounting department, and you don't have to read the assembly line worker's specific work rules to know it won't produce things faster or better.
The law is illegal on its face, it violates our system of government. You don't have to read it to know that. Government itself has gotten progressively worse during this recession. Arizona making a law that belongs solely in the Federal sphere is just further evidence of the breakdown. Government isn't handling the economy, jobs, property value. A state taking over Federal duties while sinking in debt and crying for more taxes is so far beyond just stupid as to qualify as brain death.
mexican posted at 8:03 am on Fri, May 21, 2010.
Nothing against you Rich but I have no idea who you are and unless you have the same education and constitutional background as the attorney's who advised the Gov. that there is a legal basis for the bill I will stick with them.
Let me ask you Rich, what is the difference between what illegals are doing coming to the US, wherever they come from, than me sitting in my easy chair and having someone come in my house from off the street and make himself at home in my house? Then when he is all settled he saids, "hey mex I have a wife and four kids and they are coming here to live in your house too. Oh by the way I am hungry you need to feed me and give me your water. And I cut my finger so you will need to give my medicine and take care of me. By the way none of my family speaks english so you will need to pay for a hispanic channel, (or french) whatever the case maybe. And my kids don't read english yet so you will need to go out and buy them reading material in our language." So on and so on and so on. Rich, when is enough enough?
I don't mind helping those less fortunate than me but I am tired of waiting in an ER waiting room for hours with my 15 year old daughter who is doubled over in pain with kidney stones while illegals wait to get seen for a cough and sniffle. I have a good friend who is an ER doctor and he tells me it has gotten out of control.
When Rich when?
Accuracy posted at 9:04 am on Fri, May 21, 2010.
For crying out loud, just read the bill!
Michael Weinstein wrote: "What about Los Angeles city council member Janice Hahn, who helped pen the L.A. boycott against Arizona? When asked by On The Record’s Greta Van Susteren if she read the bill, she vagrantly avoided the question."
But it's not clear how much power Los Angeles city council actually has in boycotting Arizona and how much power Arizona has in cutting the electrical power to the city of Los Angeles, Calif. because of the boycott threat.
There are owners living in California that have partial ownership in the two Arizona power plants, including stakes in the Palo Verde nuclear power plant and in the Navajo Generation Station on the Navajo reservation.
For crying out loud, just read the contract agreement!
mexican posted at 10:38 am on Fri, May 21, 2010.
For crying out loud Accuracy,
There is no need to read the contract. No one is cutting any power or water to anyone. It's just that if LA wants to quit doing business with Arizona why don't they just show their dangling junk between their legs and stop doing business with Arizona. Don't pick and choose based on what fits you. Pull the plug and I am sure Arizona will let you out of your contract so you can get power and water elsewhere.
They admitted they have never read the bill along with many other Dem's. California, Arizona and Texas are spending Billions of dollars in tax payers money to fund illegal immigration and those of us, at least 65%+ are tired of it. No more free, dental, medical, housing, food, cloths, etc.. Not to mention our medical and car insurance rates have gone way up due to illegal immigration. I lost a dear friend in a fatal car accident at the hands of an illegal immigrant who had no insurance for the wife of my friend. He had no drivers license and his registration was expired. She is now a widow with three young children. WE ARE TIRED OF IT. Has nothing to do with the color of their skin. Get that through your head.......
Rich posted at 11:05 am on Fri, May 21, 2010.
mexican
Slowly for you: immigration is a federal responsibility, a state law concerning it is prima facie illegal. It is an answer to "...just read the bill." And the criticism of the U.S. Attorney General. It isn't rocket science. Arizona can't declare war either. All democratic governments deteriorate in this manner. It isn't unexpected but rather expected. It is simply a deterioration of a system known to deteriorate in this way. It can possibly be halted, but most likely, especially with a central government in disarray, it won't.
mexican posted at 12:01 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
For crying out loud:
Okay, slowly now for you Rich, Unless you are an attorney in this arena, I will go by what the "A T T O R N E Y' S are telling the Governor. You obviously disagree with the bill so if you are like those in the minority of this bill you will say anything to get others to believe in your point including calling me a racist even when my wife is hispanic as has been done. I do not hate Hispanics or any other race who are here legally. I do not like law breakers and those who mooch off the tax payers of this state or this country. I am sure the attorneys who have put the bill together have done their homework and know that it is legal. You on the other hand avoided the question as to whether you are an attorney or not so I got my answer. If I have a plumbing problem I do not call a dentist I call a plumber. So thanks for your Jailhouse legal information but I will listen to the pros. I hope I spoke slow enough for you. If not going hire an interpreter and not with tax payer's dollars thank you. GEEEEEZZZZZ!!!!!!!
Rich posted at 12:31 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
Wow, Mexican, do you read English?
a) "You obviously disagree with the bill so if you are like those in the minority of this bill you will say anything to get others to believe in your point including calling me a racist even when my wife is hispanic as has been done." Didn't say a thing about race, frankly xenophobia is broader than race, and I really don't have an opinion in that area.
b) "I will go by what the "A T T O R N E Y' S are telling the Governor" Go right ahead buy the sophistry of a profession based in it. It's naive, and not all that bright, you should really view anything an attorney says with a great deal of skepticism just to protect yourself and your family, but its your call.
c) " I do not like law breakers and those who mooch off the tax payers of this state or this country." Since this law is illegal, passed by people who 'mooch' off the taxpayers of Arizona in numbers that are staggering to contemplate, you don't like this law?
d) " I am sure the attorneys who have put the bill together have done their homework and know that it is legal." Glad you are, if that was true we could fire the Federal judiciary and save a ton.
e) "If I have a plumbing problem I do not call a dentist I call a plumber." But that is exactly what you have done. You needed to call the Federal government, and you called the State of Arizona.
mexican posted at 1:08 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
Rich, wakeup, no more dreaming. I know you wish you were an attorney and 65%+ of the people were on your side of this issue but their not. Rich I once told myself that if someone disagreed with me that was their choice. If two people disagreed with me I would think about their position but would probably believe I was still right. When three or more tell me I am wrong then I would have to reevaluate my position entirely. When in this case 65%+ support my position you are in the minority. You have chosen to take that tiny little head of yours and fit it in some small tiny little hole in the sand somewhere. That is fine. That is what liberals do. That is what your buddy Obama is doing. It's everyone's fault but his. When do you Libs take responsibility for the messes you cause? Is it always going to be Bush's fault? Are you libs going to keep calling those of us who support the bill racist? The problem Rich Obama is that you guys are losing the battle. More and more people across the country are stepping forward and supporting the bill. Keep up the good work my little friend you guys are just pushing more and more our direction. It showed in the latest elections and they will keep falling. Job well done my friend.
Rich posted at 2:16 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
Mexican,
You know, constantly repeating the party line isn't a discussion.
a) I am not a liberal or even lose to one. The term in response to what I said is either canned name calling or ignorance. To hold a strict interpretation of the Constitution is conservative or even reactionary. To hold an interpretation of the Constitution broad enough to allow states to enact immigration legislation is liberal.
b) Obama is definitely not my "buddy." In fact I think that so far he is the most incompetent President I have seen in my lifetime, and I started with Truman and lived through Carter.
c) I do not wish I was an attorney. I am better educated and do have a moral and ethical code.
d) The point was and is, is it legitimate for a state to make immigration laws, maybe declare war, and otherwise usurp the Federal government's duties and responsibilities under the Consttution? While such actions have heralded the disintegration of a republican democracy throughout history, should we welcome that Balkanization?
TruthSeeker posted at 3:01 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
According to Megyn Kelly, an attorney and Fox News contributer, the AZ law is actually weaker than the Federal law. Yes, she has admitted to actually reading both laws. She said that the federal law states that any police officer can stop ANYONE and ask them for identification WITHOUT any reason or crime being committed. I repeat: The AZ law is a weaker version of federal law, except ours will be enforced.
Rich posted at 3:29 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
TruthSeeker
So what? Is it legal for Arizona to declare limited war? The law itself isn't relevant. Strong, weak, who really cares? Federal law allows police to ask for ID and by Supreme Court decision is more powerful than the Arizona law. The point is whether or not you want to dismantle the government, and create a mishmash of contradictory/analogous laws across several different layers of governmental authority until you turn the entire system into a chaotic joke, or handle the problems separately under the authority within the structure to do that.
samkat posted at 3:52 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
Rich: You sound like the typical open borders advocate. The federal government has a lot of responsibilities that it fails to do. I assume you pay taxes. If the feds decide to give all of the tax money to say California and ignore Arizona, would you get even the least bit irate? If the federal government took away your personal rights and gave them to the government of Mexico for its citizens, would it bother you? I guess not since it has been happening for years.
samkat posted at 3:56 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
Rich: How long have you been a member of the ACLU, or should I say the Anti American Civil Rights Union? Believe me buddy, the balkanization has already begun. The liberals started chipping away at our civil rights years ago.
Rich posted at 6:57 pm on Fri, May 21, 2010.
samkat
Again, like Mexican, standard propaganda without addressing the point, or even considering it. "Open borders crowd?" ACLU? Bogey man "liberals?" Meaningless buzz. Do you think or allow Madison Ave to do your thinking for you in meaningless phrases you memorize?
Open borders? Yeh, that's the United States, everyone from everywhere, that's why we rose to be a great nation, and when we stop it, adopt the insular philosophies of third world countries, we will end up one of them. The problem I have with the current policy is simply that head up their arses bureaucrats are deciding who's in and who's out. That's destructive and frankly just wrong. Legally signing up, moving in, without bureaucratic sanction is fine, orderly and solves problems. A massive, expensive and essentially clueless bureaucracy deciding who's in and who's out? No. Open the borders in an orderly fashion before you activate the xenophobes.
ACLU? I believe in the original guiding philosophy that in order to safeguard my own freedom I have to champion the freedom of the person I disagree with 100%. As a modern political tool of establishment interests, it sort of falls into contempt.
Liberal? Do you even know or understand what that is? To support SB1070 you have to be a liberal. It is a liberal law. As I pointed out, in order to support it, you have to accept a loose, liberal interpretation of the Constitution which allows a state to assume a Federal responsibility. Any strict, or conservative reading of the Constitution makes that illegal.
"For crying out load" get your head on straight and at least think for yourself instead of parroting stock phrases.
Slabside posted at 5:15 pm on Tue, May 25, 2010.
Why read the bill? Liberals are baffled by facts.
forkedlift1 posted at 2:54 am on Thu, May 27, 2010.
Michael,
I see you too have been suckered into Jan Brewer's inane and deliberately deceptive political campaign veto, with Holder's response to the question being cut after his first six words. They couldn't show the rest of his sentence because it might have been persuasive. To further deceive a la-la-land viewer, Brewer's advertising handlers provided but TWO words (I've not.....") from Janet Napolitano, also cut off in mid-sentence.
You, Michael, have also not read the bill in its entirety because there is nothing in it for you to make the following claim.
"The bottom line concerning the bill is that law enforcement can “only” ask a person where they are from after they have engaged the person in another police matter. If a person can’t show any form of identification, then a police officer can ask for paperwork verifying their immigration status."
You also demonstrate your ignorance of the bill by buying into the buzz word of the last two weeks, "mirrors."
"Had they read it they would know that 1070 simply mirrors existing federal law."
At best it is a very cracked mirror, and other portions of the bill are out of sight and bear no resemblance to federal law. One section of the bill has already been declared unconstitutional in federal court, and another enabling section of the bill was addressed and ruled against by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Have you ever been conned.
The real clincher, ironic and pathetic and funny, is that Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the bill twice, has not herself read the bill.
Last week I saw and heard her telling TV audiences,
"You won't be asked for papers unless you've committed a crime."
Do your own research and your own thinking, Michael, instead of winging it with what others tell you what they want you to hear.
forkedlift1 posted at 3:36 am on Thu, May 27, 2010.
Ho ho, I just caught a funny typo I made (a freudian slip?) in the third line of my post. These posts can't be edited, so just change the word "veto" to "video."