Saturday, May 1, 2010

Arizona's not so new and not so controversial law

Today is May 1st, a traditional communist rallying day, and as in the past, illegal aliens have chosen today to march in protest of unfair immigration laws, especially Arizona's recent passage that will allow local law enforcement officers (LEOs) to take action on illegal immigration.

Before we begin, let me make a couple of general notes related to the subject. First, U.S. Citizenship is valuable, despite the tearing down of the U.S. that liberals and progressives have done for decades. Second, U.S. Citizenship is not a human right. We can't accept and care for all six plus billion people on Earth to the U.S. Third, absorbing the most adventurous and enterprising of other nation's populations is deeply unfair to those other nations and robs them of the chance to improve. Fourth, I'm disgusted that it's considered "compassionate" to allow a flood of what are essentially slave laborers into our country so we can have low prices on tomatoes. If we ever do grant amnesty to this modern slave labor force, then they'll be unemployed and we'll have to import new slaves for the cycle to continue. It's unjust and inexcusable in our modern society. Finally, no nation can survive if it allows foreign nationals with no interest in the preservation and strengthening of the country to force alteration of its laws through protest. Other countries understand this. Mexico, for example, would throw such illegal alien protesters into Federal prison and then deport them.

Moving to Arizona's law, if you've followed the news, you've seen them call it new, tough and sometimes shocking. It's none of the above. The law isn't really new to Arizona, or for that matter California, Massachusetts or New York. In fact, Arizona's law merely mirrors Federal statute. The uproar is because unlike the Federal government, Arizona plans to act on that statute, and liars in the media and far left groups are pretending that's a new and bad thing.

These liars will tell you that Arizona's law makes it illegal to be Latino, and the police can stop you just for having dark skin. In fact, many of the LEOs in Arizona are of Latin origin, and really couldn't care less what color your skin is. The truth is, both Federal law and Arizona's mirror law provide that an officer must make lawful contact based on suspicion of another crime. Thus you can not be pulled over for driving while Latino, but you can be pulled over for speeding. Once you're stopped, if you have no identification and can't speak English, the officer has cause to check your immigration status. It doesn't matter if you're brown, white or chartreuse or you only speak Spanish, Norwegian or Klingon. If you're walking down the street you can't be stopped for being Latino, but you could be stopped for violating local ordinances, and again, if you can't produce identification or speak English, there's cause to check your status.

An interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has successfully arrested illegal aliens for years despite multiple court challenges based on Federal law allowing local LEOs to enforce Federal law (imagine that) provides more details.

Washington, D.C.: How can law enforcement "reasonably suspect" someone of being undocumented without racial profiling? Other than race, what are the key indicators?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: When you have a legitimate contact during law enforcement operations, you should be able to ask for identification which law enforcement does anyway on a daily basis. You ask for ID and you see if that person is here illegally by checking out the immigration status of the person. We don't go around picking people off the streets because they look like they're from another country just because of their race. [Transcription errors corrected--the Washington Post needs a new transcriptionist or program]

_______________________

Los Angeles, Calif.: What criteria will law enforcement officers use to determine whether someone is suspiciously illegal? If the criteria is not codified in the law, will it then be up to the police officers to create their own criteria, creating disparate application of the law across the state?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Technically in the law it says no racial profiling, that's in the new law. That's why there's a lot of training going on to train police officers to ensure that there is no racial profiling.

_______________________

Perris, CA: How confident are you that this law will not lead to civil rights lawsuits going against the State of AZ and why?

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: My office in the last three years has been very tough on illegal immigration. We have investigated, arrested, detained in our jails over 38,000 illegal aliens with very few lawsuits. So I'm confident that this law can be carried out without many allegations of racial profiling

That's right. It may come as a shock, but local law enforcement officers could actually already have been doing this, but it took a reinforcement of Federal law by Arizona State to get most police departments to even consider doing it. It is amazing that given rampant crime and Phoenix becoming the kidnapping capital of the U.S. (trailing only Mexico City worldwide), most LEOs in Arizona refused to follow Sheriff Arpaio's example to make citizens depending on them for protection safer.

As if to slam home the point, a suspected illegal immigrant shot a Pinal county deputy in the stomach yesterday during a routine traffic stop. Illegal alien activists will tell you it was in response to the new law, but that's a lie. The law hasn't gone into effect. The law hadn't been passed and wasn't in the national spotlight when suspected illegal aliens shot and killed a rancher. The law wasn't even being considered in 2009 when Phoenix had over 370 kidnappings, most related to illegal alien drug and human smuggling. Arizona's law isn't spurring violence, it's a desperate measure against the violence that has been spilling across the border for years, and the media refuses to report.

This not so new and not so controversial law in Arizona is in fact supported by the majority of Americans. Depending on the poll you look at, 60% to 70% of Americans favor Arizona's law. Those claiming it violates basic human rights are confusing the rights of U.S. citizenship with human rights. If you really want to see human rights abuses, you have to look to how Mexico treats their illegal aliens. After Mexican President Felipe Calderon condemned Arizona's law and issued a travel warning about it, he had to backtrack because Amnesty International released a report on how Mexico treats its illegal aliens.

Kidnappings of migrants, mainly for ransom, reached new heights in 2009, with the National Human Rights Commission (CNDH) reporting that nearly 10,000 were abducted over six months and almost half of interviewed victims saying that public officials were involved in their kidnapping.

An estimated six out of 10 migrant women and girls experience sexual violence, allegedly prompting some people smugglers to demand that women receive contraceptive injections ahead of the journey, to avoid them falling pregnant as a result of rape.

Nice work, President Calderon. Perhaps you should look to the beam in your own eye?

The truths about Arizona's law just don't match up with what the media is reporting. Most Americans support this law. It won't allow for racial profiling. It isn't new or controversial. It's perfectly Constitutional. They just don't like it, and want to paint anyone who supports it as a racist.

The media's word choices have reflected their bias. They've called this law and its supporters "anti-immigrant," much as they did the Minute Men and other lawful immigration activists. Calling these groups, who support legal immigration "anti-immigrant" is much like calling Mothers Against Drunk Driving "anti-driving." It's a bold-faced lie that should be rejected by any reasonable American.

The media even makes statements that should be easily recognized as idiotic: "the new immigration law signed last week by Gov. Jan Brewer (R), which criminalizes illegal immigration..." Illegal immigration is by definition criminal. I heard of one news crawl (I believe on CNN) which declared, "Arizona law makes illegal immigration illegal." Yes. 7 in 10 of us are aware and want something done about it.

We can't afford the crime or other social costs of illegal immigration. With a new health "reform" bill designed to put private insurers out of business and institute Socialized Medicine, we have to follow the example of our European allies and take a tougher stance on illegal immigration, including ending birthright citizenship in the U.S. We're very tardy in getting that done. "Most countries have abandoned birthright citizenship. England did so in 1981 and Ireland in 2004, the last of the original fifteen European Union nations to give up birthright citizenship."

It's time for the lies and misinformation to end and the action to begin. As for today's protests, as in past years, I suspect illegal aliens will do more damage to their cause by making outrageous demands that anger citizens than they will to elicit sympathy.

Added 05/02/2010, some extra links:

Fair treatment in an unlikely location, the Huffington Post.

Top 10 Dumbest Things Said About the Arizona Immigration Law

Arizona bans Ethnic Studies (this deserves its own post)

Mexico's immigration laws are tougher than ours.

An Arizonan on the issue.

No comments: