-
Immigration Didn't Doom Romney
February 2, 2012 | 78 comments
-
This Conscience Thing
January 30, 2012 | 166 comments
-
Not What the Doctor Ordered
January 26, 2012 | 76 comments
-
Motivational Speaker
January 24, 2012 | 141 comments
-
No Cash From Conservatives
January 17, 2012 | 73 comments
Feature
Mission Attrition
How Arizona reflects changes in the country's immigration politics. From our new July/August issue, just in time for a federal lawsuit.
In Mexico City this May, hundreds marched outside the U.S. embassy to voice their disapproval of a newly enacted Arizona law designed to crack down on illegal immigration. Some waved banners saying, "Stop police repression in Arizona" and "Not too many migrants, too many racists." One woman protesting told the BBC that President Barack Obama should sign an executive order banning deportations until the United States Congress reformed -- i.e., liberalized -- the nation's immigration laws.
Over the past four years, it has become an annual spring ritual to hold a heated public debate over illegal immigration. This custom began in 2006, when President George W. Bush -- with a little help from a bipartisan gaggle of friends in the Senate -- made good on his promise to unveil "comprehensive immigration reform." By May Day, the streets of major American cities were filled with protesters carrying signs (and in some cases, Mexican flags) as they demanded a path to citizenship for the 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants already in the United States. Some illegals walked off their jobs to demonstrate their importance to the American economy.
By the time Labor Day passed, however, comprehensive immigration reform was as unfashionable as wearing white. What the Bush administration called "reform" a majority of the American people regarded as amnesty, a reward for lawbreakers that would overwhelm any accompanying improvements to border security by incentivizing further illegal immigration. After all, they had been through this before with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, signed into law by Ronald Reagan: the amnesty took place but the promised enforcement never materialized.
Amnesty failed when Republicans controlled both the White House and Congress, with GOP congressmen refusing even to take up the Senate immigration bill in the run-up to the 2006 mid-term elections. It failed again in 2007, when the Bush administration worked with a Democratic congressional majority to pass similar immigration legislation. The old gang that promoted comprehensive reform in the Senate has broken up: Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has disavowed his former top legislative priority; Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) has died; Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) smelled a trap when Democrats tried to revive immigration reform this year and refused to go along.
WITH WASHINGTON UNABLE TO ACT, it fell to Arizonans to ignite the annual immigration debate. They proved more than up to the task. Arizona's SB 1070 was enacted because the federal government had failed to guard the nation's borders, most porous at the 90,000-square-mile area identified by U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the Tucson Sector. Paradoxically, enforcement elsewhere has probably made the problem worse there. "When you plug a hole in the wall, the water looks for another spot to flow through. Arizona is that spot," Nogales, Arizona, police chief Jeff Kirkham told the Washington Post.
None of this means very much to liberals and ethnic activists who live at a safe distance from Arizona's illegal immigration problem, however. As soon as the bill was signed into law, various groups announced boycotts of the state. The protests even spilled onto the basketball court as the Phoenix Suns donned "Los Suns" jerseys during Game 2 of the NBA Western Conference semifinals in an effort to distance themselves from the Arizona law. Even the Economist reported that a "conservative border state is at risk of becoming a police state."
Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles accused Arizona of using "German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques." This was probably the first His Eminence ever agreed with Seth MacFarlane, creator of the vulgar animated sitcom Family Guy. MacFarlane said that "[n]obody but the Nazis ever asked anybody for their papers." He cracked, "Walking down the street, a cop can come up to you and say ‘May I see your papers?' I think they should be required to ask that question in German if the law sticks around." President Obama merely called the law "misguided" as he ordered his Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."
If requiring non-citizens to carry some proof of legal residence on their persons makes a country a Nazi-style police state, then the United States has been one since 1940 -- that is, when the requirement to carry a green card, visa, work permit, or other "papers" first became federal law. What Arizona's statute does is to make several federal immigration violations state crimes as well. But the most controversial provision is this: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency...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..."
At issue is the meaning of phrases like "lawful contact" and "reasonable suspicion," which civil-rights activists insist are vague and open to abuse. But the law specifically bans the use of race or national origin as the sole basis for reasonable suspicion of illegal status. The "lawful contact" part is to stipulate that the police are only to inquire about immigration status if something else, like an arrest or a traffic stop, is already going on.
Nevertheless, it isn't easy to deal effectively with illegal immigration in a state like Arizona without engaging in racial profiling. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that nearly 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico or some other Latin American country. About 30 percent of Arizonans are Hispanic, the majority legal residents and many of them native-born Americans with deep family roots in this country. It is precisely this complexity that makes immigration such a polarizing political issue.
YET "POLARIZING" DOESN'T SEEM like quite the right word to describe SB 1070, at least within the confines of Arizona. Polls have repeatedly shown that upwards of 70 percent of the state's voters approve of the new law. Gov. Jan Brewer's decision to sign the bill and defend it against all critics -- including the president of the United States -- has produced a dramatic turnaround in her political fortunes.
For months, Brewer's numbers among Republican primary voters were lackluster and she was well below 50 percent in hypothetical general election matchups with the Democrats. In May, a Rasmussen poll showed Brewer zooming to 45 percent in the GOP primary, with her nearest rival drawing 18 percent. She claimed just 26 percent in April and was locked in a three-way tie in March. Her approval rating among Republicans similarly leapt to 85 percent.
In the general election, Brewer saw her lead over likely Democratic nominee Terry Goddard rise from just 44 percent to 40 percent in mid-April to a more significant 52 percent to 39 percent in May. The percentage of people with a "very favorable" view of Brewer reached 24 percent, a 16-point jump in just one month. Brewer's improbable, partially immigration-fueled recovery is reminiscent of another first-term Republican governor's revival 16 years ago. In 1994, Pete Wilson snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in California with his high-profile support -- almost unique among the political class -- for Proposition 187, a ballot initiative designed to deny taxpayer moneys to illegal immigrants.
Democrats hope this history will repeat itself in one other way: they -- and more than a few Republicans who disagreed with Prop 187 -- believe Wilson's immigration stance alienated Hispanic voters and contributed to the California GOP's decline. By taking a position on the Arizona law that is unpopular in the short term, Democrats believe they can over the long term do to the home of Barry Goldwater and John McCain what has already been done in the state of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan: transform a Republican stronghold into a Democratic bastion.
Of course, it isn't clear how much of an effect Wilson's hawkishness on illegal immigration had in turning California blue. The state voted heavily for Bill Clinton for president and elected two Democratic senators in 1992, two years before the push against illegal immigration was even on the ballot. Wilson began 1994, a golden age for Republican incumbents, trailing Pat Brown's liberal daughter. He pulled ahead after embracing Prop 187, which passed with 59 percent of the vote.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III is associate editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/Jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (64) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/07/07/mission-attrition
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Man From La Fortaleza
- Who's Really Conservative?
- Religion Is Not the Enemy
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
martin j smith| 7.7.10 @ 7:53AM
The Arizona "immigration law" seems to be a good idea to put out from both the immigration issue and politics. But issues must be taken advantage of.
The central events in Arizona have to do with violence on the border. But beyond that there is economics and politics behind all of this. To have a real debate for the sake of this country there should the following issues: Cultural,political,economic and national security consequences for immigration"reform"
As for John McC he will say anything for a vote. But, I am convinced he has interests in immigration that are not altruistic.
AMENBRO| 7.7.10 @ 9:00AM
This poor excuse of a president makes JIMMAH CARTER look like EINSTEIN. That's one hail of a feat.
Mark in LA| 7.15.10 @ 2:51PM
I wouldn't compare him to Jimmy Carter. I would compare him to that useless brain-dead moron who signed the 1986 amnesty into law.
Eric Cartman| 7.7.10 @ 9:10AM
Amen, brotha!
And just remember what I always say: When noticing some illegals hanging off the back of a garbage truck in Houston one day, it hit me: They are here because Mexico sucks! Mexico suck worse that hanging off a stinking garbage truck in 105 degree heat at 97% humidity with blowflys sucking up the garbage water and landing on your face to deposit its eggs and defecate. And our political clacs accepts this because they get their lawns cut cheap and their dirty plates picked up at restaurants. Our wonderful blowfly politicians.
Ret. Marine| 7.7.10 @ 7:55AM
and what part of illegal does this pretender-n-theif of these united states not get. This should not be about politics, it's about the rule of law, and he reminds us daily that he does not intend, or like the rule of law. I want to see someone stand up and charge this supposed president with treason, sedition and pandering to the illegals for their votes, high crimes and misdemeanors anyone. The last time I checked it is still a Federal law he is trying to overturn and illegally at that through trickery and deception, that's just illegal. Since when does a supposed president rank above the laws of this land? The political class, the media and anyone who voted for this fraud are cowards, plain and simple.
Alan Brooks| 7.12.10 @ 6:02PM
The clincher is the lack of reciprocity-- Mexicans can enter America to do pretty much what they want, but we can't really do the same in Mexico.
Alan Brooks| 7.18.10 @ 5:38PM
PS,
one has to 'walk on eggs' in writing on ethnic matters today, so let the above be qualified by saying "Mexicans can enter America" doesn't mean they have it THAT easy in entering America, but if they do get in, then it isn't a bad deal for them is it? they can go to food pantries, soup kitchens, etc. With their relative pleasantness, it is hard to dislike Mexicans, but the question for me is: how much do Mexicans like & respect Americans?
Above all: America is a material cornucopia, but not an inexhaustible one.
Flee| 7.7.10 @ 3:58PM
There is no need to reform. Laws are in place that must be enforced. Then you cutoff all benefits and there will be a steady flow of self-deportation. Removing the citizenship of anchor babies would also increase the flow outward and not cost the US a dime. Obumma claims it is too expensive to deport everyone here illegally. I say it is too expensive not to let them all try it themselves. It would be self-funded and the Americans remaining would have a new supply of jobs to fill.
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 12:39AM
A certain number (certainly in the hundreds of thousands) of Mexicans think America is an endless buffet, or trough, for them to slurp out of.
Louis Jenkins| 7.7.10 @ 8:10AM
Its law and its real. Now the question is whether or not it will be enforced, or whether or not the national government will intervene. They've filed the lawsuit. The Arizona government has honed the law to make it enforcible. It is going to get really interesting. If the US wins its court case what is going to happen? Will Arizona lay down and go belly up, or will something more dire occur?
RCV| 7.7.10 @ 1:08PM
I'm pretty confident that Arizona will respect the ruling of the courts on the constitutionality of its law.
Al Adab| 7.7.10 @ 5:37PM
Some Federal Judge rules last week that Mexico can sue Arizona over 1070. So the likelihood is some Judge will rule against AZ in this matter as well.
Let's hypothesize that AZ says, "so what". Will the administration roll the tanks to enforce the ruling? Why would AZ cave after a kangaroo court ruling against them? Could not the AZ Gov. call the state militia, place them under Guard direction/command and shut the border?
The scenarios that come from this are legion. The magnitude of the issue in terms of Federalism is right up there with 1860. There are not many good outcomes from this ill considered administration action.
RCV| 7.7.10 @ 8:45PM
"Kangaroo court"? We have a federal judiciary set up under our Constitution. Various presidents have appointed those judges, and they have all been confirmed by our Senate, as provided for in the Constitution. If Arizona loses, it has rights of appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court, where 5 conservative judges sit. If Arizona can't convince them of the merits of its case, it loses and that's it. That's how our Constitutional system works. No, the AZ can't call up the militia and "shut the border". We have federal troops stationed in the state, and the President has the power under the Consititution to federalize the Guard if necessary. But it won't be, because those officials are rational. And, by the way, there is a very, very good chance that a Court will indeed rule that since the Constitution grants Congress the power to make "uniform" rules dealing with immigration and naturalization, that states do not have the power to enact statutes dealing separately with those issues.
RWinks| 7.8.10 @ 5:42PM
There are numerous precedents that states have concurrent power to enforce federal laws. As long as the law does not conflict with federal statutes---and it doesn't---any fair hearing by the court will almost certainly find for Arizona. The only question is whether it will have to be appealed, as Holder will have shopped for the most left-wing judge he can find.
RCV| 7.8.10 @ 5:52PM
There are indeed many areas in which conflict is the test, and where states have concurrent enforcement power. There are others, however, where Federal jurisdiction is exclusive. A strong case can be made that international immigration is one of them. In any event, the courts will sort the issues out.
RCV| 7.8.10 @ 1:57PM
And by the way, Al Adab, no federal judge "ruled Mexico has standing to sue Arizona" over 1070. The government of Mexico filed an amicus curiae brief, which is what non-parties do when they wish to convey views to the court on a matter they have an interest in. The court has not even ruled on whether it will accept the brief, although courts do accept amici curiae briefs all the time from various non-parties.
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 12:46AM
You are a "good" attorney, RCV-- whatever your name is-- hiding behind your analytical objectivity.
Fact is, courts will NOT sort the issues out, that is the entire point; the courts will be arguing for decades.
Mexico wants to become the 51st state- and it will eventually.
Jim O'Brien| 7.7.10 @ 8:31AM
Contrary to what Obama, Holder and the Mexican government think, ejecting illegal immigrants is not an act of provocation but an act of sovereignty, consistent with maintaining the rule of law. Obama is at war against the citizens of Arizona, and against all the citizens of all the United States.
Eric Cartman| 7.7.10 @ 9:02AM
It's nice to see Antle put the blame for the birth of this recent nonsense where it belongs: George W. Bush. His latent Liberalism oozed out and his punky arrogance burst forth when confronted by the press with the anger of the American people about granting amnesty to millions of Mexicans when he boasted: "See you at the signing", refering to the eventual signing of the Amnesty Bill. At that point, he became the epitome of the arrogant politician. At that point, he sucked forever.
His pushing this garbage now gives Obama a fall back and support for the notion: " Well, even George Bush wanted this", they will say. Remember this the next time you see that punk Rove. Bush/Rove, the punks that started this mess.
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 12:48AM
Rove is porcine little meatball. I read his book, Laura Bush's book, too: all sanitized to fill empty heads.
Dustoff| 7.7.10 @ 9:58AM
O-bummer needs the votes to stay in office. This is the ONLY reason he is pushing for this.
Brian Mc| 7.7.10 @ 10:22AM
I'll say it again...we should tell Mexico that we will use the same southern border enforcement here that they utilize there.
The first job of any government is the enforcement of its borders. If it fails at this, why should we entrust it to accomplish ANYTHING...?
It's time to start acting a little bit draconian. November can't get here soon enough. It quite possibly will be the most consequential election of this country's history.
Irish22| 7.7.10 @ 12:28PM
(1) Enforce the border -- (2) ID illegal workers -- (3) deport any illegal workers without the ID -- (4) close any business caught with illegal workers that don't have the ID -- (5) tax the businesses/individuals that use the illegal workers $.05 per hour worked. Problem(s) solved!
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 12:50AM
No, 1980 was.
No question.
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 12:51AM
"It quite possibly will be the most consequential election of this country's history."
1980.
martin j smith| 7.7.10 @ 10:24AM
Eric cartman: I thought GWB was voted out of office ( and his type ) in 08 ? But alas, he is the perrenial whipping boy. Oh yea, GWB supported a bad immigration policy. But, he is not the prez now. And, there is a ongoing issue of violence on the border. Wonder what GWB had done in this current case ?
It would have been put up or shut up time for him. But, now it is BHO and his responsibility. By failing to protect the border on prupose he abdictated responsibility, So in my view the Arizona government did very well by providing for their law. The ball is again in BHO,s court and his behavior will tell the nation of his intentions. Let me also add this: On Staten Island there was a recent arrest for a hate crite perped against Mexicans by Black youth. The increase in Mexican immi9gration will impact on all wanting for jobs. So, in the spirit of Martin Luther King, there will be ( now this is sarcasm ) disputes between hispanic and Black Civinl rights groups as to whom the government is beholden to
And, someone is going to be unhappy. One consequence of so called "immigration reform"
Eric Cartman| 7.7.10 @ 11:05AM
The last time I checked, GWB started this mess, like I said. He and Rove thought their Amnesty program - and that's what it was - would endear the Republican party to Mexicans (whoops, I mean Hispanics). Look it up. This is Bush's baby come back to life with Obama's DNA injected into it.
Imagine if Bush had acted like a president and controlled the borders after 9/11 - but he didn't. He bent over for the corrupt Mexican regime (really, he bent America over to take it up the keister. But hey, who really cares?) So don't try to defend Bush and his sidekick Rove. They are both to blame. And really, are you saying Bush would do a better job NOW?! Why didn't he when it mattered? So he's not worse than Obama - few are. Is that your selling point? "Bush: Better than a pile of steaming crap!" Great! Can't wait for the next Bush.
Stevie| 7.7.10 @ 1:05PM
Agreed, Cartman. As much as I DETEST BHO, Bush helped make the election of the usurper possible. I can even remember when Bush said that the $4 billion price tag for a fence was too costly. $4 billion?
Stavros36| 7.8.10 @ 2:46AM
GWB did not start this mess. There was an amnesty back in 80's that became law. At least the Bush administration and the R's in Congress backed off of their own comprehensive reform legislation after the country deluged them with letters and phone calls protesting it. At least they had the sense to listen. This administration doesn't even have that much sense.
RWinks| 7.8.10 @ 5:51PM
Correct, Stavros36. The immigration problems go back to the horrible Kennedy reform in '66. Reagan made things worse by falling for the Dems lie they would secure the border after amnesty. The '86 "reform" accelerated the invasion. Every President since has been worse than the preceding one on border enforcement.
Mark in LA| 7.15.10 @ 2:58PM
Please STOP with the nonsense about St. Ronnie. He did NOT care about this issue. He only cared about what corporations wanted. Otis Graham at UCSB has documented the whole sorry episode of this immigration reform - google him. The Reagan adminitration is also responsible for our "guest worker" programs - just another form of legalizing illegal immigration.
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 12:56AM
Reagan's people (and the people on the ground in E. Europe) helped accelerate the end of the Cold War, that was enough for eight years.
Don't be so hypercritical; you have to be v patient unless you want to be a volunteer border guard-- the kind that doesn't show up when there is a call for 'em.
Pete| 7.7.10 @ 10:29AM
What a tough math exercise for our ruling class. On the one hand, if they keep strangling the economy, the illegals will leave and seek greener pastures elsewhere. On the other, if they invite them all to stay to live off the taxpayers, even though they will gain votes, there will be less money to spread around amongst themselves. The optimal solution is clearly to do all of the above and then raise taxes to astronomical levels! Nice people, our rulers. But hey, they are royalty, so it is OK.
CWW| 7.7.10 @ 11:09AM
The term "lawful contact" has been replaced with more specific language: “lawful stop, detention, or arrest."
davelnaf| 7.7.10 @ 11:49AM
The pro-illegal side in the ‘debate’ uses every form of obfuscation and deceit they think they can get away with. But they are not getting away with anything. The ‘debate’ itself is so lopsided that it might be revealing something about the supporters of illegal alien ‘rights’ that should remain in the shadows itself.
Anthony| 7.7.10 @ 11:57AM
The lawsuit filed by the Obama Justice Department, under uber-hack Holder, could have been drafted by a 1st year law student.
It is banal, sophomoric in its logic, and just plain assinine in its overt political motivation. Oh, did I forget to mention that it contradicts itself? It does not even allege civil rights violations, which have been the clarion call of the Left about Arizona's law.
I'd be embarassed having my name attached to this piece of crap. I can't wait to see what Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito & Kennedy will do with this polemic disguised as a lawsuit, assuming it even gets that far. I'd tell Holder to get his money back from whatever Ivy law school he attended, it clearly failed to make him a lawyer.
But this is classic Obama and his group of Ivy League dunces. These preening peacocks couldn't lawyer their way out of a paper bag, yet in their own minds, and those of their fellow Leftists, these guys are geniuses, NOT.
Richard| 7.7.10 @ 12:02PM
The problem with the polls is that many "Hispanics" do not see themselves as such. They (we) don't accept the leftist pigeon-holing of race but see ourselves as American first.
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 12:59AM
"The problem with the polls is that many "Hispanics" do not see themselves as such."
Bingo. And when they some say they want the border more secure, they do not mean for THEIR friend 'n families in Latin America.
They always look out for their own kind.
Oldefarte| 7.7.10 @ 12:46PM
The issue should be [as stated] the legality of the situation. Hispanics [or any immigrant] should be welcomed to enter this country, but only by doing so legally. A enforced border barrier of some kind is essential in this situation, as it prevents the non-legal border crossing occurring now. Immigrants should be allowed [and forced] to gain entry into our country by having the proper legal paperwork filled out concerning their personal situaltion such as their name, address, purpose for entry,etc; given a non-corruptable I.D. card and a term limit for their stay; required to periodically report upon their residency status; and deported if they fail to either renew their term of residency or to leave/exit out country at the end of their residency term. You cannot have such a verification system until/unless you have a border fence/barrier,etc that effectively prevents immigrants for bypassing the control/verification border entry process. It's not about racism toward Hispanics, but about the legality process of their residency status!!!!!!!!
Alan Brooks| 7.19.10 @ 1:06AM
Right. But don't forget the double dealing: "we don't want too many getting into America (that aren't OUR people)"; third world Mexican want to call the shots.
'Our country is our country and your country is our country. What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine. HASTA LA TACO'
dw| 7.7.10 @ 1:27PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is a classic case of over education meeting under abled brain mass. 2+2 does not equal 4 if they don't want it to. It can equal anything as long as they rationalize it so. Subjectivity over objectivity and nuance over substance.
They let emotion negate intelligence and thus rule with feelings. It feels good to spend more borrowed money after bad borrowed money. That's their economic policy. It feels good to let foriegners invade our country despite rule of law. That's their immigration policy. It feels good to call all those who oppose them with valid argument, racist. That's their debate strategy. It feels good to ruin capitalist economies with fraudulent global warming scare tactics. That's their marxist position strategy. It feels good to elect a black man to the presidency despite a definitive lack of ability and experience. That's their ruin America strategy.
The quality of an Ivy league and almost any "higher" education should be questioned today. Many of these young minds are not able to differentiate between an education and an indoctrination. The disgraceful actions by many so called teachers using their positions of great influence to misguide young Americans away from their heritage has become a national disaster, as evidenced by the lack of honesty and quality in our political leadership. Obama is the tip of the iceberg for that example and those who elected him hold the ultimate blame. His plan to betray America was in full evidentiary view before he ever recieved one vote.
jstwndring| 7.7.10 @ 11:29PM
This over-sensitivity to polling data is what will kill the Republican party! Why the hell are they worried about a particular minority group that most likely will NOT vote for them NO MATTER WHAT? Do the right thing you friggen morons! Enforce the law! The real reason Republicans lost in 2006 was because they were trying to be too cute with illegal immigration. They are absolutely clueless! Start acting to protect LEGAL citizens. Start acting to protect the Republic. Start acting to uphold our Constitution. Start acting like adults.
adlib| 7.8.10 @ 2:04AM
Kathleen Brown, Pete Wilson's opponent when he ran for his second term, was not Jerry Brown's daughter.
Kathleen Brown was (and is) Jerry Brown's sister.
At the time of that campaign, she used her then-full married name: Kathleen Brown Rice.
Brown Rice?? Has there ever been a more tone-deaf compound name used by a politician ? It was like a mocking spoof of Governor Moonbeam's family in post-hippy California...
Yosemeti Sam| 7.8.10 @ 2:16AM
" ... Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles
accused Arizona of using "German Nazi and
Russian Communist techniques." This was
probably the first His Eminence ever agreed
with Seth MacFarlane, creator of the vulgar
animated sitcom Family Guy. MacFarlane
said that "[n]obody but the Nazis ever asked
anybody for their papers." He cracked, "Walking
down the street, a cop can come up to you and
say ‘May I see your papers?' I think they should
be required to ask that question in German if the
law sticks around." President Obama merely
called the law "misguided" as he ordered his
Justice Department to "closely monitor the
situation and examine the civil rights and other
implications of this legislation." ...."
Cardinal Roger Mahony - aka C.R. Baloney!
Oh, but, preferably, no doubt, pining - for the halcyon eras of Stalin and Mao Zoo Dung: for the Leftoid-favored unNazis order of things!
Where murderous 'constraints' to freedom
and liberty were necessary evils and devil-advocated by the American Leftoid stratas, in all their unholy paternalistic vainglory!
Yo, C.R.B. - um, separation of church and state. Heard of it?
Diagnosis: cursed useful idiots - extending fatuously to the Liberation Theology minded.
Leftoid Trojan Horses - infesting our Society!
Armageddon, not far behind!
Stevie P.| 7.8.10 @ 12:59PM
Stupid is as stupid does, simple is...well just simple. Illegal aliens are ILLEGAL, law-breaking, foreign nationals committing invasion of our soveriegn nation. They are common criminals, they do not deserve amnesty, citizenship, excuses, pity, and sure as heck they DON"T deserve another penny of my, and your, tax dollars paid out to help them. If you're a Mexican, get help from Mexico. Germany has never paid me a single Euro because times were tough !
Jack Kinch(1uncle)| 7.8.10 @ 3:20PM
Important. The last thing we need is more demos to support on welfare.
NO aliens unless they have wealth and intent to start a business hiring 50 Americans.
David| 7.8.10 @ 5:07PM
Eric, you are correct about Bush. He and his surrogates were calling people who wanted the border closed bigots, racists, and all other sorts of names. Bush tried to cram down our throats another amnesty.
When we refused to accept it, he threw a tantrum, like the spoiled child I always claimed he was. He told us we would be sorrry. What did he do? He started raiding employers with illegals, with cameras blaring for effect. He arrested the woman who was holed up in the church for about a year, again with cameras blaring, as the world watched her son crying for her when she was sent back to Mexico. Any bets on whether she is back in America by now?
The point is, Bush wasn't out arresting any of the thousands of illegals who were criminals with warrants for the world to see, but was actually arresting the decent, hard-working ones to gain sympathy for their plight and his and McCain's push for amnesty.
Please don't anyone say Bush did not create those spectacles on purpose. The president is completely in charge of the federal law enforcement agencies and Bush created the time, place, and manner of such publicized arrests. Had he not wanted to embarras the border closers, he could have secretly raided those employers as law enforcement often does. But Bush had to throw his tantrum and tried to "show us" conservatives.
Bush was a waste his last 3 years in office.
David | 7.8.10 @ 5:14PM
Maybe I am missing something, but I have never understood why repubs are afraid of alienating hispanic voters. The illegal ones can't vote (despite the dems wishes), and from everything I heard and know, about half of the legal ones who can vote, do not support illegals being here. As long as repubs are not trashing them as a race or ethnicity, I don't see any big downside to opposing amnesty and wanting the borders secured.
RWinks| 7.8.10 @ 6:01PM
David, You're right there's little downside to opposing amnesty but illegals DO vote. A study by the LA Times estimated more than a half million voted in the '96 election in California. Since it is illegal to ask someone to identify himself to vote in CA, the number is probably far higher today.
Joe| 7.8.10 @ 7:25PM
I KNOW PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN UNEMPLOYED SINCE 1997 WHEN THE CRASH !
I KNOW PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN IN UNSTABLE AND INSECURE WORK SINCE 2000 CRASH!
THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS 10%-30% DEPENDING ON STATISTICS.
WHAT LITTLE JOB GAINS DO NOT EVEN APPROACH THE IMMIGRATION RATE
HOW CAN THIS NATION SUPPORT IMMIGRATION IN THIS SITUATION?
EITHER MAKE CENTRAL AMERICA AND MEXICO STATES OR CLOSE THE BORDER.
INFACT, CLOSE THE BORDER FOR ALL UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT IS BELOW 5%!
Caatlina M.| 7.20.10 @ 1:14PM
Damn ALL of you people are crazy.
it DOESN'T matter what all of you think
it's all up to The Goverment. And since when are you all intrested in taking jobs as gardeners and house keepers?
Cause I'm American and I sure don';t want those jobs.
Just something to think about...
mike vignapiano| 7.22.10 @ 4:28PM
I cannot believe this is even an issue. These people knowingly broke the law. If they receive any kind of care, they are basically STEALING from us. I will be for amnesty for these illegals, when all people in jail for gambling, drug use and petty crimes are allowed to be set free.
Benito| 8.23.10 @ 5:11PM
The Republicans are so funny, when the economy is good you say let’s all celebrate “Cinco de Mayo, my brothers” but when the economy is down “it’s all your fault, you damn immigrant”. When most Americans (with Latin America roots) go to the polls this November we will remember that the GOP has gone on a nationwide rant in proposing and passing several anti-immigration legislation and have continue to blame us for the flat economy or worse. We will remember who stands with us and who stands against us, so trying to stop it now is somewhat funny, but go ahead, you will not change our minds. You hate made you do it, in November; you will reap what you have sown.
W.C. Varones| 9.1.10 @ 9:09PM
Benito, the pride of Palomar Community College.
Benito| 9.10.10 @ 12:18AM
The most outrageous racial profile law was AZ SB1070, the one that failed in our US Courts that the proponents claimed was Constitutional. The current GOP wants to decide for you when they will apply the Constitution in the bent minds. Considering that all the numbers of crime are down (even ex-governor Janet Napolitano agrees).
So we have Brewer signing a bill (that she probably did not even read), lying about the crime rates in AZ, and now we find out that she is in the pockets of PRIVATE PRISONS who stand to benefit with the increase Federal jailing.
So quit lying, with your pathelic rhetoric, stand up and be men, no, no I am sorry your leaders are now just Birthers, Baggers and Blowhards and will contine to take the GOP towards obscurity because they are no longer a party of ideas, just of empty suits. Good bye, fawell…..