Liberals are losing their minds over Arizona’s new “tough” immigration law. I wondered to myself just how tough it was, so I got a copy and read it. You can read it here. I was astounded. Constantly the law refers to already established federal laws. Essentially it says: If you are here and not supposed to be, you are trespassing and in violation of federal laws which the State of Arizona is bound Constitutionally to enforce. It goes on to make certain prohibitions with regards to employers who pick up day-labor on the side of the road, and then reinforces federal laws on the books regarding the employment of illegals by Arizona businesses who do so in full knowledge of the illegal status of said persons. I paraphrase of course, but the law says: “we will enforce the law of the land to the maximum extent possible”. I had to laugh about the fine that would be imposed on these lawless individuals after their mandatory incarceration..$500. Oh, and plus court costs. The law reinforces the penalties on Americans who illegally provide jobs to these people.
If I can find anything wrong with this law and their plan is that law enforcement may determine that a person is illegally here, drop them in the pokey (increasing costs to house and feed them), then after a period of time specified in the law releasing them to the federal immigration authorities for repatriation. It seems to me that a bigger longer fence would be cheaper in the long run. At least maybe they could be dropped on to some kind of government farm to work during their incarceration which might offset the costs of housing them.
This law isn’t tough. Or at least it isn’t any tougher than the current federal law. For liberals, the problem with the Arizona law is that it sends a message to Obama and his cronies that Arizona is sick and tired of illegal immigration from Mexico and its inherent social problems from increased crime and additional welfare-rated costs to the state. Moreover, Arizona puts Washington on notice that if DC is not going to live up to its Constitutionally guaranteed obligations then Arizona will protect itself within the confines of the rule of law. So what is the big fuss over? Civil rights violations of course. The same old tired tune that real Americans have grown nauseaus over for the last 70 years. How might a person’s rights be violated? By profiling and possibly privacy violations, that’s how.
Let’s take a peek at “profiling”. In its most general definition it is the method by which someone or something may be separated from the crowd that they or it resides by obvious features. It happens every day in law enforcement. I take issue with the practice in general but I am significantly more bothered by the hypocrisy of the liberal uproar. Let me give you an example: It is 3am in the morning and you are driving home from a friend’s house. There are very few cars on the road, and surprisingly blue flashing lights come on behind you as the local gendarmes pull you over to the side of the road. After taking your license, running your tag and beginning an investigation, the officer asks you the question you know is coming: “Have you been drinking sir?” if you have and you lie about it, you will be arrested, your level of alcohol notwithstanding. It’s illegal to lie to a policeman. If you haven’t and you say you haven’t it is very likely that you will be asked to prove it by blowing into a small device he has in his car and performing a roadside sobriety test anyway. It’s his job to arrest people and he is just looking to make sure that there isn’t any reason to do so. Why did he pull you over? The policeman will claim that your tag light was out, or you swerved, or failed to signal a lane change, or any other kind of small infraction that gave him “probable cause” to investigate you. What is the real reason he pulled you over? Because he knows that statistically 80% of people on the road at 3am have been drinking. It is like shooting fish in a barrel. The policeman used profiling to nail another drunk driver. Or to illegally hassle someone that hadn’t been drinking at all. Welcome to our world.
Even more disturbing violations of privacy occur daily when the policeman behind you runs your tag number while sitting at a traffic light. You aren’t obviously breaking any laws. Does he have probable cause to suspect you are? No. What might give him probable cause to do this? Nothing. Not even the condition of your vehicle really gives the cop a reason to do this. But he will, and if he finds something wrong when he runs your tag number through the computer you can bet you will spend some time on the side of the road and possibly in the local county jail. Is this wrong? I have friends that are judges that have a problem with it, and I certainly do. Right or wrong, cops do this all day and night long. It is their job to issue citations (for money and to keep us safe) and arrest people.
So why aren’t liberals raising hell about these obvious breaches of due process and privacy? They say that the concept of “reasonable suspicion” violates civil rights laws and targets hispanics solely on the color of their skin. Police will also detain a couple of black guys riding through a lily-white section of town in a low rider blasting the latest hip-hop hit to the neighborhood. Why? Because it is highly likely that they are there selling drugs. Did the authorities use profiling to make this traffic stop. Surely they did. Will the ACLU and Al Sharpton show up en masse to protest this obvious violation of civil rights? Nope. Not a chance. The Arizona law relies and empowers on the concept of “reasonable suspicion” to cause the officer to investigate if laws are being broken; namely federal immigration laws. What might cause him to suspect this? 29 people in a car or van? Language clues? An excess of personal effects baggage? Brown skin? Unfortunately all of these things may be used to determine status. Immigration law requires “legal” aliens to possess their green cards at all times and to present them when requested by proper authority. Cops are proper legal authority. Once more, Arizona parrots existing federal law.
So again I ask, why the protest now? The answer is simple. Hispanics are a growing segment of the population and it is estimated that they will become the largest minority group in the country in the next five years. It would have happened even sooner had the economy not suffered such a huge setback. Many latinos vacated the U.S. when the jobs dried up. Unless they have access to public welfare, the cost of living here is much higher than in Mexico. Liberals depend on voters that are dependent on the government for their living to keep voting democrats into office. The Libs toss some scraps to these groups and those people keep voting themselves other people’s money. Socialism in a microcosm.
You may ask yourself why the federal government doesnt protect the border. Isn’t that one of those things that the Constitution says the federal government will do? Liberals like to claim that the Constitution is full of things that government can’t do, but is light on saying the things that government should do. The founders had a reason for this. They knew that the character and nature of government is to grow beyond its prescribed boundaries and didn’t intend to fertilize it with a list of shoulds that was large and encompassing. However in the case of illegal immigration, it is incumbent on the Obama administration to protect the citizens of America from all enemies. Securing our southern border is an imperative that Mr. Obama chooses to ignore. Instead liberals call for “comprehensive immigration reform legislation”. We already have immigration legislation. It says that illegals, are in a word, illegal. There is a proper method by which someone becomes “legal” and even a naturalized “citizen”. Immigrants simply need to use it. Instead, Obama wants to give amnesty to all immigrant lawbreakers and he has no intention of protecting Arizona, Texas, New Mexico, and California from continued problems on their borders. In doing so he loses latino voters. And that to him would be a travesty. The protection of Natural-born Americans doesn’t really matter to Obama when votes are on the line.