Immigration law: U.S. sues Arizona

In an excellent move, the federal government has sued Arizona over its bad immigration law.

The lawsuit filed in Phoenix federal court on Tuesday sidestepped concerns about the potential for racial profiling and civil rights violations most often raised by immigration advocates. Experts said those are weaker arguments that don’t belong in a legal challenge brought by the White House to get the measure struck down.

Instead, the suit lays out why the government believes that immigration laws passed by Congress and enforced by a range of federal agencies must take precedence to any passed by a state Legislature.

This all seems so straight forward. The bill takes what is obviously federal authority and usurps it. Legally, it sounds like a very solid case. Arizona ought to lose this one.

What I find most objectionable about the law is that it so poorly defines what constitutes “a reasonable suspicion” that someone is in the country illegally. Does the person have shifty eyes? Is there really traumatic music playing in the background? In all the defenses the mooks like Sean Hannity and co put up about this not being racist, they never say what might be “reasonable” here.

The law itself actually offers some definition, such as hanging out where illegal immigrants tend to also hang out. Yeah, I get that. I mean, sure, the law is assuming the guilt of others as being illegal in the first place, but why not? Most brown people are illegal, so all assumptions are okay, right? Or how about speaking poor English? It’s completely fair to the new, legal immigrants to be forced to show their papers, right? Especially when there’s no criteria for what constitutes “poor English”. Again, this bill so poorly defines “a reasonable suspicion”.

The law also makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents.

I take back what I said earlier: this is probably the most objectionable piece of this awful law. It only serves to treat some citizens as second-class. Naturally born U.S. citizens are not required to carry their licenses or state ID’s with them at all times. Why make things so drastically different for other citizens? This is what happened after the Emancipation Proclamation: freed slaves were made to carry documentation proving their freedom since not all slaves had been freed. In other words, the legals and the illegals had to prove their full citizenship (“full” being relative for blacks at this time) based upon the color of their skin. The only difference with the law in Arizona is that it might cover a slight minority of whites – a minority which will not be targeted in enforcement.

8 Responses

  1. Lets follow Arizona’s example and force conservatives and Republicans to carry a card with a yellow jesus on one side and “I am a conservative or a Republican – watch out for my bigotry” on the other.

  2. Its so terrible to demand that people breaking the law stop doing so. Obama won’t secure the border, but he seems more than happy to waste money making sure no one else does either.

  3. The law will be enforced based upon skin color and stereotypes (several of which it spells out). That’s the basic humanitarian problem. On the legal side, Arizona can’t make and enforce these laws.

  4. Where were the negative people like Nate when Dumbya wouldn’t secure the border. By the way, it is up to congress to pass the laws to handle immigration, not the president.

  5. Where was I? I was bitching about that too.

    You are correct, congress makes laws, the president merely enforces those laws.

    The laws are already there. At least two things have to happen,

    The president needs to give the border patrol what they need to enforce the laws already on the books. If that means a semi militarized border than so be it.

    Congress needs to decide what to do the the millions already here, the logistical problem is just too large, they can’t all be deported.

  6. Your talking about a classic case of: 80% of the people arrested are black in an area where 80% of the people are black. RACIAL PROFILING screams the ACLU! Arrest more white people!

    If there were millions of Canadians flooding over the border I’d be all for questioning overly nice white people who love poutein, when they have already committed another crime…

  7. I supported Bush’s immigration proposal. It was the one thing he did in eight years that was correct. It was fair and required effort, back taxes, fees and requirements for current illegal aliens. Congress and others vehemently opposed it, so we got nothing.

  8. I would support allowing them to stay here, with most of the same things you just mentioned, but not granting them citizenship. Allowing them permanent resident status and the ability to apply for citizenship just like all other permanent residents can.

    Provided they have not committed any felonies while they were here. In that case I support nothing less than a big kick in the ass right back over the border. Sorry but I’ll never support making people who came here illegally and committed felonies here to stay.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: