On the contrary, many of the founders views and indeed many of the most important and time-tested political philosophies that America was not only founded on, but exist properly today, are conservative ones. The problem we have is the right-wing nutbars have hijacked those principles, incorporated the christo-facism that makes them so very comfortable, and in the hijacking are attempting at every turn to shovel it all down the throats of the entirety of America.
Personal liberty, individual responsibility, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, individual equality, fiscal prudence and freedom to dissent are among those principles which the founders and indeed the conservative as well as progressive movements throughout history have held close, and in some cases have used as both broadsword and scalpel to forward the smaller parts of their larger agendas, sometimes to the benefit and sometimes to the detriment of Americans.
Now as far as the OP:
Poll after poll of Arizonans(?) tell the story about how they feel about it: Pew (71% for), Angus-Reid (73% for) and a CBS nationwide poll said the law was “just about right” stood at 51%. (there’s no point in using Rassmussen, they may as well get their calling DB from Fox News viewers)
The law as it stands has many flaws, not the least of which is built-in racism on which LE officers are required to act and the idea that citizen may sue the gov. if they think the law isn’t being followed is mind-blowingly stupid.
Obama should not have called Arizona out that way and certianly not with Calderon there. It is akin to dad saying yes when mom says no. I don’t believe he was right in doing so and I think all that needed to be said on the matter is that “it’s a troubling issue that we are working with the State of Arizona to resolve”. All public pressure against the law by Obama will do is build up the righty nut-base and bolster their propaganda machine.
Reality check: When you are in a foreign country and you fail to have your ‘papers’ available if stopped by local authorities, you place yourself at a risk of being arrested. It happened in Italy to me (the checking not the arresting) and it can happen anywhere to anyone, even here. Illegal immigration is a problem all over the world and like it or not, can be a security as well as an economic threat.
There is a way to monitor and to facilitate legal immigration, there is a way to have people of other nationalities take advantage of the many, many opportunities here and there is a way to do all of these things without a) creating a strain on the system b) creating and enforcing draconian and otherwise stupid rules or laws and c) making criminals out of those simply seeking the ability to work their asses off for the eventual reward that hard work brings.
What we have to realize is that there are limits to how many people we can handle and that despite the deep, deep desire of all of the people who seek prosperity on America’s shores, not all of their hopes or dreams can or will come true. To allow unregulated immigration is to dishonor the legacy of all of the other immigrants who built this country by devaluing it.
Although CannyDan has reiterated some of the points I’ve made on this, I wanted to add that you do know that illegal immigrants caught and convicted of crimes, serve time for those crimes and are then deported, right? Depending on the crime, some who’ve actually been naturalized are deported also.
buttonjockey, the concern about this law’s effects, and intent, is not about illegals, but about legals, and how they will be selected for demands for papers based on their race or appearance, and how even citizens are going to be required to have their papers available on demand. Does that clarify it?
I thought the problem was illegal immigrants coming here and costing us money by using government resources. How does putting them in prison solve that problem?
I wasn’t sure that it needed clarifiying in my mind, I know what the law means and what it does, I can see how the post wouldn’t have been clear in that regard though, so my bad.
I disagree with the law, on its’ face, but the sprit of the law is a different matter.
ID checks as primary enforcement are creepy and dangerous. ID checks if you’ve already had a transaction with the police are another thing altogether and pretty much standard. Further, the state of Arizona making it a state crime to be here illegally and those ID checks causing arrest of those here illegally is perfectly fine with me, their state, their rules.
Hardly. If I want you stopped, I’ll find a way to stop you. The traffic code is like the tax code in many states and large cities, in that it’s so large and complicated that there’s no way you can know everything about it. Virtually, every time you drive, you’re likely violating the traffic code of your city and/or state. For instance, an air freshener hanging from your rear view mirror is technically a reason to stop you in some states. A plate light that is burned out, changing lanes within 100’ of a traffic control device, not wearing your seatbelt. These are just a few of hundreds of examples of wasy to create the transaction. Codifying ‘looking suspicious’ into the law though, THAT is dangerous.
We’ve covered this upthread. A traffic stop involves the driver in a legal encounter with law enforcement. Not his passengers. But the LEO can detain and/or arrest them all if he finds “reasonable suspicion” that their immigration status is in doubt. Even if they’re citizens who left their wallets at home. And the objection is that LEOs are likely to find some justification like “he seemed to be concealing something” as grounds for that reasonable suspicion when that is merely cover for “he’s brown skinned and accented”.
And a LEO approaching a group of people playing pickup basketball, or gossiping over someone’s fancy “ride” doesn’t even have a driver who would be required to present “papers”. Citizens do not have to carry identification in the US, but now, in AZ at least, if they fail to do so they are subject to detention. Oh, they’ll be released whenever their legal status is proved. But in the meantime they’ll be having a rousing old time in the holding cell. Which shouldn’t be too objectionable to them, helping out in the effort to rid AZ of illegals and all. Small sacrifice for citizens to pay. Well, brown ones, anyway.
I still don’t see the big deal about the Arizona law. The Feds, by this I mean the Border Patrol, stop and check out cars all the time. This isn’t at the border, but 25 to 75 miles inland.
Here is a more detailed article on the checkpoint most local to me near San Clemente, California and how it works.
This has been going on for years. Since the Border Patrol won’t discuss their criteria for who they stop, how they question or who they hold for further investigation this must be racial. They must be profiling. Right?
Perception versus reality. If a LEO stops a car, every one IN that vehcile is going to be checked out. In order for that check to go hitch free, it’s best to have that gov’t issued ID on your person. If you don’t have it, and you can’t be verified by another manner, there’s a chance, be it slight, that you can be hauled in to confirm your ID. There’s no ‘requirement’ per se to carry your ID, however there is the reality of encountering a LEO and needing it, to make it more expedient.
Frankly, in the real world LEO’s have way more important things to do than haul everyone they can get their hands on, in for these kinds of violations. If the cop wants to find something, the odds are fair that he/she will be able to, whether it’s immigration status or disorderly conduct. As much as I disagree with the law, honestly, it’s no different from the rest of them in practical terms.
And I wonder, and no one has yet answered, what about what people in AZ think? If the polls there say they’re for it, what do I have to say about it here in Illinois?
Finally, all of the “but the cops COULD DO BAD THINGS” mindset is convicting the cops before they’ve committed a crime, ironically in the same way opponents of the law claim the law will behave.
Not at all. The cops are extended special privileges not granted to other citizens, and the question at hand is whether some additional special privileges should be added to that. That naturally implies that the cops are to be held to a higher standard, and that the possibility that they could do bad things is to be weighed more heavily.