A great thing about writing a blog is that one can just check the events of the day and respond with a quick post immediately. A bad thing about writing a blog is that those same events rarely behave and adhere to your schedule, and you end up writing from behind, so to speak.
Such is the nature of the evolving debate over the Arizona anti-immigrant law. I have started and abandoned many posts on this topic because its ever-changing nature and unending cascade of loony behavior have made my points obsolete before I could slap punctuation at the end of a given sentence.
The Arizona law, which makes it unlawful to so much as resemble an illegal immigrant, has offered America even more ludicrous moments and bizarre antics than we've come to expect from our political theater.
I thought the absurdity had reached its nadir when John McCain insisted, on national television, that illegal immigrants were intentionally ramming unsuspecting citizens on the freeway. But the best was yet to come.
First the GOP, in the true spirit of leadership, announced that it was picking up its loose marbles and going home. Republicans screamed and yelled about how illegal immigration was out of control, but when pressed on how to resolve the problem, they demurred, en masse.
Sounding almost apologetic, Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia said, "We've got a lot of work left on our plate between now and the end of the summer. And we're starting on financial regulatory reform... I'm not sure where you find the time to deal with these other major issues."
Chambliss sounded like a teenager complaining about how much homework he received over winter break. But at least he was more rational than Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, who said "moving forward on immigration" in a "hurried, panicked manner" had offended him so much that he was walking out of talks on climate change legislation. It was as if conservatives had said, "Don't even ask us to even think about this whole immigration mess. I mean it. We're willing to destroy the environment over this... if we believed in global warming, that is. So there."
This caused the rest of us to ask, "Who dragged climate change into this?" But we had no time to ponder because the all-American sport of baseball became the next collateral damage.
With a certain amount of glee, Keith Olbermann stated that the Arizona Diamondbacks are arguably the only MLB team without a prominent Latino player. In addition, many commentators pointed out that Hispanics and Latin American immigrants make up a large percentage of today's top players. So we should have been unsurprised when protests erupted at Wrigley Field and fans started threatening to boycott next year's All-Star game, which is being held in (gulp) Chase Field in Phoenix. But at least that shrinking violet, Ozzie Guillen, spoke his mind, for once in his life.
Of course, as we know, nothing really exists in America unless a celebrity is involved. So we were all relieved when our first pop star entered the fray. The beautiful and talented Shakira announced that she is opposed to the Arizona law. I can only hope that if she is pulled over in Tucson, she gives the cops one of those icy glares she utilizes before launching into an especially violent hip shimmy. It will be out of context but even more intense.
By the way, it's odd that few American-born Latino celebrities are speaking out on the issue. One would think that Jennifer Lopez, for example, could take a brief break from peddling her latest cinematic disaster to at least appear socially conscious. But that's ok - keep shaking it, J Lo, we still love you!
However, things have now come around again to the world of politics. No, I'm not talking about Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's superficial change to the law, which she announced yesterday. I'm talking about the once-obscure Pat Bertroche, who is trying to gain the GOP nomination in Iowa to run for a House seat. His recent comments top the list of offensive, perplexing, and just plain oddball statements about Arizona's efforts.
Bertroche said, when referring to illegal immigrants, that "We should catch 'em, we should document 'em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going. I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can't I microchip an illegal?"
Before anyone could answer this most unanswerable of questions, Bertroche said of his own proposal, "That's not a popular thing to say." Um, no it's not.
Perhaps he's a master of understatement, but Bertroche could have added, "And it's not sane, coherent, respectful, or in any way related to the real world. In fact, it's just batshit crazy and wildly racist."
But he didn't, so we'll just have to imagine it. Fear not, however, I'm sure before all this is over, somebody or something else will top the insanity we've seen so far.
Perhaps we should start praying now.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/fugitives/fuglist.htm
Truth is the AZ "papers please" law looks on it's face to be a violation of the fourth amendment. Further the provision of a posible six month jail sentance for an otherwise legal resident to be in public without proof of residencey seems draconian and indefensable.´
The only way this law can stand is to mandate stopping everyone in the same way DWI checkpoints are operated. Under those circumstances everyone would be required to carry proof of legal resident status at all times and be subject to the same overzellous penalties for noncompliance. If that happend I don't think anyone in Arizona would put up with it for very long.
And on that last note, if the issue gets pushed down law enforcements' throat (who are universally unhappy with the damned thing) universal enforcement may be how they get it killed.
Also, as you, all citizens and non-citizens are required to have a valid Social Security card for work -- seriously enforce these laws.
I would like it, too, if you didn't -- like the author of the article -- just make up statements to suggest you are right or have support. The word: "Universally," for example, means All....Everyone.
Opposite to what you say there are noted figures in Arizona law enforcement who are quite zealous and happy about this new law. You really would have to be 'deaf, blind, or dumb,' not to know that, or not done any research at all, just making up statements that sound good to you but not in touch with reality. (Like the author of the article who doesn't know Who's on first? Or why cars getting rammed?
I live in Arizona, which is one reason I'm quick and clear to comment. I don't like our warped political nametags but outside opinions would call be 'outrageous liberal.' -- but like I have two arms, left and right...I've really always been an Independent with views that Others describe as left or right but are views I see as 'common sense.'
I lived on the Border several years. It's madness. I had to move north.
1.) Police can't question people about their immigration status unless they have been stopped for another valid reason. This, btw, was how White domestic terrorist Tim MacVay was captured when he was stopped for having an expired license plate.
2.) The AZ law is current Federal law we've had about 70-years - but the Feds aren't enforcing it. So AZ made these laws State laws.
3.) The ramming of cars on the Interstate AND running automatic weapons gun battles AND people being shot dead on the side of our highways is a concern. Much attributed to violent Mexican gangs fighting over control of drug and/or human smuggling and chasing down their gang rivals cargo.
4.) I wouldn't call these violent Mexican gang members "illegal immigrants," A local expression is "coyotes." They are not seeking housing or employment. Border bandits might be a good term. Or Mexican gangs...more people have been killed in drug gang violence in Mexico last year that All U.S. troops in Iraq during our whole time there.
5.) J. Gutierrez was the pitcher today, all nine innings, for the AZ Diamondbacks.
The real issues: The Border is broken and enforcing work permits for non-citizens (Note:We even require a valid Social Security number for citizens before they can work.
Can anyone become a citizens by just being able to sneak into the country?
The immigration system is broken here...however that does not excuse the problem which is having an affect on the nation as a whole.
This "illegal class" want to be exempt from our laws. I want an equal application of the law. If you don't follow the law, pay the consequencies.
The AZ supports all legal residents.
1. The law is not anti-immigrant but anti illegal immigrant. You keep repeating this but it won't ever make it true.
2. The law does not in any way make it illegal to "resemble" a illegal immigrant.
Then you mention that Republicans don't come up with a solution to this issue. Anything they say would immediately be labeled racist or mean or anti-immigrant or against our immigrant heritage or.......
THE ONLY solution to solve the problem of illegal immigration (if you truly want to solve it) is to remove the rewards and incentives that bring them here. Jobs, birthright citizenship, social programs, medical, educations, daisy chaining immigration policies, etc. all draw them here.
We can argue all day about the geopolitical issues driving this but at the end of the day we have little control over those things. This IS something we have control over and citizens are being hurt, suffer financial hardship, overburden our infrastructure and negatively impact our environment.
The real problem is that most politician (both parties but dems are worse) never come up with any answer that doesn't include amnesty until now. What really bothers me is that I fully expect dems to continue to be the party of the working person but their support of amnesty is the same to me as the support of NAFTA, off shoring of jobs and the world economy. None of those things protect AMERICAN workers, which should be their FIRST responsibility.
Paging Tea Party...
I think you are exaggerating.
And, implied, is that it would be illegal to REMOVE said chip. That is, our government would be forbidding people from controlling their own bodies.
It isn't "exaggerating" to say that Bertroche was advocating what he was quoted as advocating.
What if we show patience for like 30-40 years and they still don't leave? And more keep coming?
Why is there all this discussion about how a police officer can determine if someone he stops is a citizen?
Do illegals have drivers licenses or what? I mean if anyone gets pulled over, as far as I know, the cop asks for your drivers license, if you say you don't have it with you, he asks for your date of birth and runs a make on you. If you say you don't have a drivers license and you aren't driving the car, the cop still checks on our dob and name because believe this or not, people will like to the cop if they think they might have a warrant or any other legal problem that might get them arrested. But in the case of an illegal, I assume they cannot get a driver's license, so the mere fact that they don't have ID would mean the cop has probable cause the investigate further. Am I correct?
Prior to this, it was not actually required that you provide an id card, just that you provide your identification- that is, like you mentioned, you have to tell them your name, but you have never had to actually have a driver's license if you were not the driver.
A state issued ID is fine again as long as it comes from any state (I think only about 6 give DL's to illegals) other then sanctuary states.
A passport is fine.
There are others but contrary to the oft repeated idiotic statements to the contrary a birth certificate IS NOT good for ID.