2010 June 04 Friday
Americans Support Arizona Immigration Law

The Arizona state legislature passed a law that instructs and empowers local law enforcement officials to enforce US federal law on immigration. All the groups that do not want immigration law enforced, groups that favor amnesties for illegal aliens, have predictably denounced the law as racist, xenophobic, and a threat to civil liberties. Of course they would say that, wouldn't they? The majority of the American people support the Arizona law.

In Arizona and beyond, the law has many supporters. A CBS News poll last month found that 52 percent of respondents nationally think the Arizona law is "about right" in its handling of illegal immigrants. Seventeen percent said it does not go far enough. Twenty-eight percent said the law goes too far.

Given that the liberal media disagrees with the majority of the American people it is impressive that the majority of the American people can form opinions that the liberal media tries so hard to keep them from forming.

The vast overwhelming majority of Americans do not think that illegal aliens should be treated as legals. The American people think we should live by rule of law.

A Zogby Interactive poll of 2,108 adults conducted from April 16-19 found broad support for major immigration reform and immigration regulations that are more restrictive. “79 percent do not agree that illegal aliens are entitled to the same rights and basic freedoms as US citizens,” said the poll..

Barack Obama disagrees with the majority of the American people and Barack Obama does

A plurality in New York State want a similar law.

According to a new Quinnipiac University poll, 48% say they want their state to pass an Arizona-style immigration law.

Steve Poizner, running against Meg Whitman in the California Republican primary for governor, says he would enforce the equivalent of the Arizona law in California and go even further.

"I would take all of what they're doing in Arizona here to California plus a whole lot more," said Poizner.

"If I find a company in California that's hiring people illegally and breaking the law, I'll revoke their business license. I don't need anyone in the Legislature to give me permission to do that," Poizner said.

Obama favors amnesty before enforcement. This means that all the illegals will be turned into legals so that the law can't be enforced against them. Cheeky of him.

Obama has called the measure “misguided” and instructed the Justice Department to monitor its enforcement for possible civil liberties violations.

“She’s got a point of view that you have to do border security first, the president has a view that we have to have comprehensive immigration reform,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters at today’s daily briefing.

If Obama really favored enforcement and border security he would do enforcement, deport all the illegal aliens (just like Ike Eisenhower did), and build a huge wall on the entire border to keep out most illegal border crossers. Of course, Obama does not really favor enforcement and Obama does not really want border security.

On the bright side: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer sounds like she would make a good replacement for Obama as president in the 2012 election.

In my meeting with President Obama yesterday, I personally invited him to visit Arizona and see our open borders for himself. Only then might he understand that border security is the mandatory first step in any real effort to battle illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, the President declined to commit to a personal visit.

He also declined my request to increase the National Guard commitment, did not commit to build and extend the fence, and refused to pay the federal obligations for incarceration expenses – over $750 million just since 2003.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2010 June 04 07:17 PM  Immigration Law Enforcement


Comments
James Bowery said at June 6, 2010 9:57 PM:

This simply proves that the US majority has no right to self-determination.

Where racisim begins, privacy ends.

natem said at June 6, 2010 10:43 PM:

The American people haven't always proven themselves amenable to the requirements of the constitution. The first time someone actually gets in trouble from the Arizona law, it will go to the supreme court and be overturned. There is simply no rational argument that making a random stop based on ethnicity alone is not a violation of the 14th amendment, and no way to argue that the law is directed toward anything but ethnicity.

Most likely, a legal resident will be stopped and busted for pot. The search and seizure will be determined illegal based on the Arizona law, which will be declared unconstitutional.

I am in the nasty liberal camp on this issue, but I don't have any issue at all with states moving to curtail illegal immigration. I just believe there are better ways to do it. In fact, when the fellow says "If I find a company in California that's hiring people illegally and breaking the law, I'll revoke their business license. I don't need anyone in the Legislature to give me permission to do that," that's fine. Good even! It defends rule of law, isn't at all constitutionally problematic, and is much more likely to de-incentivize illegal immigration. But he's being dishonest saying that this would be "going further". The law already allows for it, as he points out. I strongly suspect that it won't fly though because it will be perceived (perhaps rightly) as more "anti-business" than "anti-illegal immigration".

Stephen said at June 7, 2010 1:22 AM:

James said: "This simply proves that the US majority has no right to self-determination."

Exactly.

One of my king-for-a-day laws would be to make polling illegal. Polling actively encourages reactionary political posturing at the cost of good policy making. Its a race to the bottom.

joseph Moroco said at June 7, 2010 4:49 AM:

natem,

It is not a random stop.

Get your facts, lad (or lass).

Frank said at June 7, 2010 7:33 AM:

ROOT OF ALL USA'S PROBLEMS: A MISTAKE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
SOLUTION: NATIONAL REFERENDA

Immigration (legal and illegal) is destroying America. Aliens are taking our jobs, depressing wages, causing congestion, overcrowding, inflation, crime and terrorism and bankrupting our welfare state. 80% of the people are against it. When you see our "representatives" (who are our servants) constantly on a warpath against us, flooding the nation with aliens, and we have to meekly beg our servants to stop their war on our nation, we know something is clearly wrong with our system.

The problem is that there are no binding national referenda in the United States. Many other countries have it, but not the US. Therefore America's secret shame is that we do not have a real democracy! That is why American pseudodemocracy is a joke.

The Constitution gave all the power to the 3 branches of govt. and assumed they will keep an eye on each other ("checks and balances"). The three branches have become corrupt, usurped power, and all three branches figured out that it is better to conspire, mug and terrorize the nation and totally ignore the owners, the US Citizens. To keep ultimate power in the hands of the people, the founding fathers put in the second amendment. The second amendment, which assumed that millions of armed citizens can easily ouster an illegal and anarchist govt. with equally armed thousands of soldiers, is effete because modern armies have weapons that can kill thousands at a time, so the people will be crushed in any violent uprising against a criminal government.

So they keep passing evil laws the against our country, the public and against our will.

But there is a solution to this govt's war on the nation. It is a constitutional amendment to allow national referenda, so people can pass good laws in the national interest themselves. These laws will supersede laws passed by Congress and cannot be overturned except on constitutional grounds by a supermajority of both houses and unanimous vote of the Supreme Court. The people can then still override it by a 66% vote. Some believe that this right to amend the constitution is inherently vested in the American public. Others suggest an actual amendment.

We can pass a national referendum that all laws that affect the nation as a whole, such as raising taxes, large welfare programs, foreign aid, immigration, bailouts, and raising the debt ceilings, etc. can become law only if finally approved by the people. We will solve 90% of our problems this way.

For eg., see:

http://ni4d.us/index.htm
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm

We Americans need to visit these websites, join these groups, contribute and call radio talk shows, etc. and promote this idea and get the process started soon, before it is too late.

K3 said at June 7, 2010 5:45 PM:

Can't wait to ignore federal law. I'm selling dope and redlining coons!

no i don't said at June 12, 2010 6:26 PM:

"Immigration (legal and illegal) is destroying America."

That is called o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n which is one of the most common fallacies nowadays.

Well Frank, unless you are a full-blooded American Indian, you are an immigrant or son of immigrants or grandson of immigrants. Immigration made the U.S. great. The founding fathers were immigrants and then again, many immigrants were and are and are also becoming CITIZENS, and have been so for many years. Immigrants from all sorts of places have produced, worked and paid their taxes. Gosh, even illegals pay taxes and don't get any return... What kind of a nazi talk is that?

The Pilgrims were immigrants in North America as were the Vikings centuries earlier, the Founding Fathers were immigrants, the Jews in Germany were immigrants, the first Spaniards in America were immigrants, the first British in Australia were immigrants, the non-citizens of Rome were also immigrants, hey, the Hommo Sapiens were immigrants into Neanderthal Europe.

Are we to try to find a specific year in history in which immigration should've stopped? When? The 70s?, the 80s?, the 20s? the 1800s?, the 1700s?

Hey, maybe it should've stopped in 1610, that way the whole of AMERICA would be Spanish speaking mestizos -but of course, there would be a few more indians north of the Río Grande- Perhaps immigration should've stopped in 1492... I mean the Indians were doing fine until our dirty, bloody, gold-worshiping European ancestors came.

This previous sarcastic sentence sounds stupid of course; but not because it be verified or falsified, but because it is a subjective oversimplification. So like I said, it only takes an oversimplification to reduce historical, anthropological, social and economic forces to childish hatred towards foreigners. It takes an oversimplified mind to actually believe that immigration is destroying America -whatever that means-

The problem with oversimplifications is that they are dogmatic; they are as stupid as mentally lazy is the one who produces them. Oversimplification in an issue like immigration leads to intolerance and that's a historical fact. And before historical facts, no argument stands.


reader said at June 12, 2010 11:18 PM:

The individuals who were here pre-1965 did not want the country to turn into an extension of Mexico. The people here then were the descendants of those who built the U.S., there was absolutely nothing here prior. Indians were living in the stone age and would still be if they had been left to their own devices. Individuals have the right to govern themselves as they please "no I don't", the founding fathers were not immigrants, they moved to another part of the British Empire. You are the one using fallacious arguments by calling them immigrants, unless you still live in the Olduvai Gorge your ancestors moved. Groups have their own culture, if you replace the Japanese with Guatemalans it is no longer Japan.

There are limits to growth as well, Peak Oil is the first real limit on human activities. Export-land model bites, and bites hard.

no i don't said at June 16, 2010 8:46 AM:

"Individuals have the right to govern themselves as they please..." I assume this applies also to all the Indian population before the British arrived, right? I mean, even if the Indians wanted to continue living in the stone age, right? In the end it was THEIR land, wasn't it, so they had the right to govern themselves as they pleased.

"Individuals have the right to govern themselves as they please" (Except of course when they interfere with blood-thirsty British invaders, right???) I think you paid very little attention to what you typed and just proved my point so... I rest my case. ha, ha, ha

no i don't said at June 16, 2010 8:54 AM:

"the founding fathers were not immigrants, they moved to another part of the British Empire"

Ha, ha, ha... I assume the British sent a fax notification to the American Indians requiring them to leave the "British Empire" premises beforte 1610. They were just too stubborn and continued using what they thought was THEIR land. By the way reader I think you are confused. California, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona, Florida and Louisiana were NOT "part of the British Empire", but part of the Spanish and French one. History 101

no i don't said at June 16, 2010 8:59 AM:

Dear Frank and Reader,

It's not immigration that is bringing the U.S. down. It's lack of education, lack of historical and geographical perspective, obesity, childish mentality, drug use, fundamentalism, wall street, poor nutrition, redneck hobbies, coca-cola, mcdonald's, the federal reserve...

Because you don't see your real enemy you follow your animal propensity to direct your hate towards others just like you. The U.S. is now suffering from the same idiocy as Germany in the late 30s; let us remember that the Jews were also the unwanted immigrants then. I'm sure more than one of you roaches would like to get all immigrants into gas chambers too.

Enough with the nazi talk already!


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©