Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional

We keep hearing people who claim that the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070) is “unconstitutional.”  But it keeps turning out that those who are decrying it on the mainstream media haven’t actually bothered to even read the law.

Well, the Arizona law is ever bit as “constitutional” as the federal law – considering it basically IS the federal law with even more limitations added to it.

Oh, you’ve got the crowd that says that a state can’t protect its own citizens.  The fact that the federal government has refused to do its job and protect Arizona from illegal immigrants for the last 25 years means nothing.  Let an out-of-control situation continue for ANOTHER 25 years, such people say.

Well, baloney, say three law professors who did something that AG Eric Holder and most liberals have refused to do – and actually bothered to read the law before demonizing it:

REGION: Three USD professors say Arizona law is constitutional
By EDWARD SIFUENTES  May 13, 2010 7:44 pm

Arizona’s controversial new immigration law probably would withstand legal challenges on constitutional grounds, according to a panel of three University of San Diego law professors.

However, the professors said the law could create problems, such as racial profiling, if it is not implemented properly.

The professors spoke Thursday during a panel discussion on UC San Diego’s campus in La Jolla hosted by the Institute of the Americas, an organization that promotes cooperation between the U.S. and Latin America.

Arizona’s law, Senate Bill 1070, requires police officers to check a person’s immigration status if they have a “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the country illegally. It makes it a state crime to be in the country without legal documentation; it already is a federal crime.

Critics say the law, which takes effect later this year, could lead to racial profiling of Latinos and other ethnic minorities. Some Latino and civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, say they plan to challenge the law in court.

Those groups say the Arizona law also violates the U.S. Constitution by interfering with federal immigration power and authority.

Professor Lawrence Alexander, who teaches constitutional law at USD, said that argument would fail because the Arizona law does not conflict with federal immigration law. The state law is only seeking to enforce the federal law, he said.

“I don’t see anything in this law that is going to fail a challenge on the grounds of federal supremacy,” Alexander said.

Alexander was a panelist along with professors Donald Dripps, a scholar on criminal law, and Maimon Schwarzschild, who specializes in constitutional law. Former U.S. Ambassador Jeffrey Davidow, who is president of the Institute of the Americas, served as moderator.

Supporters said the law was needed due to the federal government’s failure to secure the border.

In response, several cities across the country have passed resolutions or urged boycotts to protest the law, including Oakland and San Diego. On Tuesday, San Francisco city supervisors approved a resolution that urges a boycott of Arizona-based businesses and asks sports leagues not to hold championship games or tournaments there.

About 50 people attended the panel discussion at UCSD, including students, attorneys and immigration rights advocates. About a dozen people who spoke during a question-and-answer session criticized the law.

“The problem is the application of the law,” said San Diego immigration attorney Lilia Velasquez. “On the ground, (the) Border Patrol or the police officers in Arizona will arrest people based on their race and maybe solely on their race.”

Under the law, police officers who detain a person, such as in a traffic stop, are required to question a person about his or her immigration status if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States illegally.

The panelists agreed that defining what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” could be problematic. But that alone does not render the law unconstitutional, Alexander said.

“Could a police officer overstep the bounds and do something that the Constitution does not permit? Of course,” he said. “Police officers can do that now. They can do that without the law, but the law itself does not authorize anything that is unconstitutional.”

The Arizona law, which said that race or ethnicity cannot be the only factor prompting a police officer to ask a person’s immigration status, was later amended to say that race could not be considered at all in questioning a person’s status.

Dripps said the U.S. Supreme Court has said that a person’s apparent Mexican ancestry can be a factor in stopping someone for an immigration stop by immigration agents. The question, he said, is whether that authority would also apply to police officers asking someone about his or her immigration status.

Schwarzschild also raised questions about whether the law could be discriminatory.

“I think the answer there is: It could. In the way that it is enforced,” Schwarzschild said. “But it certainly doesn’t, on its face.”

CORRECTION: Law professors incorrectly identified

The original version of this story incorrectly stated that the three law professors who took part taught at UC San Diego. They teach at the University of San Diego School of Law.

We apologize.

In any event, ANY law enforcement officer can abuse ANY law.  If the left wants to abolish this law because a police officer could conceivably abuse it, let’s abolish all laws and have total anarchy instead.

We get to the root of the real issue: the people who are protesting this anti-immigration law are not doing it because it’s “unconstitutional,” but rather because they are opposed to any form of action to deal with the soaring and searing crisis of illegal immigration.  They are open borders fanatics; they are leftwing ideologues who want illegal immigrants from Mexico to be able to undermine the vote of legitimate citizens and impose the next failed socialist Utopia.

They don’t want the United States to do ANYTHING to control our borders.

Here is the text of the Arizona law.  Read it.  If there’s something wrong with it, then cite the relevant passage in your argument.  Don’t give me any of your bogus penumbras and emanations in which you gaze into a crystal ball and find things that aren’t even there simply because you want to see them.

Otherwise, let’s have less complaining, and more shutting the hell up.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

32 Responses to “Law Professors Say Arizona Anti-Illegal Immigration Law Is Constitutional”

  1. Reaganite Republican Says:

    SUPPORT ARIZONA…

    Everybody sign the petition TODAY, please…

    http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/2010/05/support-arizona-sign-petition-today.html

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    I already did, personally. My brother sent me that a week or so ago, and I added my signature after watching the short video you linked to.

    Actually, I am physically in Sun City, Arizona, right now. I’m visiting relatives who “snow bird” here before they go back to Iowa.

    They’re taking me shopping today (in just a few minutes, actually), so I can load up on purchases to support the economy. I’ll be taking a full load home when I go back to California.

  3. libhomo Says:

    The rightist extremists claiming that the law is “constitutional” themselves hate the constitution and devote a major part of their lives towards subverting it.

    In the meantime, I refuse to set foot in the Hate State of Arizona. I also refuse to patronize airlines that use Phoenix as a hub airport.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    As for the last paragraph, good. I hope you also refuse to use any oil, gasoline, or any product containing oil for the rest of your life in loyalty to your fellow leftist environmentalist whackjobs, also. Because I would really like it if you people finally froze to death trying to live up to your perverted value system.

    I’d ask you to explain what part of the Constitution (people who actually like it capitalize it, for the record) is actually violated by the Arizona law. But I know that you’re not near smart enough to do that.

    Here’s the text of SB 1070, along with the additional law that was passed to further tighten up the Arizona law (HB 2162), just in case you ARE smarter than a rabid rodent.

    The amended and current law is presented in its entirety here.

    Now, I’m guessing that the “rabid rodent” thing applies, so you won’t be ontologically capable of quoting the part of the law (which actually merely makes a federal crime a state crime) that is actually unconstitutional.

  5. Evelyn Says:

    The act is scheduled to go into effect on July 28. Referendum requires filing 76,682 voter signatures You can influence the law, Vote online on http://immigration.civiltalks.com/

  6. cynthia castellanos Says:

    i think tat Obama is making a big mistake because without us mexicans americans wont even dear to go work in the fields like the mexicans nd they wont even eat the good food that mexicans provides for them

  7. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ve got to beg to differ, Cynthia.

    I live in the Coachella Valley, which has a lot of agriculture and a lot of immigrants who do the heavy lifting. So I know something about this. I also come from a generation of farmers. I’ve spent a couple of harvests working on relatives’ farms in Iowa.

    If every single illegal immigrant were sent back to their respective countries, and even if every LEGAL immigrant laborer were sent back, we would still have agriculture. The wages would have to raise, no question, but Americans would do the work. I assure you, lots of white people still work in agriculture today.

    In an awful lot of cases, the migrant laborers live in crowded and cramped conditions to minimize their costs of living. And they send a lot of money to their families back home (which also have far lower costs of living). They can work for far less than Americans, and the low wages reflect that supply and demand.

    If Americans took over the work (which would reduce unemployment in a hurry, wouldn’t it?), the wages would likely need to basically double. And food would be slightly more expensive. But rest assured, the job would get done.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    I’ll allow your link Evelyn.

    I want people to realize that the Arizona law is actually substantially less “hard core” (or “unconstitutional”) than the federal law. Since the unanimous Supreme Court decision “Muller vs. Menya,” federal law actually allows police to pull you over for no reason and no reasonable cause.

    So if you want to decry the racists, decry the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress who are running the show. If you REALLY want to find and decry a racist bigot, point the finger at Obama, who presides over this bigoted government.

    Arizona law is FAR less intrusive than the federal law.

  9. Keith Hanson Says:

    Michael…

    I’ve tried to find Muller vs. Menya Supreme Court case, yet nary a mention of it exists on the web outside of a reference to Bill O’Reilly yesterday and this site.

    Do you have a link that contains any text of the decision? I’d like to be able to knowledgeably cite this.

  10. Michael Eden Says:

    Keith,
    You’re a man after my heart – wanting to know the truth so you can pass it on to others.

    My desire to know the truth was pure in this matter; it was my spelling of personal names that was suspect. I heard the names in the case spoken, and did not know how to spell them.

    With your prompting, I did a quick search, and voila:
    Muehler v Mena

    I’ll continue to search for the best link I can as I write my own articles on this bombshell ruling that serves to show what fearmongering demagogues Obama, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano, and other “legal scholars” have been in their false and malicious attack of the Arizona law.

    If you find a better article on this, please let me know.

    Thank you for your desire to know the truth, and be able to relate it to others.

  11. smkster Says:

    Just a quick comment: Yes, of course any police officer can stop you and ask any question without reasonable suspicion. The part you left out is that, other than your name, you need not answer any of his/her questions. If you are walking at the time, you don’t even have to pull you any identification. If he/she has cause, the cop can take you in. If not, screw ’em.

  12. Steve K Says:

    To Michael & Keith, I commend you for looking into the Federal case quoted on O’Reilly last night. It was a unanimous decision in 2005, Rehnquist with the primary opinion & indeed was Muehler v Mena. Only the liberal whiners would never seek to correct themselves & continue to complain with invalid, unproven arguments. Hurray for the good guys.

  13. Michael Eden Says:

    Steve,
    It is utterly amazing what rabid demagogic liars the Democrats truly are. They have absolutely nothing in terms of fact on their side; but that doesn’t stop them from spreading hatred and lies. It’s like the way the Bible describes the devil.

    We’re saying, “Read the law. It’s only ten pages. It’s just like the federal law, only with far more restrictions AGAINST profiling. And if there’s something in the law that causes racial profiling, point out the paragraph.” And liberals are of course too ignorant, too deceitful, and too demagogic to do that.

    As the facts are finally starting to come out (with the help of the mainstream media, the Democrats’ lies always get heavy air time well before the actual truth gets it boots on), Democrats have slightly altered their demagoguery. Now the “narrative” (i.e. the new lie) is that the law “might lead to racial profiling.”

    Well, okay. It could. But so could ANY DAMN LAW, you moral idiots. ANY law could be selectively enforced. Traffic laws? Any cop could only pull over people of color. How about murder or other serious crimes? Cops could decide that “the colored guy did it” any time they want.

    So let’s just abolish all our laws and have total anarchy. And make sure to disband the police so they won’t be able to racially profile.

    The Arizona law is a good law. The problem is with wicked and deceitful Democrats who literally live to slander.

  14. Michael Eden Says:

    Well, having once been a reserve police officer, I can tell you that if a cop asks you for identification, you had better produce it.

    A court might later determine that you didn’t need to show identification, but at a point of contact, where a cop meets a civilian, the cop is in charge – and in fact the community and the courts have given the cop that power. If you want to bitch about it later, you are free to do so. But respect the duly-appointed authority of the officer.

    The key word is “reasonable cause.” You don’t get to determine whether an officer has it; the officer does. And the court will later make it’s own decision.

    When I first got out of the Army, I was pulled over while walking, and an officer pointed his weapon at me. I was ordered to my knees, and instructed to lay face down on the ground with my arms behind my back. I remained in that position – at gunpoint – until another unit arrived and they could safely check my identification.

    What had I done? Absolutely nothing. But I matched the description of an armed robber who had just hit a bank.

    I could have made a federal case about it. You know what? The officer who pointed his weapon at me and given me those orders was black. Was he “racist”??? Had I been “racially profiled”?

    Now, I hadn’t done anything. But I’m telling you, a court probably would have ruled that the officer had the reasonable cause to do what he did, and had acted appropriately. If I did indeed match the suspect description. Maybe the black cop saw a white guy, and figured all white guys look alike. But I doubt it.

    When they checked my ID, they realized that they had the wrong guy, and let me go – with apologies.

    It’s too bad so many people have hostile attitudes toward the police. Frankly, it’s the constant crap that police take on a nearly daily basis that ultimately causes many to develop attitudes of their own.

  15. Tab Petree Says:

    I believe if the Feds will not do the job the state has the responsibility to the people that live in the state to do so. So I believe that AZ is 100% justified in SB1070.

    Just came out today that Arizona Republican Senator Jon Kyl told the audience at a North Tempe Tea Party town hall meeting that during a private, one-on-one meeting with President Obama in the Oval Office, the President told him, regarding securing the southern border with Mexico, “The problem is, . . . if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.'”

    Basically we need to have it open so we can use it to buy votes.

  16. Michael Eden Says:

    Tab,
    I’m glad you pointed that recent fact out on an older article.

    I wrote about the Jon Kyle revelation yesterday.

    We’ve had the Louisiana Purchase; we’ve had the Cornhusker Kickback; we’ve had not one but TWO Democrats say the White House tried to bribe them to alter elections. And Obama says Jon Kyle is lying when Kyle reports that Obama said he basically is trying to play the same sort of games with border security as he has with everything else.

  17. Concerned Says:

    Tone down the personal sentiments and extreme ultimatums and you have a powerful arguement.

  18. Michael Eden Says:

    Jim,
    I’m willing to grant you that I throw in some additional invective.

    But the facts that I present are facts whether I insert my personal sentiments to punctuate them or not.

    Which is to say, I’m glad you recognize the “powerful argument” part.

    I’ve got even MORE facts to go along with my personal sentiments in a more recent article.

  19. Clearbrook Says:

    Michael,

    Just to add a couple of links for you:

    The short version of MUEHLER V. MENA (03-1423) 544 U.S. 93 (2005) is here:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1423.ZS.html

    A somewhat more lengthy version is here and I think is the best I found:

    http://otd.oyez.org/cases/2004/muehler-darin-v-mena-iris-03222005

    Another legthy one is here, but is the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit opinion, which could be distracting since some of your more liberal rodent visitors will try and say that *this* was the final outcome, which it was not:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1158403.html

    I include it because those liberal rodents (being liberal does not make you a rodent BTW, and there are conservative rodents as well — rodents just try to twist the truth to their agenda) that will try to missuse this will unwittingly give the keys to others who are smart enough to research this issue further and *will* discover the truth eventually, and thus discredit such rodents in their own minds for good!

    Keep fighting the good fight!

  20. Clearbrook Says:

    Here is a link to those with the legal mind to delve into and understand the arguements. The language is plain enough, although those with little interest in understanding can probably say that they can’t understand it, possibly because what they don’t want to grasp they will not be able to grasp:

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=544&page=93

    This is what I would consider a definitive resource. It includes the findings of the court plainly. It includes the opinion of the Court per Chief Justice Rehnquist. It includes the concurring opinion of Justice Kennedy, and Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer joined. It makes plain that this was a unanimous decision that includes even the most liberal justices agreeing with it. The facts are made plain.

  21. Michael Eden Says:

    Thank you very much for posting those links, Clearbrook.

    I copied and pasted them into a text file. It is VERY NICE to be armed with the facts when you aren’t afraid of the truth.

    The demagoguery and lies coming from the left on this matter have been appalling.

    Many on the left just get told what to think, and then believe what they are told. I visited my aunt and uncle in Arizona, and my other uncle’s widow popped in and started spouting her liberal idiocy about the Arizona law. She hadn’t read the law; everything she believed was completely false, but she held onto her doctrinaire ignorance the way I’d hold onto something valuable. She didn’t know the actual facts, and frankly didn’t WANT to know them.

    Remember that Democrat who was caught on film saying that if Arizona was on the border, and actually had to directly deal with illegal immigration, it would be different, but that Arizona WASN’T on the border? Her argument isn’t one iotal more stupid than most of the others coming from the left; it just takes a little less time to demonstrate how profoundly stupid it is.

  22. Clearbrook Says:

    Well, to me, Truth is God. I define Truth as “The complete and accurate representation of all that is, whether within the realm of our limited senses, or not.” Obviously, if that is not infinite, and impossible to be contained within a finite mind, it is still quite large and *unlikely* to be contained in our somewhat small minds. So I know that I can never know Truth in its complete majesty. However, I feel it is my duty to seek truth, and that truth as I am led to understand it, needs to reflect as accurately as possible Truth that is beyond our ability to grasp. My little t truth needs to be the big T Truth’s child, and I had better see the family resemblence.

    So Liberalism, per se, is not evil in my book. The blind, jackbooted demagoguery I see everywhere, (left and right) is always appalling. When you talk in the Legal realm of the Constitution on this particular issue, I think we can agree that the Left has gone off their medications and left the reservation. Eric Holder is either just a good soldier, willing to sacrifice his name in history books, or not all that bright. Federal Judges can be very ambitious, and any Judge that even *wants* to progress higher does not want to be overturned upon appeal of any major issue. Even issuing a stay is risky politicaly for them, since the Democrats are unlikely to have the say on any further appointments for a while, come November. Judges don’t live forever, although they can live a long time in history books if they do something either very good or very bad. Most of them are aware of their mortality and this way around it. That can be bad for people like Holder and Obama.

    ;'{P~~~

  23. Clearbrook Says:

    I hope you don’t mind me using your blog here to dump another link:

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/016944.html

    It is about the Federal ICE 287(g) program, and if Obama’s efforts to use this as a political foil to gain support from illegal sympathy to boost voter turnout in the Democrats favor were not transparent enough, this makes it all the more transparent (and Transparancy is something he gave up on quickly, if ever he really intended to bring it at all) and weakens his argument of “Trespass into matters of Purely Federal Jurisdiction” by demonstrating that under Federal Law, everything the AZ law is doing was already done in ESSENTIALLY THE EXACT SAME EFFECTIVE WAY! The AZ law just mandates it and puts in safeguards against the Racial Profiling that the Federal Law does not!

    And a Judge COULD do just what was somewhat obtusely suggested at the end of that article:

    “If Arizona’s law usurps federal authority, what about those 71 agreements the feds have made with state and local police under 287(g)? Are they unconstitutional, too?”

    A Judge Ruling THAT a violation under the same argument made by the DOJ and suspending all 287(g) compliance would certainly energize a LOT of people already angry about Obama’s refusal to do anything even close to reasonable about illegal immigration. Not good for Democrats, which is why a LOT of Democrats (Congressmen and Governors, to name a few important ones) are very angry with the Zero Man.

    But of course, as your Aunt might point out if she was told to, AZ is not a border state…

    LOL!!!

    ;'{P

  24. Michael Eden Says:

    I agree with you about the idea that Truth is that which conforms to the God’s view of reality.

    I also agree that, as a result of the Fall, man is corrupted, and cannot fully and completely understand truth.

    That said, I also believe that God has given us His Word (the Bible) as a lens that enables us to perceive “the God’s eye view.” Further, He sent His Son Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life.” And through Christ, genuine believers have the further enabling of the Holy Spirit, who guides us toward truth.

    Let me move on to what you say about liberals before saying more.

    “Liberalism” is a term that has come to have more than one meaning. I myself would classify myself as a liberal – a classical liberal. But modern liberals went through the Progressive period in the late 19th/early-to mid 20th centuries, and moved way beyond, and way away from, classical liberalism.

    Classical liberalism (our founding fathers were classical liberals) emphasized that man was created in God’s image as individual moral beings, possessing both incredible capacities and incredible personal responsibility. They argue that there is something called Natural Rights, that all individual human beings and all governments are accountable to. Rights are not created by government, but by God. Further, foundational ideas such as freedom, reason, justice and equality were all bound by this sense of individualism. Classical liberals argue that since man is best enabled to handle his own economic and moral choices, he should be protected in-as-much as he doesn’t stumble over the boundaries of another man’s liberties.

    Modern liberalism turns all that on its head. As one example, instead of having individual justice, which is one justice that all are held accountable to, we have social justice. Universal justice is dispensed with, the individual is dispense with, and we have a subjectivized “justice” that is only for one particular race or class (e.g. blacks, union workers). And, of course, their “justice” becomes highly politicized, and highly self-serving.

    As one example of that, think of racism. We have the NAACP – an organization specifically dedicating itself to the advancement of the black race (and think of the Black Congressional Caucus, UNICEF, etc.), calling out the Tea Party for racism. While not only ignoring its own racism, but denying that blacks can even be CAPABLE of racism. Racism is redefined as some power structure rather than having anything to do with personal individual bigotry. So no black person can be capable of racism no matter how full of racism he or she actually is. Whereas I become a racist simply by having been born white.

    Modern liberalism is full of this crap. And it has been since at least the Woodrow Wilson era.

    So now let me return to the idea of truth. Modern liberals, aka progressives, are profoundly postmodernist in their thinking. Postmodernism either dismisses the possibility of the existence of the kind of transcendent, objective truth you describe, or they dismiss the possibility of ever making any kind of contact with such truth. And they believe that therefore human beings, through culture, manufacture their own realities. And that there are many such realities, such that your truth, and my truth, and someone else’s truth, have nothing in common.

    This kind of thinking is like a cancer. It is a depraved way of thinking. In the end, it can be used to justify damn near anything.

    I would argue that modern liberalism is in fact an evil worldview. And that, among other things, it is responsible for a genocide of fifty million innocent unborn human beings who were created in the image of God, and then executed for the convenience of a self-centered mother and a self-centered worldview.

  25. Michael Eden Says:

    Thanks for that link (to go with the ones on the SCOTUS MUEHLER V. MENA case).

    One of the things I wanted to accomplish with my blog was to leave behind a record of what happened under a man/president whom I recognized was evil following the Jeremiah Wright revelations.

    Prior to the Jeremiah Wright revelations (and Obama’s 20 years spent in that racist, Marxist, anti-American church), I wasn’t that involved in politics, and certainly had no intention of voting.

    But from that point on, I set out to document what is going on.

    And there are SO many outrages to document.

    The Arizona law and the lies surrounding it from the left is a great example of that.

  26. Clearbrook Says:

    Although I agree with you “..that Truth is that which conforms to the God’s view of reality,” it is even more fundemental for me. For me, if God were not Truth, he would not be God. If we are going to bandy in Scriptures, which I am not unwilling to do, (I just fear alienation is sometimes the outcome when we are too much in the Quoting and Thumping mode of communication) I have one for you. And Frankly, I can quote the Bible in ways I think are quite contrary to its true meaning, as can other people like Marilyn Manson, for example. So the rhetoric may have meaning for both of us, but no relevance at all past that in this world we dwell in for now.

    Nevertheless, the scripture is this:

    Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

    That Truth aspect of God is what I focus on. If it did not exist, I would reject God as irrelevant (which is not what I am suggesting) in comparrison and seek Truth instead as a higher meaning. From that path, I find myself put into context with other aspects of the Creator and unable to deny them in a way someone approaching him from say the aspect of “Love” could still be capable of ignoring quite easily. I will say that a person who says they “Love” a person but is unwilling to seek the Truth for that person does not Love them at all, in Truth. So Love should also bring you to Truth. But to be effective, that is a revelation that each must come to on their own.

    As you define Liberalism, I understand. Understand that an equally valid description is that Liberalism embraces change, while Conservativism embraces the status quo. I don’t think your description of Liberalism or mine makes much difference if we cannot agree on what we are talking about. Most generally, I attach the term the way I *think* the common man does, which I do not think is proper. In that respect, I am very little of a Liberal. In your description of classical liberalism, I fit in many ways. In my description, I know in exactly what radical ways I am a True Liberal as I mean it, even when that aspect of me would be pegged as a Conservative for those views by someone with a less sophisticated meaning of that term, primarily as a form of derisive abuse.

    I am a very white looking quarter blooded Native American Indian (7/32 — so almost 1/4 if we are splitting hairs) and I know a lot about racism from quite a unique standpoint. I hear Indian Jokes from people who don’t know who I am, and yes, even from people whose skin tone happens to be much darker than my own. Because of the ways of recognizing my minority status, I am not recognized to be legitimately a minority. I have two children, both of the same mother. We are and were married when both were concieved and born. One can legally claim herself to be of Indian Descent for the purposes of Federal Law. The other cannot, because her paperwork was not filled out correctly and cannot be corrected after the fact as it now stands. I know a little bit about birth certificates, even.

    I were Arab American, that would not be the case. If I were Asian American, that would not be the case. If I were African American, that would not be the case. But I am a second class citizen among second class citizens, if that is what our society truely says about being a minority. My only advantage is that I do not “look” like I am a minority, but we are always saying that color of skin makes no difference at all, are we not? I will tell you I have been called some very nasty names on the basis of the color of my skin, and racism is truely festering in many subcultures in America, enabled by Laws written to protect those who no longer need to be protected as much as they now need to be protected against!

    I see racism mostly in those who scream “Racist” the loudist and cannot understand the hypocrisy with which they say it. Obama should not be allowed to call himself African American by critical standards honestly applied. He is, after all, Arab by the basis of his blood in Africa. They don’t recognize him as African. To them he is Arab African, like we use the term African American. Which is to say, that if he is American, that his heritage is properly recognized as Arab American. His father had enough blood to be called African American legally based upon his blood, but Barry the President does not! The racism of that big lie grates like coarse sandpaper every time he talks about race — and he is not trying to avoid pulling that card out, it seems. And when he plays that card, he plays it illegitimately. He has not right to claim what he implicitly (not explicitly, usually) does. His daughters can. His wife can. His father can. But, if we applied the standards legally and consistently (as we *should*) he would not be able to make that claim. If my daughter should not be legally able to her heritage based upon a higher percentage of blood than he has, why does he get a wink and a nod in a standard that is already more lenient to begin with? To be quite frank, the utter hypocrisy of that makes my Indian Blood Boil quite violently!

    But justice in this world, although good to pursue, is not something we should truely expect, especially with worldviews that seem to express themselves as he seems to express his by his very actions…

    ;'{P~~~

  27. Clearbrook Says:

    Well, since you are using this as a gathering place of information on this subjuect, here is a new one for you:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0713-byrne-20100713,0,6263762.story

    I covers 287(g) and gives Holder’s explanation of what the difference is:

    Under 287(g) he says it only applies if the person is booked for a crime. I am not sure if that is correct, but for sake of arguement will provissionally allow it may be so. Is that difference enough? I don’t buy that.

    And then you have the Rhode Island Law. Rhode Island state troopers check immigration status routinely under their law. It has been on the books for a while now, and does not seem to have even the safeguards that the AZ law has against racial profiling. Why do they get a pass? THEY BELONG TO THE CORRECT PARTY, the Democrats won’t challenge *their* good old boys up there. Political motivation, pure and simple. Besides, those illegal French Canadians (of whom many may be MY relatives — French and Indian Fur Trapper Stock) are MUCH more dangerous than Hispanic Drug Trafficing Illegals in AZ. Obviously, that is the valid reason, isn’t it? I mean Janet Napolitano at the Department of Homeland Security says the reason that they don’t try to deport everyone is that they couldn’t, so they choose only to concentrate on the “really bad ones” like those that were caught by RI state troopers in Estrada v. Rhode Island. Those sounded like real dangerous ones that Janet was afraid might get away…

    I have not found the date and/or name of the Rhode Island Law yet. It would be interesting to see just how long it has been on the books, because it is so very similar to the AZ law.

    Some other links on it:

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1506654.html

    http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2010/07/az-immigration-law-already-implemented.html

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25127

    I’d like to see the Internet do what the Politicians are afraid it *can* do, and expose every lie of theirs in time to do something about it. We are not there yet, but we are getting closer all the time…

  28. Clearbrook Says:

    Oh, and I do notice one thing here that is interesting. I seem to detect Americans establishing themselves on out of the country web sites to pre-emptively destroy Pelosi and Company’s attempt to regulate free political speech to their favor.

    They need to be careful. Soon enough, smart people may come to realize that they only place to get information safely that has not been polluted by liberal spin is outside our borders, and as soon as that realization starts hitting the big boys like the New York Times on their liberal biased back pocket, they will make a desperate push for Federal Taxes and Subisdies to support their sorry butts. I expect that will fail. The polls are SO dismally against it, I don’t expect any media blitz is going to make that idea fly.

    ;'{P~~~

  29. Michael Eden Says:

    Clearbrook,
    Just to make sure everyone understands, I didn’t disagree in any way with your presentation of God and Truth. I gave my own thoughts by way of supplement, not rebuttal. I most certainly agree that Truth is essential to the nature of the God of the Bible.

    As for what you say about people arguing over the Bible, you’re right. But I think when two people both truly place the Bible over all other sources of authority, any argument takes a very different tone of two people who are both willing to be corrected. When I’ve had my worst disagreements with others, it has always been with those who put a theological system (Catholicism, Calvinism, socialism) over and above the Bible, such that the Bible must be bent to conform to that system. For my part, I don’t want to worship a system or a denomination; I want to worship the God of the Bible.

    And I do with the Constitution what I do with the Bible. I take it literally unless there is very good reason within the text not to do so. I don’t turn it into a bunch of subjective allegories which can then be subverted or made to mean anything.

    Racism is real. It is ugly. And I agree with you that the people who point the most fingers of blame are the most racist of all.

    My love for America (the land in this sense, not the people or even the Constitution) has always made me an admirer of the American Indian. By now I’ve traveled over (driving, not just flying) much of the country. I’ve seen the numerous different landscapes and eco-systems. And I’ve thought of the people who managed to live off the land, versus conquering it via “civilization.” I’m fascinated by all the various Indian nations and tribal groups, and all the different cultures within those nations and tribal groups.

    You don’t have to worry about racism from me. On my view, you are fortunate to come from such a rich heritage.

    I myself am of English ancestry. I don’t have to agree with everything the English have done. I don’t have to defend the rightness of their every act of history. I can be proud of my people, and my culture, and what they have accomplished. I am proud to say that I am related to Sir Anthony Eden, a great prime minister of England.

    In the same way, I believe that one would be hard-pressed not to find somebody who didn’t come from a culture that is worthy of pride.

    And it’s because of that that I become so angry at peoples who wallow in bitterness, and who decided to make their victimhood their defining hallmark. That mindset – and not the races or the cultures – is despicable and deplorable.

    And I am seeing so much of that today.

  30. Clearbrook Says:

    Agreed.

  31. Michael Eden Says:

    We’re already seeing the Democrats trying to do these things. Obama has given himself the authority to shut down the internet if there’s an “emergency” (e.g., a large enough percentage of Americans deciding he’s a failure?). We’re seeing Democrats trying to get funding for newspapers and tv stations (WSJ and Fox need not apply).

    Obama doesn’t seem to give a damn about polls. I believe it is due to a specialized form of narcissism in which Obama truly believes he can talk his way out of anything.

  32. Michael Eden Says:

    I read enough of the article to hear Holder’s “difference.” It seems even sillier than the last attempt at explaining why Arizona – which modeled its law entirely on the federal law – is “preempting” the federal law, whereas sanctuary cities which flat-out defy the federal law don’t.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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: