As is well known by now, the state of Arizona has enacted a very tough and controversial immigration law. Unfortunately for all involved, nobody seems able to set aside the partisan junk ball long enough to really look at what this law means.
Politicians have drawn predictable partisan lines. Obama has already criticized it without offering help to Arizona. In fact he has asked the Justice Department to expend resources to look for illegality in the law. That is stupid. Tell the Justice Department to prosecute and deport the illegal immigrants, not launch a politically charged investigation. Even the Catholic Church in the person of Cardinal Mahoney of Los Angeles has weighed in with their own inflammatory language, calling it Nazi-like.
Before I start, it is important to acknowledge that Arizona has become the virtual epicenter for illegal immigration and seen its crime rate skyrocket. The people of Arizona have been pleading with the federal government for several years to help. None has been forthcoming. That is not the fault of any single administration, although one US Senator from Arizona's unreasonable anti-earmark stance may have cost the state. That, however, is not the point here.
One note - I will not use the term "undocumented alien." The correct term is illegal immigrant. The politically correct habit of softening the words is pointless.
Let's break the law down into its main components:
1) Illegal immigration is now a crime in Arizona, punishable in state court.
2) All immigrants are now required to carry documentation with them at all times. Failure to do so is now a misdemeanor.
3) Local and state law enforcement officers are now required to detain and verify immigration status where a reasonable suspicion (probable cause) exists that they are illegal immigrants.
4) Citizens are now entitled to sue local, state and federal law enforcement agencies if they feel the police are not adequately enforcing immigration law.
Before we look at each of the above, I have to react to the preemptive charges of profiling being leveled at Arizona state and local law enforcement officers by the political spitballers. These charges and accusations are simply offensive to the Arizona law enforcement community. Until there is evidence of profiling, accusing police of doing so is in fact (and ironically) profiling of a different type. The law enforcement officers in the state of Arizona are professional and dedicated. Accusing them of other behavior before it happens with no evidence is wrong and offensive to the very people sworn to protect all.
Similarly, the racism, Nazism and such charges are not even mildly helpful and only serve to further inflame an already hot topic.
Let's look at this law:
1) Illegal immigration is now a crime in Arizona, punishable in state court.
This is not really a problem at the Constitutional level. Many federal laws are repeated or enhanced by the states. Gun laws are a good example. New York State requires far more than just a federal background check to buy a firearm. The question here is what will Arizona do with those it arrests. They do not have the authority to deport an individual. That is reserved to the federal government by the Constitution. They can only incarcerate them or turn them over to the federal authorities. And, since the federal government has pretty much shown it cannot handle the situation adequately, that will leave Arizona to make some tough decisions. However, under the 10th Amendment, they get to make that decision.
2) All immigrants are now required to carry documentation with them at all times. Failure to do so is now a misdemeanor.
Again, an extension of federal immigration law, which requires all legal aliens to have their ID card on them and produce it on request by appropriate authorities. The issue here is for actual US citizens who cannot be required to carry ID. In this case, we have to trust the professionalism of local law enforcement. If (and I mean if) there are reported and documented abuses, then there is something to talk about. Cardinal Mahoney's unfortunate declaration on this subject is not only wrong, but somewhat ironic coming from an organization that routinely casts out those it does not like with zero due process and no chance of appeal. Perhaps the Cardinal's words could also be applied to the Church's refusal to give Communion to those it has political disagreements with.
3) Local and state law enforcement officers are now required to detain and verify immigration status where a reasonable suspicion (probable cause) exists that they are illegal immigrants.
This one is where the professionalism of law enforcement counts the most. Pretty much every officer knows what probable cause means. What has been bandied about are the unfortunate statements of goofball politicians talking about attire and appearance or the stupid declarations of those like Cardinal Mahoney. Well, those politicians, prelates and pundits are not sworn officers and will not have the burden of enforcement. This requirement is no different than the requirement to stop and examine suspected drunk drivers. Again, until proof exists of profiling or other abuses, one has to assume the professionalism of local law enforcement.
4) Citizens are now entitled to sue local, state and federal law enforcement agencies if they feel the police are not adequately enforcing immigration law.
This one is troubling. Established law clearly does not allow suing law enforcement for crimes not prevented. In fact, law enforcement is indemnified - and with good cause - from such legal actions. Allowing lawsuits for a perceived lack of enforcement not only creates a whole new genre of junk litigation, but will also consume untold millions of dollars from already stretched budgets. Allowing people to sue because they feel the police are not preventing crimes or adequately enforcing laws is a very dangerous and counterproductive precedent. In case nobody has noticed, our law enforcement agencies - especially at the local level - are already tasked with more than they can handle. Adding this threat of litigation harms their ability to act in accordance with all of the laws. In effect, this last bit would tend to cause local law enforcement to put this law first, just to avoid the lawsuits.
When all is said and done, the Constitutionality of this law is sure to land at the Supreme Court. Until then, it might be better to understand that the people of Arizona elected that legislature and governor and demanded action. The people of Arizona are the only ones that can change the legislature and governor. It is to the people of Arizona that the legislature is responsible. Not to me in Florida or Obama in DC or Mahoney in California. Not to the pundits in New York or the gadflies everywhere.
I would also add that I am a regular visitor to the Phoenix area and can only say good things about the state and its people. I cannot recall a single negative incident or encounter with local law enforcement. It is a very nice place filled with largely quality folks.
The fact that this law passed in the heat of a very hotly contested US Senate campaign is one to note, but that does not take away Arizona's rights under the 10th Amendment. To repeat a point from the top, the good people of the state of Arizona have been begging for help from the federal government with no response. So they turned to their state government for help. And they have gotten it. Whether it is what they wanted is up to them.
Before the rest of the nation starts the flaming spitball fight, it would serve us all to take a deep breath and see how the law is actually put into effect. At the very least, it is unfair to the good people of Arizona to make them the latest object to be used in the ever more disgusting partisan game. As the blog title says, it is not a game. It is governance.
And in this case, the governance of Arizona by Arizonans.
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Down our throats.....
I find it highly amusing that Senate Minority Leader McConnell has the sheer audacity to complain about legislation being jammed down our throats. Of course, he is talking about health insurance reform. This is the same Mitch McConnell that ignored not only his party, but also "the American People," as he likes to say so often, in ramming TARP and AIG down our throats. Apparently, McConnell only jams things down our throats that benefits banks and Wall Street. The same McConnell that thought nothing of tossing a trillion dollars to the crooks that put us in this recession.
Hold the applause Democrats. Your leaders are no better. Harry Reid, the Majority leader that helped shove TARP down our throats is unwilling to use his authority to help regular people. And the illustrious Chris Dodd who actually circumvented the US Constitution in passing TARP (more on that next paragraph) is now instrumental in making sure that the same banks and Wall Street cheaters that put us here are not reined in.
In order to jam TARP down our throats, Dodd used a tiny little trick to get around Article 1 of the Constitution that requires tax and spending bills to originate in the House of Representatives. Back when TARP was pending, the House - in a rare moment of responsibility - rejected it. Twice. Not good enough for Dodd, McConnell, Reid and company. They picked up an old House bill that had died in the Senate, stripped out everything except the "HR" designation that made it a House bill and then amended the entire TARP package to it. The same TARP that the House had just rejected. It this legal? Sure. Is it Constitutional? Barely.
But is is wrong and against the will of the same people that McConnell and Reid purport to represent. Yet there they were, leading the charge to ignore the will of the people. And here they come again, skewering any level of financial regulation or reform, despite the will of the people.
Apparently the needs of Goldman Sachs is important enough to jam down our throats, but getting access to health care for the poorest among us is not. Ask yourself this next time you write a check to an insurance company or to pay for an overpriced prescription that your insurance has chosen not to cover: "Did TARP really help me?" Unless you work on Wall Street, the answer is going to be no. Then ask yourself: "I wonder how much McConnell, Dodd, Reid and the rest of those liars pay for their health care?" The answer will be "very little if anything."
So the same gang of Senators that decided to take over a trillion dollars from you and me for their pals on Wall Street have also decided that health care is too expensive and that any kind of financial reform would be bad for the banks.
In other words, to quote a long famous phrase - follow the money. We the people that seem so important to these charlatans on Capitol Hill apparently cannot afford the entry fee to the club that actually get taken care of.
For the record, both Obama and McCain endorsed Reid, McConnell and Dodd's shady actions by voting yes on TARP. Both disregarded the rules and the people and the Constitution. Sadly, the only time we see bipartisan action in the Senate is when it is time to reward the big contributors and ignore the people.
One important difference between us and Wall Street - we can fire the Senate come November. Even the mighty Goldman Sachs can't do that.
Hold the applause Democrats. Your leaders are no better. Harry Reid, the Majority leader that helped shove TARP down our throats is unwilling to use his authority to help regular people. And the illustrious Chris Dodd who actually circumvented the US Constitution in passing TARP (more on that next paragraph) is now instrumental in making sure that the same banks and Wall Street cheaters that put us here are not reined in.
In order to jam TARP down our throats, Dodd used a tiny little trick to get around Article 1 of the Constitution that requires tax and spending bills to originate in the House of Representatives. Back when TARP was pending, the House - in a rare moment of responsibility - rejected it. Twice. Not good enough for Dodd, McConnell, Reid and company. They picked up an old House bill that had died in the Senate, stripped out everything except the "HR" designation that made it a House bill and then amended the entire TARP package to it. The same TARP that the House had just rejected. It this legal? Sure. Is it Constitutional? Barely.
But is is wrong and against the will of the same people that McConnell and Reid purport to represent. Yet there they were, leading the charge to ignore the will of the people. And here they come again, skewering any level of financial regulation or reform, despite the will of the people.
Apparently the needs of Goldman Sachs is important enough to jam down our throats, but getting access to health care for the poorest among us is not. Ask yourself this next time you write a check to an insurance company or to pay for an overpriced prescription that your insurance has chosen not to cover: "Did TARP really help me?" Unless you work on Wall Street, the answer is going to be no. Then ask yourself: "I wonder how much McConnell, Dodd, Reid and the rest of those liars pay for their health care?" The answer will be "very little if anything."
So the same gang of Senators that decided to take over a trillion dollars from you and me for their pals on Wall Street have also decided that health care is too expensive and that any kind of financial reform would be bad for the banks.
In other words, to quote a long famous phrase - follow the money. We the people that seem so important to these charlatans on Capitol Hill apparently cannot afford the entry fee to the club that actually get taken care of.
For the record, both Obama and McCain endorsed Reid, McConnell and Dodd's shady actions by voting yes on TARP. Both disregarded the rules and the people and the Constitution. Sadly, the only time we see bipartisan action in the Senate is when it is time to reward the big contributors and ignore the people.
One important difference between us and Wall Street - we can fire the Senate come November. Even the mighty Goldman Sachs can't do that.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Back and laughing
I took a couple of weeks off to catch my breath and take care of some personal and family stuff. The good news is I got that done.
The better news is that the "Health Care Summit" managed to prove my point for me. Not only were the spitballs flying, but they were on TV and in the same room. Some favored highlights:
During one of the few productive exchanges between the 2 sides on cost containment, Senate Minority Leader McConnell pops us to gripe about time being unevenly divided. What makes this a favorite? Well, this is what the top Republican in the US Senate is doing during an informal debate on public policy? Looking at stopwatches? And people want to know why the Senate is broken.
After Lamar Alexander gave an interesting mini-speech on suggestions and issues with the legislation, Nancy Pelosi replied with a soppy letter from a constituent. Then Harry Reid did the same thing. No facts, no response to Alexander. Just weepy letters. And people want to know where the leadership in Congress is. Easy answer. They are looking through weepy letters hoping to find one that deflects from their own incompetence.
Eric Cantor being called out on the unneeded and unused mountain of paper he had an aide lug over a a prop.
Chris Dodd explaining why the insurance companies are also victims.
John McCain railing on after he was agreed with on a rather important and accurate point.
Overall, it was a great - although nonproductive - show. And it makes the point of this blog perfectly. Neither side had any intention of yielding one inch. Both sides came prepared to embarrass the other and nobody in that room gave a rat's tail about the actual people. Best of all, it was on television and is still available at cspan.org.
See, everybody in that room was playing a game. The object is to win points for their side. Not one of them actually engaged in governance or negotiation. All of them claim to represent "the American People." Well, only one person in that room won a national election. One. All of the others represent states or districts - not all of the people as they constantly claim.
Our job come November is to fire the whole lot of them for incompetence and malfeasance. If it is a game they want to play, then I think we should give them plenty of time to play.
The better news is that the "Health Care Summit" managed to prove my point for me. Not only were the spitballs flying, but they were on TV and in the same room. Some favored highlights:
During one of the few productive exchanges between the 2 sides on cost containment, Senate Minority Leader McConnell pops us to gripe about time being unevenly divided. What makes this a favorite? Well, this is what the top Republican in the US Senate is doing during an informal debate on public policy? Looking at stopwatches? And people want to know why the Senate is broken.
After Lamar Alexander gave an interesting mini-speech on suggestions and issues with the legislation, Nancy Pelosi replied with a soppy letter from a constituent. Then Harry Reid did the same thing. No facts, no response to Alexander. Just weepy letters. And people want to know where the leadership in Congress is. Easy answer. They are looking through weepy letters hoping to find one that deflects from their own incompetence.
Eric Cantor being called out on the unneeded and unused mountain of paper he had an aide lug over a a prop.
Chris Dodd explaining why the insurance companies are also victims.
John McCain railing on after he was agreed with on a rather important and accurate point.
Overall, it was a great - although nonproductive - show. And it makes the point of this blog perfectly. Neither side had any intention of yielding one inch. Both sides came prepared to embarrass the other and nobody in that room gave a rat's tail about the actual people. Best of all, it was on television and is still available at cspan.org.
See, everybody in that room was playing a game. The object is to win points for their side. Not one of them actually engaged in governance or negotiation. All of them claim to represent "the American People." Well, only one person in that room won a national election. One. All of the others represent states or districts - not all of the people as they constantly claim.
Our job come November is to fire the whole lot of them for incompetence and malfeasance. If it is a game they want to play, then I think we should give them plenty of time to play.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Blind ideology - always a bad idea.
Picking through today's news and political droppings, it was hard to miss the raw display of blind ideology being put on by the Senate Armed Services Committee. The hearing was on the somewhat goofy "Don't ask, don't tell" policy inflicted on our armed forces. And I do mean inflicted.
Why that word? Well, in a nutshell, that policy tells those men and women that want to serve and happen to be gay that they are going to have to lie in order to defend truth, justice and the American way. We would be better served by returning to the outright ban (something I do not personally endorse) since it at least left honesty as an option.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs told the committee that he felt it was time to remove the policy. He made it clear it was a personal opinion, but he also left little doubt. This opened the door for a display of nonsense the likes of which had not been seen since the Finance Committee hearing that same day.
Needless to say, Republicans opposed the idea in lockstep. They cited tattoos, fraternization and sexual activity. And, needless to say, Democrats embraced the idea without a clue as to what or why, citing civilian precedent. Both sides simply scurried to their respective partisan comfort zones and stayed there.
Republicans used the very overused "not when there is all this stuff going on," excuse and Democrats used the equally overused "everyone can do everything." Both are simply wrong and both are staying with the blind ideology that seems to rule the day.
I remain baffled as to why we would want to discourage any American from joining the military and defending our freedoms. I would think we would welcome them. One would hope that our elected leaders might want to set aside their poll driven, molded opinions and simply applaud those brave men and women willing to put on the uniform and serve our nation.
Senator McCain, who I respect immensely for his service to this nation both in and out of uniform - was perhaps the most disappointing. 4 years ago, McCain said he would listen to the leaders of our military when they came to him and said it was time to change the policy. Yesterday, he scolded Admiral Mullen for asking that the policy be changed. So what happened? Simple. Blind ideology overcame simple honesty.
At the same time, Senator McCaskill, who has never shown what I would call appropriate respect for our military commanders suddenly lauded them. So what happened? Again blind ideology overcame honesty.
Of course, that won't happen. Why? Because they actually don't care that much about our military or those courageous young men and women wanting to defend us. Nope. They actually aren't going to listen to the same military leaders that each side demands that the other side listen to. Because, when the hearing is over, they get to call their donors and favored reporters and boast about the stand they took.
Because all any of those Senators cares about is the next interview or the next fund raiser or the next election. Not one of them expressed an interest in hearing from the actual military members. Not one wanted to examine the record of service. Not one.
To them, it is not about the members of our military - the best in the world - who are actually willing to fight and put their lives on the line. It is not about what is best for the nation. It is not even about the will of the people. It is about getting reelected. It is about making sure party dogma is adhered to.
It was just another session of flaming spitballs, courtesy of the US Senate.
(note - I am not going to bother with the whole party label and state when naming members of Congress. They no longer represent anyone and both parties are equally corrupt and dishonest.)
Why that word? Well, in a nutshell, that policy tells those men and women that want to serve and happen to be gay that they are going to have to lie in order to defend truth, justice and the American way. We would be better served by returning to the outright ban (something I do not personally endorse) since it at least left honesty as an option.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs told the committee that he felt it was time to remove the policy. He made it clear it was a personal opinion, but he also left little doubt. This opened the door for a display of nonsense the likes of which had not been seen since the Finance Committee hearing that same day.
Needless to say, Republicans opposed the idea in lockstep. They cited tattoos, fraternization and sexual activity. And, needless to say, Democrats embraced the idea without a clue as to what or why, citing civilian precedent. Both sides simply scurried to their respective partisan comfort zones and stayed there.
Republicans used the very overused "not when there is all this stuff going on," excuse and Democrats used the equally overused "everyone can do everything." Both are simply wrong and both are staying with the blind ideology that seems to rule the day.
I remain baffled as to why we would want to discourage any American from joining the military and defending our freedoms. I would think we would welcome them. One would hope that our elected leaders might want to set aside their poll driven, molded opinions and simply applaud those brave men and women willing to put on the uniform and serve our nation.
Senator McCain, who I respect immensely for his service to this nation both in and out of uniform - was perhaps the most disappointing. 4 years ago, McCain said he would listen to the leaders of our military when they came to him and said it was time to change the policy. Yesterday, he scolded Admiral Mullen for asking that the policy be changed. So what happened? Simple. Blind ideology overcame simple honesty.
At the same time, Senator McCaskill, who has never shown what I would call appropriate respect for our military commanders suddenly lauded them. So what happened? Again blind ideology overcame honesty.
Of course, that won't happen. Why? Because they actually don't care that much about our military or those courageous young men and women wanting to defend us. Nope. They actually aren't going to listen to the same military leaders that each side demands that the other side listen to. Because, when the hearing is over, they get to call their donors and favored reporters and boast about the stand they took.
Because all any of those Senators cares about is the next interview or the next fund raiser or the next election. Not one of them expressed an interest in hearing from the actual military members. Not one wanted to examine the record of service. Not one.
To them, it is not about the members of our military - the best in the world - who are actually willing to fight and put their lives on the line. It is not about what is best for the nation. It is not even about the will of the people. It is about getting reelected. It is about making sure party dogma is adhered to.
It was just another session of flaming spitballs, courtesy of the US Senate.
(note - I am not going to bother with the whole party label and state when naming members of Congress. They no longer represent anyone and both parties are equally corrupt and dishonest.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)