Arizonan and proud of it

I’m from Arizona.

Been saying that all my life; it’s something I’m rather proud of. I like my state. I was born here and raised here and I’ve been all over the country, but this is my home.

Apparently that now means I’m a racist Nazi.

If you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, the Arizona legislature just passed a law which Governor Brewer happily signed (an act that has given her a 16% bump in approval ratings!) that addresses the issue of illegal immigration, which is something that is a pressing concern in my home state. The law increases penalties for businesses that hire illegal immigrants and covers new ways in which the problem is to be addressed by law enforcement officers. Specifically, the intensely controversial part is this section:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373(c).

First off, the lawful contact is clarified later in the bill as having to be an otherwise-justifiable encounter; there’s no “pulled over on suspicion of being illegal” clause here. If you ran a red light, and are pulled over, this is something that can be added on to that encounter with the LEO. In other words, the officer must have already legally detained you before this even comes in to play.

Now at that point, if you’re suspected of being here illegally, you need to be able to prove you aren’t. Now, there are any number of ways you could do this; a drivers license, a green card, social security card, passport, or any other number of simple documents easily meet this requirement. Note that the bill actually has the officer verify the status with the Federal Government if they cannot produce the paperwork on the spot, so simply not having the papers with you doesn’t violate the statute – although it might waste your time.

This is not an unreasonable requirement, and in fact it is much less demanding than the US Code, which since the 1940s has required that immigrants carry, at all times and on their person, documentation that they’re here legally. It’s nothing new, but people are either ignorant of the existing law, or simply ignoring it because the controversy is more to their liking.

As for the part of the requirement that initially made me uneasy, the phrase “reasonable suspicion,” it turns out that this is a very specific legal term, and that there is a wealth of case law providing guidelines for what reasonable suspicion is and is not. In short, what it means is that there are other factors and circumstances that cause the officer to believe something illegal is going on. For instance – and this will sound familiar to anyone who’s been south of Tucson – a police officer stops a van that had been speeding on the I-10 heading north toward Casa Grande. He arrives and finds the van is packed full of people, none with identification, and the driver is being evasive. Any reasonable officer here would suspect that these people may be here illegally, at which point this law requires him to check on their status with ICE.

What it does not mean is that the officer pulled over a brown person and demanded, “Papieren, bitte!

This law is a good thing. It does not add extra demands on immigrants here legally, it cracks down on businesses who are exploiting legal loopholes to hire illegal labor, and it deters illegal immigration.

Though, of course, some people will just never get it.

Palin on Fox

Yes, really. A multi-year deal as a “political analyst”

This seems like an outrageously bad move for her political career, as she has effectively beheaded any illusion of independent “rogue” politics by  aligning herself with the much-maligned Fox News Channel. Her initial appearance on Bill O’Reilly proved she’d remain in the fray as deep as ever though, fielding such insightful questions from O’Reilly as “Nancy Pelosi: do you think she’s a kook? Do you think she’s actually crazy?”

I like Palin, but I don’t like this move. If she’s trying to embrace the big media, big government, bloated bureaucracy that Fox seems to appreciate then she’s made a wonderful start – but I fear all she’ll get out of the gig is a slew of new jokes made at her expense.

(Though you could strike it rich on 8/1 odds she’ll lose the gig before September 1st!)

Sunday Wrapup

Another good football Sunday. Pitt lost again, Cards won again, so I’m happy. Warner’s a little banged up but they’re saying he’s fine, so that’s a relief. Also, if you didn’t catch the Lions – Browns game, do yourself a favor and dig up the highlights – Matt Stafford just proved he’s the genuine article.

And who could have possibly seen this coming?

The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but “would explain what happened and why they did it.”

Ridiculous. I don’t know how anyone can justify this, but I guess that’s not the point. Also, there’s this lovely senator, who I think needs to have the word “representative” defined to him, preferably with a 2×4:

“If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform and every piece of evidence tells you if you support the bill you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job?” CNN’s John King asked Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado on Sunday’s State of the Union.

“Yes,” Bennet bluntly and simply replied.

“If you knew for a fact your constituents did not want you to vote for this, would you do it anyway?” “Yes.” “Okay, string him up.”

Anyway, going to try to start working through these doctrinal issues over the next few days. I think posting one per week would be a good pace. Have a good night, y’all!

Politik blues

After getting about an hour of sleep last night, I decided to take a nap after getting home from work today.

…And I just woke up. Oops.

So! It’s been a fun one. Last night I was listening to Obama’s “town hall” in Shanghai and was amazed at how bold some of the questions were. One of the attendees asked him what he had done to earn the Nobel prize and how he was qualified with his educational background. I about did a spit-take when I heard that one – can you imagine an American reporter having the gall to ask that? Didn’t think so. Additionally, while talking about freedom of information and the “great firewall of China,” Obama slipped one of the more honest quotes I’ve heard from him:

“There are times I wish information didn’t flow so freely so I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticize me.”

It’s remarkable that the president would say such a thing. To have such thin skin as to wish that information was unavailable so that his political opponents would have nothing bad to say about him? Ridiculous and juvenile. He’s already taken plenty of swings at Fox News in particular, so it’s hardly surprising, but it is a little disheartening to hear him come right out and say something like this.

I don’t know what will surprise me about this president anymore. At first I thought he would be incompetent, having no experience and all the naivete of a young politician fresh on the national stage. After it became clear that he had an agenda above and beyond what he’d revealed, I was worried he’d cause some grief, but couldn’t imagine that the sort of thing he’s managed to achieve could possibly happen – not here, not now. And now we stand on the brink of a complete government takeover of health care, under the watch of a man who’d rather daydream about silencing those who criticize him than think about the consequences of what he’s doing.

So for those who’ve asked me in the last couple weeks why I’ve focused a bit less than usual on politics, it’s largely due to the fact that I’ve been getting increasingly depressed about the state we’re in every time I look at what’s going on in the political realm.

So that’s that, tomorrow we’ll avoid politics. Goodnight, all.

A Mock Trial for a Mock President

This is DISGUSTING.

A non-citizen, non-resident commits an act of war by hijacking and slamming a pair of airliners into American buildings and our President decides that rather than an act of war, which it was declared as being by the perpetrators, it was a criminal act.

This. Is. Absurd.

These terrorists are getting high end, hard-left attorneys whose jobs are to get this case thrown out and this man set free. Given the nature of the attack and the response to it, the ongoing war, etc., you face a variety of challenges in trying to actually prosecute this man according to US law: chain of custody on the evidence, proper venue, bringing national security secrets into the open – and all for a man who has no legal right whatsoever for this kind of trial?

Not to mention the media! Oh, the media will have a field day with this. Expect this to be the top story every night and the top headline every morning, as they give this raving lunatic a national platform to spew his hate and his disgusting rhetoric all over the ears and eyes of any American foolish enough to turn on the TV. This goes beyond the realm of irresponsibility and into the territory of either insanity or outright contempt for justice and the nation. Obama has thoroughly mishandled this and discredited himself even on this most basic, black-and-white issue and proven that when it comes down to it, he’d rather give a mass murderer the chance to walk free and do it all over again than let people actually say that this was Islamic terror. He is enabling murder in the name of political correctness, and getting away with it.

The madness has to end somewhere. In the meantime, I’ll be writing my left-wing nutjob of a representative, because I know that my Senators won’t hesitate to call this the insanity that it is. (EDIT: a quick Google search revealed that they already have spoken against it. Thanks, guys.)

Rudy Giuliani lets loose, it’s a rather long clip but it’s worth watching:

“First they use our planes against us, now they’re going to use our criminal justice system against us.”

He notes that this might be a way to get Bush put on trial by proxy here, and this could be a win/win for Obama. If so, this is only that much more revolting.

Further links on the insanity:

Historian Fabio Paolo Barbieri on why politicians act this way.

John C Wright on the utter folly of this disgrace.

And last but not least, the inimitable Sarah Palin.