I'm about fed up with Teabaggers and righties who constantly bark about the Constitution, but can't see anything wrong with the turd of a law Arizona just passed.
Anyone wanting a brilliant and concise explanation about why the Arizona immigration legislation is unconstitutional should listen to the last seven minutes of this podcast. Kevin Johnson, Dean, UC Davis School of Law, and a professor of immigration law, explains why the legislation is headed right down the same path as California's Proposition 187.
It's a Supremacy Clause, thing, baby.
In a nutshell, the Supremacy Clause says you can't have a state regulating and enforcing something that's covered by federal legislation.
CODE RED NEWS ALERT: Immigration law is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government.
Then there's the little darlings over in Oklahoma, with a new abortion bill that mandates a woman to undergo a medical procedure against her will. Predictably, your righties have no problem with that.
But forcing medical procedures on women isn't the only wonderful thing in this bit of genius legislation. Per CNN, "The other measure prohibits pregnant women and their families from seeking legal damages if physicians "knowingly and negligently" withhold key information or provide inaccurate information about their pregnancies."
Fortunately for a bunch of lawyers, this too shall go right down the shitter. Don't believe me? These Okie clowns did the same damn thing two years ago, passing, vetoing, and repassing unconstitutional abortion legislation, which was promptly struck down.Maybe the righties' next law will mandate all women wear burkas.
Nah, that would make it too hard to tell whether we we have brown skin or not.
* * *
Today's YouTube was brought to your humble hostess's attention by Lil' OB.
* * *
40 comments:
i'm thinking that the Tea Party movement ain't strong or dense enough to really catch track. i think we're seeing what the media is showing us--all done for ratings, which garner ad dollars. just as i think the States are too big and disorganized to get anything done right or fast (see: latest health care bill), i believe it's the same disorganization and size problems that lead to the ineffectiveness of the Tea Party movement. All these Lefties panicking and drawing parallels to 1930s Germany and its political environment, need to realize that Germany is roughly the size of Montana. this country is huge. imagine the machinations it would take to have these idiot Tea Baggers organized to such a degree, one can equate them to the Nazis. no way man. shit in this country just doesn't get done because of its sheer size. i often bring up the subject to my wife: it's not 50 UNITED States, really...it's basically 50 separate countries with separate laws. and even more...because WITHIN those states are counties (re: micro countries) with their own modified laws. this is why a quick well-organized movement of ANY type is not possible.
so let's hang back and relax about the effectiveness of the Tea Baggers and just enjoy their awesome ability to spell.
The one thing that I like about Arizona, the state that stripped teachers of any and all rights as employees, and now has passed a marvelous immigration law, is that it makes a state like Nevada seem merely developmentally delayed instead of being as oppressive and retro as it is. Utah is doing a prettygood job of it, too, with its miscarriage law. What is wrong with these people?
The Arizona thing is interesting. The "turd of a law" is the result of unbearable crime. If you live there you must be frustrated and afraid. If the feds don't do their job, the citizens of AZ feel obligated to do something. If the cops won't come to your neighborhood, you have to protect yourself. Sometimes it's not just left and right. It's self preservation. I'm waiting for sanctuary cities to send buses to the Arizona border and bring the illegal border crossers to their cities. Is Cleveland a sanctuary city?
Bill, there's no question that AZ and CA have a TERRIBLE problem with their borders. I'm not belittling that in any way. (Nice of us ol' Americans to arm all those drug lords with automatic weapons, aye?)
My point is that the righties only seem to care about the constitution when it serves their needs.
While were on the topic, what exactly did the uber-conservative Bush administration do about the border problem for it's eight years stint?
Bush did next to nothing. He, and other repubs, didn't want to offend anybody and they wanted votes for whatever election was coming up next. People need to take our borders seriously. There's plenty of hypocracy on both sides.
How did I miss this yesterday? I'm slipping. Anyway...when the golf courses don't get mowed the law will be rescinded.
RJ
You're not slipping, RJ, I am. I started authoring this yesterday and finished today. I just forgot to correct the date when I actually published this.
eek!
(Note to self: spend more effort keeping up with American politics so that informed opinion can be faked.)
p.s. Bill- Cleveland is indeed a border city. We frostbacks are constantly knocking on Ohio's door! (Trying to get on thru to Florida mind you, but still...)
Dearest Bill (Now that our hostess has relieved my disorientation),
The unbearable crime is the fact the hispanics and other brownskins are being vilified for the actions of the gravy-sucking pigs who pay them below standard wages to come across the border and do their work so they can maximize their profits. (Of course it doesn't hurt that there is a convenient population of dirt poor people right at the doorstep trying to stay alive. I'd break the law to feed my babies would you?) Where are the posters about those guys?
Where are the laws requiring business owners to produce evidence all their employees are legal? They may be on the books but the difference is the gravy-sucking pigs have the resources to game the system while the poor folks don't. So it's just easier to blame the folks that look different. Lest anyone be mistaken it's racism, apartheid, pure and simple. How can I be so certain you may be asking. Because I was alive in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 when the same damn states rights 10th amendment patriots were doing the same damn thing. Go read a few Birmingham News archives from the period if you doubt me.
RJ
And lest we forget, we've seen this crap in Arizona before when they wouldn't recognize the Martin Luther King holiday until the NFL refused to play the Super Bowl there.
RJ
This is a border issue. Most of the critics of AZ have zero interaction with the Mexicans coming across the border except when they are being served by one of them or having their hotel room cleaned. I have regular interaction with Mexican illegals, legals, poor and wealthy. I have many friends and family members who were born in Mexico. Some live here and some live there. Of course I would cross the border to feed my family. Who wouldn't? Do you really think that most latino's who've lived here for decades or who've gone through the legalization process, think it's fair that others can pay a coyote $2,500 and move in next door? The fucking Mexican government is also a big part of the problem. It's complicated but it's not racist.
I know I'm always touting Warren Olney's show, but he's really good. He had a Tuscon reporter on this show who gave a better street-level view of the situation than most of us get. He talked about border violence, including a murdered rancher case that was a big deal in AZ. He talked about the frustration Arizonians have over the Fed's crappy handling of border control.
Here's a local print story about the Rob Krentz murder if you can't dig the podcast.
It is a complicated issue, but the new AZ law isn't going to solve it. It will make some lawyers rich. It will be repealed just as California's Prop 187 was.
Despite the frustration AZ has over the immigration issue, it's under federal jurisdiction for a reason. You can't have one set of rules in AZ, another in NY and yet another in CA. That's why this law will never hold up under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.
Maybe we should just sign a treaty with 'em and promise them some land. Worked well for the Apache. Or forty acres and a mule.
RJ
Actually, legalizing pot is probably the smartest place to start.
I think you're right that the AZ bill will be struck down. But you must admit; it did get everyone's attention and, with a little luck, will get some relief for AZ.
But it got everyone's attention for the wrong damn reasons, Bill.
It served to make AZ look like a rightie cesspool of racists instead of drawing proper attention to the problem at hand.
What's everyone talking about? Racial profiling--NOT Rob Krentz.
Believe me. People who follow border problems, AZ NM CA TX, know all about Mr Krentz and how he died. They also know about the Mexican Mafia (both sides of border) and kidnappings and HUGE drug problems. They know about border guards being assaulted every day. And, despite the eastern press making it a race thing, most Americans favor the law or some action.
There are legal minds who believe the Arizona law will stand. The state's three previous attempts to control immigration have all been upheld in Federal Court.
The reason the Spremecy Clause does not come into play here is that the Arizona law requires local law enforcement officers not to make their own judgment about a person's immigration status but to rely on the federal government. Any officer who reasonably suspects a person is illegal is required to check with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The State and local officials will not make the determination, the Feds will determine if their own laws are being broken. The bill gives locals the ability to detain and question possible criminals. It happens every day in this country.
Take the time to read the Arizona law. It merely says that local law enforcement will enforce the existing Federal Laws. It says the Arizona law on immigration will be the SAME as that of the Federal Government.
Are there concerns about profiling -- sure. How about we see if there is a problem before going all knee-jerk -- a warning we have all been given when progressive ideas are passed?
Again, just what is it about the definition of ILLEGAL that is so hard to understand?
And to your point RJ, The state of Arizona has cracked down on the employers. That bill was also decried as rascist and the next coming of Nazi Germany. It was also upheld in Federal District Court and The 9th Circuit.
For the record, not all righties want to control everyone. I hope to see the same outrage expressed over the proposed requirement in NY that everyone MUST be an organ doner as the bills in Oklahoma.
What nost of us want is a whole lot less legislation and smaller government on all fronts.
Hoose, I wouldn't get too excited about that NY organ donation proposal. It's a long-ass way from being made into law. The proposal looks like a real stinker. It does, however, allow for opt-outs.
There's no opt-out for pregnant women in OK, and that law DID pass.
Re your comment, "There are legal minds who believe the Arizona law will stand." Link, please.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/How-Obama-could-lose-Arizona-immigration-battle-92460459.html
AHA! York the dork.
(Actually, I have no idea if he's a dork, but who could resist that juvenile line?)
He's pretty lonely with that opinion Hoose, but I guess we'll see what happens. I suggest you take a good look at the links I've provided in the body of my post. Precedent is not on the side of the new law.
And the latest Olney show is featuring--AZ and immigration. I'm about to go walk and listen right now.
http://tammybruce.com/2010/04/everything-you-need-to-know-about-sb1070-and-more.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Check it out! Gabriella pretty much sums it up.
I might add that the nonsense in Oklahoma started out as a crazy proposal at one point also...
hoos: I don't get the connection. Embryos vs illegals?
Take that up with your hostess, Bill.
If I may, I would like to make two additional points. How many of the commentors have actually read the Arizona statute? Is your opinion based on reading the actual words or are you relying on media and newspaper reports on what is in the law?
If you have read the law and can cite specific examples of egregious measures I would be happy to listen and read your opinions. f you are parrotting what a reporter wants you to believe...
Is there concern over cacial profiling, perhaps. If it DOES happen, then it can be addressed in the court of law. I find it silly to sue over sonmething that has not yet occured.
Finally, we should ask ourselves why the state of Arizona felt compelled to act. I do not think it is out of rascism or zenopohobia. The state has a rich hispanic culture, and was part of Mexico at one time.
The state acted because the federal government has willfully failed to secure the border. This is not a charge against the Obama administration alone. Republican and Democratic Congress and Presidents have all failed to live up to the Constitutional requirement to protect the border.
I find the idea ludicrou that the same federal government that refuses to address the issue of illegal immigration, that has failed to secure the border, is now contemplating suing a state for trying to enforce federal law. Am I the only one that finds the situation laughable on the surface and disturbing on many levels?
An overwhelming majority of Arizonians support this measure. Polls show a huge majority of Americans agree.
It is time to force to government to live up to their promise of protecting Americans.
"The state has a rich hispanic culture, and was part of Mexico at one time."
What's that you say, Holmes, a clue?
When the utter failure known as "THE WAR ON DRUGS,(cue dramatic music)" is finally addressed, and the systemic entrenched corruption of Mexican politics and law enforcement is wrung out, then can we begin to see reductions in illegal immigration and the maquilas.
When all the bullshit subsides, the reason Mexicans are disincentivized to work at home are rooted in two things that have made America very successful; reasonable access to property ownership for the working class and the concept of innocent until proven guilty, which holds police and courts to a high standard, serving the public and atracting only the finest men and women. Until recently these two attributes have been sacrosanct in the US, and are being eroded now, the former thanks to parasitic credit cartels and the latter due to "The WAR ON DRUGS,(cue dramatic music) Or How the Sheriff got a new Baycraft and law school flunkies get job security."
These attributes are totally absent in Mexican culture. People fear the police more than gangs.
My favorite Teabonics sign is
"English is are language."
Indeed.
What we need is a war on thugs.
Game. Set. Match. Now get ready to watch 100,000 illegal proponents march on LA to demand that we make illegal legal. This will HURT their cause.
Here's a chunk of text from the law and one editorial opinion to boot.
Oh yeah, and that's from the notoriously conservative National Review.
Better yet, here is theentire text of the law:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
philbilly makes a fine point and I understand these blog comments are always wanting. I should have said there are gravy-sucking pigs (my euphemism for those who exploit others for personal finacial gain) on both sides of the border. The War on Drugs has enriched many while doing little or nothing to curb drug use. NAFTA and other trade agreements have devastated small businees to the delight of multinational corporations and made common working people more likely to resort to questionable activities to survive. So is this a complex issue. Of course. But I still contend the default position is to blame the marginalized for the problem and I don't think it's coincidence the economically marginalized are often members of ethnic minorities, ergo my contention that this is a racially based issue.
RJ
RJ: Your comments seem to be racist. Yes! Poor marginalized people are a group without individual differences? This is typical liberal crap. Many of us came from poor marginalized groups. One group does things that makes another group resort to questionable activities? Pure bull shit RJ. One example is a gardener, here in the San Francisco bay area, who is undocumented. I know him personally. He owns 3 houses and one 4plex. He is, of course, trying to get legal, but he is NOT in the drug trade. He is a very hard working guy who does not complain. He now has 3 anchor grandchildren to leave his property to if he happens to get deported. He also has a house in Mexico that he built from $$ earned here. Why do libs always have to insult a group of people by implying that they can't do anything without your generous, white, help? It's always the same damn thing. The only thing racist about this issue is the left's attempt to make it so.
This is a border problem that neither political party has the will to solve. A shame.
http://ktar.com/index.php?nid=6&sid=1289944
It's a border problem.
hormak sez:
Is it me, or does the fleshy part of the robot mouth in that embedded video look like a masturbation sleeve?
I have not yet viewed the video, and now thanks to Amy's query, I won't. Amy, I am indebted to you. O'Brien often comes up with things I do not wish to see, albeit often mitigated by, for instance, that stripper pole magician of some time back, she is etched in my thought processes forever.
At any rate, I just logged in to cover two points;
RJ, I believe the phony War on Drugs (WAD)is a epic disaster beyond comprehension in the current frame of reference. It serves primarily to allow a shadow law enforcement/judicial system/penal system cabal to share profits with diverse layers of organized crime, a defacto sanctioning of the very thing presented in emotional hyperbole to be "bad". At the street level, it puts good cops in constant threat and less good cops in the face of temptation. Above the street, confiscated drug money, and the matching funds stolen from taxpayers for the WAD, enriches do-nothing judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, jailers, the list goes on. I have never met a person who was abusing dope, including booze, who wasn't emotionally and psychologically fucked up. No expert I, but jails ain't where most get healed. An exception exists for some of the really effective programs that typically are faith-based and delivered by former addicts. These are uniformly underfunded because they do not enhance the aforementioned shareholder value.
A focus is needed on internal healing for addicts, (I can see no reason to put first-time non-violent offenders in a prison setting), followed by a measured, monitored return to the neighborhood. But the system is skewed to dump them back on the street, after they've picked up new bad habits and skills in the slammer. When I was operating a business for many years in the hood, a local euphemism for jail was "college". Scared straight , my ass.
Clearly Meth is an insane drug, run up Middle America by trojan immigrant farm workers at the behest of Mexican cartel leaders who saw that inner city drug boys couldn't transact crack too far outside the coastal/ post-industrial city limits, too visible. A market for ice was there, and Mexico filled it. Now we have home-brewed meth, great.
The kiddies are getting high on inhalants and Mom's Vicodan.
And pot is a schedule 1 narcotic, are we fucking insane?
Bill, I agree almost entirely with your decrial of the liberati's self righteous angst(RJ, this is not directed at you in any way), the loudest do-gooders live as far into the lily-white hinterlands as their self righteous vehicles will take them. My revulsion to the AZ law is in reaction to the double standard, do our dirty work, and then get the fuck out.
You can see this pernicious liberati race-oriented condescension on every mainstream bullshit "gritty and real" cop detective csi crapfest on TV.
By the way, bullets bang around unpredictably and throw brick and concrete shrapnel during gunplay, then people scream hysterically and flop around while they bleed to death. It's ugly. It's not something any sane person would intentionally watch on the telly while porking out on pizza. But then we don't see the coffins coming back from the middle East either.
I also concur that this is a joint Federal/ Border States issue that just gets punted by congressional cowards.
.
Any guy that wants to come to this country as a gardener and be that successful should be welcomed with open arms, negating the need to be illegal. Better yet, what trade policies could create opportunity for him in Mexico? Hint, illegal dope smuggling is not a good business model.
RJ: You forgot to mention Jones Town. Some Pacific Islanders jumped. Not all Pacific Islanders. Not a great example.
Philly: I have a neighbor that keeps his huge SUV (needs it to take the family to their huge Tahoe cabin) hidden in the garage of their huge house but proudly has his Prius in the driveway for all to see. With vanity plates too! He's a good guy though and we've talked about his problem of needing a big vehicle but wanting to project a green image.
Sorry for the off topic stuff.
Soon enough vehicles will be big and green, via algal fuels, biobased polymer materials in componentry, hybridization, regen to the grid, etc.
Fuel averaging an Escalade and a Prius still beats a pair of Escalades.
The thing about petroleum fuels is they rock, 'cept for destabilizing volatile regions, occasionally wiping out fisheries and riparian areas, offshoring trillions of dollars of GNP and many jobs, poisoning people near refineries and causing a great nation like America to grovel at the feet of the Wahabi misanthropes. Notice how I never mentioned the weather.
Other than that, I fucking love the sound of a 454 getting on the cam. Even better on when it's burning alcohol. You know, from switchgrass.
Amtrak runs a train from, I think, Houston to Oklahoma City on a blend of petroleum diesel and biofuel from cattle tallow. In addition to significant reductions in emissions and creating jobs, Amtak predicts on-time arrivals to shift from rare to medium rare. I kid.
We'll see if the green dream becomes reality. Philbilly says "soon enough". I doubt it but am all for it. I'm for anything that saves money and still meets our needs and desires. Of course the cattle tallow solution will require many more cattle and we know how those guys pollute. Additionally, some of the other options aren't great:
* corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
* switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
* wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
Groveling at the feet of other oil producing nations is a choice. We really don't have to do that. We have the resources but not the will to develope them further. (yes, oil, gas, coal)
Post a Comment