5/07/2010

New Fox News piece: Creepy Claims Made By Dems About Arizona Immigration Law Are False

My newest Fox News piece starts this way:

On April 28, while speaking in Iowa, President Obama denounced Republicans who "exploited” the immigration issue “for political purposes." President said Arizona’s new immigration law would "undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." He painted an alarming picture: "local officials are allowed to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers. But you can imagine, if you are an Hispanic-American in Arizona -- your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to be harassed."

Pretty scary rhetoric. And President Obama isn't alone in making these claims. Take some of the statements on the Sunday morning talk shows this past weekend:

When asked by David Gregory on NBC's "Meet the Press" if the Arizona law involved "racial profiling," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replied: "I don't think there's any doubt about that because, clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you're a legal resident, you still have to carry papers." Similarly, on ABC's "This Week," Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned: "Unfortunately, I think it does and can invite racial profiling."

Not to be outdone, Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) alleged on New York City's WPIX: "That is outrageous for a governor and a state to support something that a local policeman will determine by sight whether a person is illegal. . . . a governor of one of our fifty states and the legislature has passed something that is racist in nature, that jeopardizes the lives Americans." He claimed that local police will arrest people simply based on the color of their skin: "they will enforce the federal illegal immigration laws by allowing local police men to take a look and determine whether they are illegal and arrest them. And I would think that you would agree with me that they are talking about people of color. Now I think that is outrageous." . . .

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Al B. said...

When you are stopped for a traffic violation, the police officer asks you for your license, registration and proof of insurance, all of which you are required by law to carry while operating a motor vehicle. If you fail to produce your proof of insurance, it creates a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that you don’t have insurance, and the officer will attempt to verify that. If you fail to produce your registration, it creates a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that you aren’t in legal possession of the vehicle, and the officer will attempt to verify that. If you fail to produce your license, it creates a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that you don’t have a license or that you aren’t who you claim to be, and the officer will attempt to verify that. All the Arizona law does is require state and local law enforcement, while they’re verifying your identity, to verify that you’re not in the country illegally, and to enforce the federal statute if you are.

In a place like Arizona, that has a lot of illegal immigrants; it doesn’t seem unreasonable to verify residency status when you are unable to produce proof of identity in a situation where you are legally required to do so. Up until now, however, the police in Arizona were not required to do this, and weren’t doing this, for whatever reason.

While applying for my last 6 jobs, dating back 37 years, I’ve been required to provide proof of citizenship or legal residency status for each one. I was required to provide it again less than 2 months ago when my company switched to new security badges. I was also required to produce this documentation when I originally applied for my driver’s license when I was 16. For some reason, it never seemed like racial or ethnic profiling to me – perhaps because I’m white.

Thank you for posting the actual bill in one of your other blog articles. It was interesting reading. I’m sure that a lot of the hysteria is being created by people who haven’t read the bill. But Obama, Holder, Clinton, the ACLU and the news media know better, or should know better. It’s upsetting to see our elected officials and the people we rely on to supply us with news, lie so blatantly to our faces. It’s even more distressing to be surrounded by so many people who vote in elections, who don’t know, don’t care and are too lazy to find out what the facts are by taking a little time to read the bill itself, even when you offer to email it to them.

5/07/2010 11:11 AM  
Blogger John A said...

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replied: "I don't think there's any doubt about that because, clearly, as I understand the way the law is being explained, if you're a legal resident, you still have to carry papers."

Uh, does she support the National ID bill, which I think as currently worded would require not only legal residents (I assume she means visa holders and such, who are required to carry ID by Federal law) but CITIZENS to have ID on them, at least while at work?

- - -
OFF TOPIC sort of -
What the heck is going on here?
"The bill introduced Thursday by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and several House members would revoke the citizenship of individuals who are aligned with groups designated as terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department"
Did even "Tailgunner Joe" go this far?

5/07/2010 12:34 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home