LatinaLista — On this 15th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing when we all should be remembering that hatred has no place in a civilized society, we are confronted with the reality that hatred exists to an even greater degree than 15 years ago, takes all forms and in several instances has resorted to once again, in our country’s history, to masquerade as law.
The entire nation is waiting to see what happens in Arizona in the next five days. That’s how long the governor has to decide what to do with Senate Bill 1070. It’s a bill that would make it a state crime to be in the country illegally and require local police to enforce federal immigration laws.
If the bill is signed, it would make Arizona the first state to criminalize undocumented immigrants. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer has five days to sign it, veto it or do nothing and allow it to become law.
Needless to say, advocates and sympathizers are staging protests, building websites and even asking President Obama to intervene before such a bill can pass into law.
There is a real fear that if this bill passes it doesn’t just emboldened bad cops to abuse their authority but will empower the regular Arizonan, who thinks he doesn’t like Latino immigrants, to police his community so as to turn in anyone he thinks is undocumented.
What adds fuel to this fire is that Arizona’s governor just signed into law allowing citizens 21 and older to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. Then she signed a separate law that exempts guns made and kept in Arizona from federal regulation, including background checks.
What’s the harm and what does one have to do with the other?
Obviously, without a background check how is anyone to know what kind of criminal or mental history the purchaser has? Not needing a permit exempts people from having to take classes on being trained on the state laws and how to handle, shoot — and respect the usage of a firearm.
For too many people, their gun will be nothing more than a new toy used to impress or intimidate. Combine that with a person who gets high off of radical conservative rhetoric and feels empowered by Senate Bill 1070 and the state has hundreds of ticking time bombs waiting to explode.
One would think a rational person could put together the pieces of this potential scenario and advise state legislators it’s more prudent to err on the side of caution than reaffirming Second Amendment Rights in these unsteady times.
Yet, the one voice of reason who could have said something to diffuse this bomb before it’s been built has sadly decided that keeping his seat in the Senate outweighs justice and safety.
Today, Arizona Senator John McCain did something that surprised many people who thought they knew him. He voiced his support for Senate Bill 1070.
“I think it’s a good tool,” McCain said during a conference call with reporters when asked about the bill. “It’s a tool that needs to be used.”
Most people see McCain’s words as his way of using the Senate Bill as his own tool to get re-elected.
His opponent, former conservative talk radio personality J.D. Hayworth, has already called McCain out on his website writing that McCain’s about-face is nothing more than an “election-year gimmick.”
A man that used to have principles and stood up and faced his own party down to do what was right has sadly been reduced to pandering to a vocal group just so he won’t lose his seat in Congress.
Political ambition doesn’t get much more pathetic than this — especially when one is willing to throw under the bus a group of people just to retain the glory of a position.
Where’s the glory in that?
Comment(12)
Karen
Why is anybody shocked? McCain never had any principles. He pretended to support immigration reform because he thought it would help him win Latino voters when he ran for president. It didn’t work. Now he’s going back to he really is.
People need to stop thinking that politicians are their “friends.” They are slime who respond to money and votes (mostly money).
cookie
If someone is in this country legally even if they do get arrested on suspicion all they will have to do is produce valid I.D. So what is the problem?
This BS about AZ citizens taking advantage of being able to possess a firearm by shooting up Latinos legal or otherwise is just propaganda being used by the pro-advocates and has no place in reality. They would have no right to do that and would be subject to murder charges. Most Americans would not risk that outcome.
Stating that MCain has come out in support of this bill is to win support at the voting booth is in direct conflict of the claims by Latinos that they can bring down or elect any candidate with their voting clout, isn’t it? Which way is? First they threaten a candidate with their non-support and now we are told that McCain is pandering to the other side? Make up your minds who really holds the majority vote in this country…hint it isn’t Latinos and McCain knows that.
Not to pour more salt in your wounds but McCain and Kyl have both asked Napalitano to send 3,000 troops to the border just today to deter illegal entry and the drug cartels. Your side is losing more and more each day and that is good for America.
Aaron
“………….and even asking President Obama to intervene before such a bill can pass into law.”
The fact that some believe that the president has such authority shows that some in the advocacy community have absolutely no understanding of our legal system or state’s rights. The federal government has no authority to prevent a state legislature from legislation.
irma
“If someone is in this country legally even if they do get arrested on suspicion all they will have to do is produce valid I.D. So what is the problem?”
That law violates individual freedom guaranteed by the US constitution.
You may recall a similar law, in pre WWII Germany – Jews were required to carry and present on request, government issued identification. Everyone knows how that turned out.
Bryan J.
The bill is blatantly unconstitutional, cookie. Under current 4th amendment jurisprudence, the police’s ability to stop and demand action from an individual is limited to the “stop and frisk” doctrine.
As this bill is written, it will be found unconstitutional. No matter the severity of a perceived problem, we should not sacrifice basic principles. Nuff said.
Bonnie
SB 1070 should be law
throughout the entire United States.
Why is it wrong to immitate
Mexico’s immigration laws?
Anglos are always racially profiled if they are working in Mexico.
“Please show you papers”.
It should be law here too.
Bobby
In my opinion, hatred would be defined as Mexicans,( because that’s what the issue really is) who interfere with the safety of America’s border with Mexico, which has already resulted in many thousands of deaths by illegal alien criminals. Period. It isn’t Americans who are the haters, it’s Mexicans who refuse to accept United States Immigration law, and the rights of U.S. citizens. Stop the hypocricy of blaming Americans.
Ali
“Obviously, without a background check how is anyone to know what kind of criminal or mental history the purchaser has? Not needing a permit exempts people from having to take classes on being trained on the state laws and how to handle, shoot — and respect the usage of a firearm.”
—————
Do you even realize how hypocritical this is? You’re worried that AMERICANS won’t get background checks, but meanswhile, we have illegal aliens entering this country whose true identities and history we have no way of knowing.
You’d also do well to remember that in 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed by a man who had gained amnesty in 1986 which enabled him to carry out his terrorist acts. That amnesty was characterized by fraud and nonexistent security checks in the rush to process illegal aliens. In September we’ll observe yet another attack–by illegal aliens who lied to get visas which they then violated. In short, illegal immigration is far more of a security threat than State enforcement of laws that already exist at the federal leve.
Max Leygrume
The only ‘hate’ occurring here is the hate coming from the la raza crowd and their supporters.
It’s not hate that motivates the VAST MAJORITY of American citizens to become enraged at the thought of amnesty – and all the ways it would change this great country for the worse.
It’s logic that motivates us. I’ve never ONCE heard a Logical argument about why granting amnesty to ILLEGAL invaders from other countrys is…good.
The fact is – it’s not good and it’s not logical and the American people will not stand for it. Count on that…
Tom Cotrel
Problems with this law:
1) It is unconstitutional under the Supremacy clause. The state seeks to criminally enforce, and therefore interpret, federal civil immigration laws;
2) Innocent citizens and resident aliens will be harassed and jailed;
3) It will result in a de facto mandatory i.d. for all Latinos in Arizona;
I’m a Republican who agrees with Ronald Reagan, Jack Kemp and George W. Bush on immigration. I thought I agreed with John McCain.
BTW and FWIW, the first illegal immigrant I ever knew was from Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Growing up in the L.A. area, I hung out with Latinos whose families settled in SoCal when it was Alta California.
PiedType
I don’t see that SB 1070 is anything more or less than AZ enforcing law that the feds either can’t or won’t enforce. If you are in the country legally, what is there to fear? If you’re here illegally, you deserve to be caught and deported.
Gary
Tom said: 1) It is unconstitutional under the Supremacy clause. The state seeks to criminally enforce, and therefore interpret, federal civil immigration laws…
Actually, the Supremacy Clause only applies to laws derived from powers that are exclusive to the federal government. The Constitution only gives the federal government the authority to establish rules for naturalization, which is not the same as controlling entry to the U.S. The federal government has assumed this power but it has no constitutional authority to do so. Long after adoption of the constitution the states were running their own immigration bureaus, and the federal government never complained for decades. It made sense to the states to control immigration at the time, as the federal government was actually understood to be limited in power by its constitutional charter.
Comments are closed.