More on Immigration
The Arizona anti-illegal immigration law is still generating lots of discussion (and will for quite some time).
Here is a response from a Hispanic woman, Alicia Colon. She echoes some of my own sentiments and comes to the following conclusion:
If the media wants to know who’s to blame for the Arizona immigration bill why not blame the illegals who are raping, stealing, and murdering Arizonans after sneaking over the unsecured border?
Once again the Democrats are displaying the Pavlovian response of injecting race into issues that should be looked at instead with common sense. The federal government is not securing the border between Arizona and Mexico, thus allowing criminals to wreak havoc in that state — including murder.
Hispanics are once again being used as political pawns to sustain the Democrat Party’s power in the inner cities. I hope the rest of the country realizes that we Hispanics who are citizens are not in its pocket and will support efforts to insure that only U.S. citizens are eligible to elect our representatives.
I hope so, too.
Doctor Zero has an excellent piece on the issue of laws that are not enforced, not only pertaining to immigration but in other areas as well.
The federal government’s failure to enforce its immigration laws, and the President’s unfortunate decision to demagogue the issue at the expense of Arizona voters, puts the lie to the entire concept of a centrally managed society and economy. There’s no reason to believe thousands of pages of regulations for health care, banking, and energy production will be enforced any more carefully and honestly than immigration laws are. On the contrary, the daily news is packed with plenty of expensive evidence this Administration is virtually incapable of honestly enforcing anything. The notion that such a government can somehow build a “fair” and prosperous economy from a scrap heap of complex new regulations is laughable.
The notion is laughable to anyone with any sense.
Oh, and Arizona has already amended the law to clarify the “lawful contact” issue.
So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”
“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”