by Chuckie Corra, Mon Apr 26, 2010 at 05:17:48 AM EDT
Arguably Foreign Looking Individual: Walking nonchalantly down a street in Phoenix
Arizona Officer of the Law: Approaches Arguably Foreign Looking Individual "Excuse me sir, can I see some proof that you are a United States citizen?"
Arguably Foreign Looking Individual: "What? Why?"
Arizona Officer of the Law: "Because I have reasonable suspicion that you are not a legal citizen."
Arguably Foreign Looking Individual: "Reasonable suspicion? That is horseradish! Explain yourself."
Arizona Officer of the Law: "You look suspiciously latino to me, and according to the new law recently signed by Gov. Jan Brewer, you are required to show proof of your citizenship."
Arguably Foreign Looking Individual: "I carry no such thing."
Arizona Officer of the Law: "Well then, I will now handcuff and escort you to the county jail."
(note: I have nothing against Arizona police-officers or Arizona as a state, this is a satirically hypothetical take on the new immigration law passed)
Ahhh yes, Arizona. Land of pungent and vibrantly green flora, cascading aquatic oases, and vibrant game that would make any modest hunter giggle with glee. Err... wait, maybe thats one of the other states that allows concealed carry without a permit.
I realize by now that the Arizona Immigration Law recently passed has probably been beaten into your heads more than teetotalism is at BYU, but I think it needs a bit more attention.
I find it very sad that this new immigration law exists. It hurts the civil rights of many individuals that will no doubt be profiled based on their appearance. I challenge Jan Brewer and the other stunning prodigies who crafted this law to define what "reasonable suspicion" really is.
On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol (self-proclaimed liberal on immigration issues..what?) claims that the newest addition to Arizona's repertoire of anti-immigration decrees doesn't violate civil rights
Now I don't typically make an attempt to pillage through the proverbially mine-field that is Bill Kristol's brain, but I shall attempt to deconstruct his claims and try to make sense of them
KRISTOL: I doubt that it violates the Constitution, if it does, it’s a matter of federal preemption against state law. I don’t think it violates anyone’s civil rights. … I have actually read this bill it is not draconian. It is not going to lead to major civil rights violations. Will a few people get stopped perhaps because some policeman has reasonable suspicion that a person is illegal? Will he be stopped perhaps on the street and asked to provide his driver’s license? Yes. That is the huge horrible civil rights violation that’s going to occur 5 times or 8 times or 13 times in Arizona.
I fail to see how basing reasonable suspicion solely on looks and a good hunch constitutes good legislation, but hey far be it from me to question the state government of Arizona. Even Mike "the body (of Christ)" Huckabee denounced this bill, saying there's no such thing as "american-looking." Pro-life Libertarian Judge Andrew Napolitano even threw his hat into the ring.
Napolitano also said the law is “so unconstitutional that I predict a federal judge will prevent Arizona from enforcing it.”
Of course not all notable conservatives share the views of Huckabee and Napolitano. Sarah Palin added her opinion to the matter, because nobody knows what they would do without it. With millions of adoring fans and Palin-junkies tuning their Palin radar to here the verdict that they will no doubt blindly support, Palin didn't quite give an official answer or endorsement but instead offered this insightful and astute remark:
So more power to Jan Brewer for deciding that she was taking on an issue
So Palin is essentially praising Brewer's ability to sign her name on a paper. Palin groupies will have to continue waiting in hopes of a verdict.
I'm no Constitutional lawyer, so I cannot definitively condemn this as Un-Constitutional. However, the arguments against the laws constitutionality keep piling up. No doubt this has more chance of getting repealed due to violation of the supreme law of the land than the Healthcare law does.
But Bill Kristol isn't the most reputable person to be commenting on profiling-sensitive issues. Let me jog everyone's memory a bit. Heading back down memory lane take exit 34 to Fox News Sunday circa Feb. 3rd 2008.
BILL KRISTOL: Look the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women... it would be crazy for the Democratic party to follow the establishment that's led them to defeat year after year... White Women are a problem - but, you know... we all live with that...
Source: Media Matters
Kristol, you are indeed a piece of work....
... and an idiot.