Immigration Nation and Racial Profiling is Pulling in the Station

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.

Annyyywayyy....

 

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

Source:  ThinkProgress.org

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.

Immigration Nation and Racial Profiling is Pulling in the Station

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.

Annyyywayyy....

 

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

Source:  ThinkProgress.org

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.

The Restoration of Democracy, A Historic Moment for Pakistan

Though Pakistan continues to face a number of challenges, in its struggle for democracy it is, perhaps, a lesson for other nascent democracies. By tabling a package of constitutional reforms that will repeal several aberrations adopted under dictatorships in the 1980s and 1990s, the democratic government of Pakistan has achieved a landmark in democracy and brought hope to people around the world.

There's more...

Sebelius warns insurers on denying coverage to sick kids

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote to the head of the insurance industry's lobbying arm yesterday warning against efforts to continue to deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. Excerpt from the letter, which you can download as a pdf file at Greg Sargent's blog:

Health insurance reform is designed to prevent any child from being denied coverage because he or she has a pre-existing condition. Leaders in Congress have reaffirmed this in recent days in the attached statement. To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, I am preparing to issue regulations in the weeks ahead ensuring that the term "pre-existing condition exclusion" applies to both a child's access to a plan and to his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan. These regulations will further confirm that beginning in September, 2010:

*Children with pre-existing conditions may not be denied access to their parents' health insurance plan;

*Insurance companies will no longer be allowed to insure a child, but exclude treatments for that child's pre-existing condition.

I urge you to share this information with your members and to help ensure that they cease any attempt to deny coverage to some of the youngest and most vulnerable Americans.

A spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sent Sargent the following statement:

The intent of Congress to end discrimination against children was crystal clear, and as the House chairs said last week, the fact that insurance companies would even try to deny children coverage exemplifies why the health reform legislation was so vital. Secretary Sebelius isn’t going to let insurance companies discriminate against children, and no one in the industry should think otherwise.

Let's hope this works. I wouldn't be surprised to see insurance companies challenge the new regulations in court. They were probably counting on that loophole.

Founding Father signed health insurance mandate into law

State attorneys general have filed two federal lawsuits challenging the individual mandate to purchase health insurance, which President Barack Obama signed into law last week. Those lawsuits look like pure political posturing to me, given the well-established Congressional powers to regulate interstate commerce and taxation.

It turns out that precedent for a health insurance mandate is much older than the 1930s Supreme Court rulings on the Commerce Clause. Thanks to Paul J. O'Rourke for the history lesson:

In July, 1798, Congress passed, and President John Adams signed into law “An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen,” authorizing the creation of a marine hospital service, and mandating privately employed sailors to purchase healthcare insurance.

This legislation also created America’s first payroll tax, as a ship’s owner was required to deduct 20 cents from each sailor’s monthly pay and forward those receipts to the service, which in turn provided injured sailors hospital care. Failure to pay or account properly was discouraged by requiring a law violating owner or ship's captain to pay a 100 dollar fine.

This historical fact demolishes claims of “unprecedented” and "The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty...”

Perhaps these somewhat incompetent attorneys general might wish to amend their lawsuits to conform to the 1798 precedent, and demand that the mandate and fines be linked to implementing a federal single payer healthcare insurance plan.

O'Rourke posted the full text of the 1798 legislation as well.

I'm not one to claim American's "Founding Fathers" could do no wrong. After all, President Adams also signed the Sedition Act, which violated the First Amendment. But Republican "strict constructionists" say we should interpret the constitution only as 18th-century Americans would have understood it. Some claim judges should cite only 18th-century sources when interpreting the constitution. Well, Congress enacted and the president signed a health insurance mandate less than a decade after the U.S. Constitution went into effect.

I don't expect these facts to affect Republican rhetoric about health insurance reform. Thankfully, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is not wasting our state's money on this frivolous lawsuit. So far I haven't heard any Republicans demand his impeachment, as some GOP legislators are doing in Georgia.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads