I have an idea. We don't want racism ruling Arizona (or anywhere else). Any thinking person agrees on that. I sure do. And "reasonable suspicion" is hard to define when it comes to illegal immigration. That may also be true. We don't want the police to consider the race of the people with whom they're interacting and then attempting to determine their immigration status. Fine. I think I have an idea that should solve all this.
First, keep in mind that the way that the police will determine immigration status would be via standard identification. That would mean a visa or green card or such for immigrants and driver's license or state-issued ID for others. Not too hard, really. So, here's my suggestion. Let's just make the law that whenever a police officer engages the public for suspected criminal activity, they have the right to ask for identification. Legal immigrants are already required by federal law to carry that identification. Most of the rest of us already carry some sort of state-issued identification. We already have to present ID in a host of situations, so it's shouldn't be a big thing at all. And if it was everyone, then it wouldn't be racist in the least. So ... why not? Personally I wouldn't mind. Of course, I can't remember the last time I had to interact with a police officer over any suspected criminal activity on my part. You know, not breaking the law has its advantages. Being a law-abiding citizen may be a good thing?
Postscript:
This was interesting. Apparently Rhode Island has already been doing what the Arizona law intends. Why isn't Rhode Island being sued? Along the same lines, I have another question. California is trying to legalize recreational marijuana. Currently the medical marijuana that is legal in California violates federal law. So ... they're trying to push it further. Why isn't the federal government taking an actual, intentional violation of federal law into court? Apparently, enforcing the federal laws -- bad; breaking them -- not so much.
4 comments:
Stan,
I said the exact same thing to my wife while we were watching the evening news. I then answered my own question, "Because its not about the identification". The beef with enforcement of the this law has nothing to do with carrying ID. I'm sure if you asked anyone wanting to see the track of overturning what your Governor has signed if they would accept the law so long as everyone is asked for ID on every occasion where law enforcement engages the public in matters of suspected criminal activity, they would say no. It still needs to be appealed.
I think at the heart of the matter is the drive within man to be a lawbreaker. Isn't just understood that for every single law there is at least one loophole or exception? Don't we have to amend or change every law if it adversely affects even one person? It would probably be a healthy exercise to ask the opponents of this piece of state legislation the following question: "What is the purpose of the law?" The answers might be pretty telling.
Our situation in NC is not nearly as volitile as yours, but we are battling 287(g) and the ICE unit protests in our state because of much the same fundamental issues.
As for your postscript, you are again trying to bring logic and consistency of argumentation into a discussion about matters concerning the federal government. How could you?
Jeremy: "I think at the heart of the matter is the drive within man to be a lawbreaker."
Oh, sure, now you go all "theological" (and accurate) on us. Yeah, yeah, "Man is a sinner" ... sure, it sounds reasonable, but just because it says it in the Bible is no reason to assume it.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the law. This isn't even about the law. It's simply a prime target for this administration to further divide the country and enlarge their voter base. The dems want a permanent majority voter base and don't care what the cost is to others. They almost have a majority of people in this country paying no income taxes, then they want amnesty for illegals (who will all then vote democratic), and it wouldn't surprise me to hear about Puerto Rico later this year wanting to become a state (of mostly democratic voters). The media's in the tank for this administration, so you can't find balanced coverage on any of this, either. This is M.O. of the progressive. When they can't win in the arena of ideas, they just point and cry, "racist!" and suddenly, they seem to win the argument.
I didn't think there was anything wrong with the law either, but, hey, if it will eliminate these stupid "Hate" and "Racist" cries, I'd be willing to show my ID when the police ask. (Oh, wait, we already do!)
I think you're right, though. This whole "hate!" and "racist!" and "anti-family!" stuff doesn't really fit with the law but certainly does fit with an argument technique called "red herring" ...
Post a Comment