Myths about Arizona immigration law.

A blogger, Greg Patterson, dispels a few more myths that the ObamaMedia continues to spread:

The broad anti-immigrant bill passed by the Legislature this week makes it a crime to be in the country illegal:

Wrong. It's already a crime to be in the country illegally. SB 1070 made it a STATE crime by copying the federal language. This makes a huge difference because opponents used Dionne's quote to say that Arizona was adopting its own immigration policy as well as criminalizing being in the country illegally. Both of those assumptions are wrong.

The need to carry proper 'papers' falls squarely on Arizona's Latino population -- including those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State.

Wrong--and frankly outrageous. Federal law already requires resident aliens to carry registration documents. SB 1070 makes it a state crime to violate the federal law. The law doesn't apply to "those born and raised in the Grand Canyon State" because they are obviously citizens. The law also lists documents that provide a presumption of citizenship one of which is a Driver's License. There is no needfor citizens to carry their birth certificate or passport. Once again, if you read the explanation in Sunday's Republic, you will see how incorrect the editorial is.

The bill invites racial profiling and ignores the fact that Latinos are an intrinsic part of Arizona's history and its future.

Wrong. Actually, the bill prohibits racial profiling by saying that race can only be considered to the "extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution." And under no circumstances can the officer "solely" consider race, color or national origin. (He can "consider" race as a factor just like he can under federal and Arizona law now.) Sunday's version doesn't even address this point because the bill makes it so clear that racial profiling is NOT allowed that it wasn't even worth a mention--that's because there's no change in the law. Racial profiling was not allowed before the bill and it's not allowed after the bill.

Now Attorney General Eric Holder says that the federal government may challenge Arizona's new immigration law. My response? Bring it on. The Heritage Foundation argues that there is a constitutional case to be made for Arizona:

"Under the Tenth Amendment which preserves the traditional police powers of the states to control their own jurisdictions ... The Heritage Foundation has advocated for extensive innovation at the lowest levels of government in terms of immigration enforcement. A 2009 report of Matt Mayer highlights how "state and local governments must [and can] do more" to do something about the illegal immigration problem - a conclusion that came from a series of THF roundtables aimed at talking to state and local officials about pressing public policy problems."


Good Post!

I don't care if law enforcement profiles illegals, they're criminals and should expect to be treated as such. If "harassing" several of these people keeps United States citizens safe from harm, then so be it! I don't give a flying fig if they come to this country to feed their family as they could easily apply to come here legally so spare me your bleeding heart politically correct BS.

Arizona citizens rights should come before the rights of criminals. The citizens of this state should be able to sleep at night without having to worry about a Mexican gang invading thier homes and murdering the kids. So long as someone who is suspected of being illegal has documentation of citizenship then they'll be sent on her way, if not then they should be deported quickly. 

I'm not anti-Immigrant so long as they come here legally. So long as our borders are kept open then we'll have no way to ensure the safety of our country, gangs and drug dealers could be the least of our problems if things continue unchecked.


You know Arizona your chances

You know Arizona your chances of getting kidnapped by a Mexican drug gang is higher then you chances of dying in Afghanistan.

Wow, how to decide which reply is more idiotic than the other

Gonna have to go with the kidnapping one. Yeah, that makes zero sense. At least the other one is about something that might actually be of some benefit to some one.

Oh so you support kidnapping

Oh so you support kidnapping drug gangs now TGIX?