Arizona isn't racist, but it isn't right
And that's the truth
Arizona isn't racist, but it isn't right
On Wednesday, the court will take up the most controversial topic since women decided to nurse in public: immigration. There are a lot of people who are offended by seeing a child munching on Mommy in public, but an infinitely greater group who are angry at illegal aliens sucking at Aunt Samantha’s teat.
So, the justices on the High Court will have to decide whether to invalidate a system of laws that make this country inhospitable to what some call interlopers and others call integral parts of the economy, or whether to uphold its fundamental tenets on the grounds that the federal government abdicated responsibility and so the 10th Amendment allows the states to take over.
I’m watching closely, not only because this butters my own personal bread (I’m an immigration lawyer, as regular readers know) but also because I think it says a very great deal about who we are as a nation.
No one more than me is aware of the chaos that occurs at the border on a regular basis. Border patrol agents are dying, as are immigrants who decide to risk that Rio Grande crossing in the hopes of a better life. And to those who are turning up their noses at the ‘better life’ comment, you have probably never lived in a country where 99% of the people would risk their lives to have what the whiny 99% here already have.
But that’s no excuse for letting people violate our immigration laws, which stink, by the way. We have to both revamp the system which makes it virtually impossible for skilled workers and close family members to immigrate, and which also allows dangerous criminals to prey on citizens.
But, and this is important, states can’t just start enforcing their own version of justice willy nilly because the federal government hasn’t done enough. It hasn’t, that’s the tragic and infuriating truth. But unless we want to rewrite the Supremacy Clause and ignore federal pre-emption, the court has to invalidate Arizona.
And then, our cowardly and ineffective Congress needs to do something about this mess. Because Aunt Samantha’s breasts are drying up.
Comments (57)
Sadim, the government forces you to buy car insurance in order to protect other drivers. It's the same deal with health insurance. We all must have it or costs skyrocket as we end up paying for the uninsured. Do a little reading, and realize you are no independent. You are a RWNJ clear as day.— sophistry- Sadim, what is your problem? You really need to change that handle. It means poop. And spare me your snarky retorts; it's clear you are only Christine's beyatch, if not Christine herself (as she is wont to adopt other personalities to pick on commentators).— sophistry
- Well, this is how I feel about having a picture ID. I think it is convenient to have something that says you are you if you want to perform a transaction that only someone of a certain age, for example, like purchasing cigarettes or liquor, can perform. Or to get a passport.
(By the way, I met a young woman at a friend's house who showed us her perfectly produced fake driver's license with her photo. Everything on the card was accurate to the last detail, except her birthdate. She planned to use it to get into clubs. So fraud is possible no matter how many laws we pass.)
But for those times when you are simply questioned for being out late or in the "wrong" neighborhood or a passenger in a car that is stopped, and you happen to have left your wallet at home.....what could happen then is very very scary.— Magistra 
sadim, nothing is truly for free.
But for many things a small investment produces a rich reward.
Your example list illustrates the conveniences accrued with minimal sacrifice. Yet, without those meager sacrifices there would accrue eventually sufficient abuse as to harm and inconvenience many.
Every society without exception lives and dies by it choices. Living free means wisely choosing among ones freedoms. And giving up a little to gain much. (BTW, Government Health Care is not on the gain much list.)— PlumberJoe- RHO, you insist on calling me a conservative. I am not. On this particular issue, I lean that way. On others I don't.
I don't find it unreasonable to produce ID to purchase cigarettes or alcohol or adult materials. I don't find it unreasonable to produce ID to vote. I don't find it unreasonable to produce ID to get a student discount or prove I am of age to view a particular movie. I don't find it unreasonable during a routine stop to produce my license and registration. I find producing my ID, because I'm a legal resident of this country and have it on me at almost all times anyway (or know where it is), to be no big deal at all. I find it a lot more reasonable than having a government force me to buy a product from a private company simply because I exist.— sadim 
Comment removed.- You can claim anything. Based upon your many exaggerations, hyperbole and non-sequitur, without knowing the exact detail, I would easily refer this claim to the fraud department. That is what a history gets you. — PlumberJoe
- "O-care is a very small burden to bear."
That is a perfect example of a non-sequitur. What does an ID card have in common with a government health care program.
— PlumberJoe - Comment removed.
- Hello, old buddy. Nice to see we finally can exchange without violent words. A bit of humor never hurt anyone.
You say, "They [the Scouts] are intent on destroying democracy in America."
And I say such destruction is much more the progeny of the Obama administration's policies.
Tell me, lad, how does one really interpret the "will" of a used chad.
If you do not favor the SCOTUS decisions, then by all means drop the talking points and show me where in their opinions they err.
— PlumberJoe - Scouts obviously should be SCOTUS. But I think it to be funnier as Scouts. A bunch of scouts hard at work, helping us all across the streets of democracy. — PlumberJoe
- Comment removed.
- Hi Magistra, driving your car without a valid driver's license and an auto insurance card could cost you a few bucks, too. What about library cards? Or cashing a check where you are not known? Etc.
The consequence to an election is also the cabinet appointees, the "czar" appointees, the executive leadership or lack of leadership.
How would you sterilize the minds of the Justices or would you personally want the privilege to appoint them? Or have them run for election. Do you have an answer????
My point to Hamlbin is that he was too soon to cast his aspersions. And that is a fact that cannot be denied.
I do agree with Christine, even though I may not have said it before- the decision, whatever it may be, MUST not be fabricated and MUST uphold the Constitution FOR justice to prevail. That is her issue along with her opinion.— PlumberJoe - Comment removed.
- Hang out your sign- Hamlbin and Orhestrated Fortunes: $1.
What does Capone have to do with a SCOTUS decision yet to be published.
It seems it is you who imbibes on the Capone bath tub gin.— PlumberJoe - PJ, the reason they say that elections have consequences is precisely because of which justices are nominated for the SCOTUS.
This court is no different. It has its ideologues on both sides of the spectrum. One Justice, Elena Kagan, already recused herself because of a conflict.
The headlines today suggest that the decision may uphold the law. We shall see.
What saddens/scares me is the idea that "carrying papers" may become a national trend. Leaving home without an ID could get you arrested and that is an upsetting thought.— Magistra - Hamlbin, not surprisingly we disagree.
How can you possibly determine, without reading the court's decision whether or not it is political.
Wait until the decision is rendered before you make your accusations. One thing is clear though, your accusation is purely political and worthless. (notice- no slurs, no name calling; just facts; the bar has been raised.)
You can do better than that. Or can you do better than that?— PlumberJoe - Another thing: the last line of this op-ed is just icky. Way to show your obsession with lady parts, Christine, and your pathological fascination with reproduction, babies and all sorts of things you know nothing about since you haven't experienced them. You really do need an editor...— sophistry
- Comment removed.
- I haven't commented until now because I find Arizona's law sickening; I think Jan Brewer is the devil in a dress (really scary woman--all wrong in her politics). I think this law is disgusting and inhumane, but otherwise, I don't have much opinion on illegal immigrants besides "don't break up families." If you are so pro-family Christine, I would think you'd find this law as horrible as I do. Besides, immigrants don't even want to come to the USA anymore. The USA is in very bad shape. Other countries are much better off. I wished I was a citizen almost anywhere else...— sophistry
- sadim - first of all this is not a small country like Costa Rica. For as long as we can remember, immigrants with green cards have come here to work as cheap labor on farms and plantations.
Desperate times and greedy farm owners and other businesses that relied on cheap labor changed that. How easy to get forged cards and even social security numbers.
You would not want to be detained in any foreign country because life here is too sweet to miss. For some illegal immigrants, as I am sure Chris can testify, life in their native lands is the real horror they want to avoid.— Magistra - Christine, I understand what you are saying. I agree that unless you are a federal agent, you're not authorized; hence the point of AZ's law, to make them capable in the absence of the feds doing their job. Yes, absolutely, it is a political response to a federal political issue. But I'm glad that Brewer had the fortitude to tackle it, and bring a murky issue into a sharp relief. I believe she moved a pawn in a chess game, but it was a necessary step to move toward those things of which you speak: triage, border, deportation, even the Dream Act. I have argued similarly in the past - we cannot ignore the Constitution to play footsie in political popularity contests. Absolutely. But I give cred to Brewere for at least furthering an agenda by challenging a broken status quo.My father was just last month in Costa Rica. While there, he and his party were stopped by authorities and asked to produce their passports. I asked him, "so, let me guess, you calmly dug out your legally stamped passport and handed it over? You didn't scream bloodly-blue murder at having been racially profiled, didn't threaten to contact your ACLU lawyer, didn't organize any marches on their capitol building, or burn their flag in effigy, right?" He did just pass over his properly stamped documents and went peacefully on his way.You have skin in this game. I respect your position. I personally like to imagine the consequences of taking a hard-line approach. I ain't sneaking across Iran's borders, or China's, won't overstay my welcome in Costa Rica, etc. And if I know the consequences of bringing my family into a country illegally and getting caught is a 10 year separation, I'd think of another option. (HTML deleted)— sadim
- Christine, I understand what you are saying. I agree that unless you are a federal agent, you're not authorized; hence the point of AZ's law, to make them capable in the absence of the feds doing their job. Yes, absolutely, it is a political response to a federal political issue. But I'm glad that Brewer had the fortitude to tackle it, and bring a murky issue into a sharp relief. I believe she moved a pawn in a chess game, but it was a necessary step to move toward those things of which you speak: triage, border, deportation, even the Dream Act. I have argued similarly in the past - we cannot ignore the Constitution to play footsie in political popularity contests. Absolutely. But I give cred to Brewere for at least furthering an agenda by challenging a broken status quo.
My father was just last month in Costa Rica. While there, he and his party were stopped by authorities and asked to produce their passports. I asked him, "so, let me guess, you calmly dug out your legally stamped passport and handed it over? You didn't scream bloodly-blue murder at having been racially profiled, didn't threaten to contact your ACLU lawyer, didn't organize any marches on their capitol building, or burn their flag in effigy, right?" He did just pass over his properly stamped documents and went peacefully on his way.
You have skin in this game. I respect your position. I personally like to imagine the consequences of taking a hard-line approach. I ain't sneaking across Iran's borders, or China's, won't overstay my welcome in Costa Rica, etc. And if I know the consequences of bringing my family into a country illegally and getting caught is a 10 year separation, I'd think of another option.— sadim - Comment removed.
- Producing legal ID is no big deal if you're here legally. I never advocated for throwing them in jail, I advocate for throwing them back to where ever it is they came from. — sadim
- have no idea why it wont't post
— sadim - Well, what an instructive series of comments and such a relief to be about issues and not personalities.
I side with Christine because her argument makes sense especially coming from someone in the field. We have a really messy immigration situation with too many indocumented workers (although the news channels say the number is declining, am I right?)
But a messy situation is not improved by an even messier state law that assumes powers that are not truly part of our consitution.
I diagree with Lancer only on the birth issue, since we still have a 14th amendment and we cannot usurp that with a state law.
I hope the SCOTUS overturns the AZ law as it should.
— Magistra - I heard the same Solicitor General who had a horrible time defending O-Care had a tough time today.— Thoughtful&concernedvoter
- Weir, great news. Congratulations. Bring your family to the U.S. and we will all party.
You and I differ on this immigration issue. Who is to say who is right.
The U.S. started over with new immigration rules more than once. And each time they got fouled up. How many times would you suggest we go down that road. And more importantly, how do we finally get it right?— PlumberJoe - Lancer who are you to rewrite the immigration laws. You say, "If you're here because you smuggled yourself in, but have no criminal record, you pay a fine, and do some jail time (say 30 days + 7 days for each year you were here),.." And you offered other suggestions as well.
I say if you are here because you smuggled yourself in, you do hard labor for 150 years. My way is harsh, Your way is the bleeding heart. What makes you right, except that you are more merciful. Might does not make right, nor does mercy.
BTW I did not sleep through civics class, but my notebook did fall on the floor, all the pinup pictures fell out, face side up, and the teacher walked over, looked at each and noted that if I did as well in my class work, I was going to receive an A. Speaking of Aunt Samantha's breasts, there was a boatload on the floor that day.— PlumberJoe - I am not an expert on illegal immigration. In general, I support amnesty for those who are already in the United States and a revamped immigration system to make it easier for those who wish to immigrate. This may be simple minded, but starting with a clean slate and new rules seems the most beneficial to everyone.
The immigration system is horrible. We just completed an 8 month headache to secure an immigration visa for my wife. I thought spouse visas were supposed to be the easy kind. I can't imagine simply trying to immigrate without any family ties. The good news is she is now legal and I'll be posting at more reasonable times in a couple weeks!— weir99 - Christine I am truly surprised that you do not understand the Arizona issue. How much clearer can it be. The executive office of the federal government refuses to enforce the immigration laws. Arizona is not creating laws in lieu of the Congress. Arizona is implementing the laws already passed by the Congress. Neither the Supremacy Clause nor the 10th Amendment conflict with that.
Every person has a right to self defense. Every state has a right to self defense.
Arizona is defending itself against those who are breaking federal law. It is technically the same as a citizens arrest. The 10th Amendment grants to the states the powers not granted to the Congress. If the executive refuses to enforce the law, then it is a defacto default of such federal law and the states then have the right to enact a duplicate of the law via the 10th Amendment.
How is that for a Roe v Wade decision. Even Sodameyor will agree.— PlumberJoe - Granted that the laws are whacky and need fixing. Granted that immigrants with legitimate gripes need the benefits of the law.
But We The People need recourse when the executive falls down on the job. There is impeachment, there is reelection and now there will be the AZ approach, too.— PlumberJoe - Sadim, just saying you are doing something 'pursuant to federal law' does not mean you can do it if you are not a federal agent. That is why the feds have delegated state actors specifically under certain programs to execute police powers. There is no genius in this law, it is simply a political response to a federal political failure. I'm pissed off (legal term) at the feds, disgusted with Congress and their lackeys, and think that President Obama AND the GOP are equally responsible for the logjam (although to be fair, the GOP has been much more intransigent on these issues.) Sadim, I understand your point. But my point is that we need to do triage, deal with the border first as well as criminal aliens but not destroy families that yes, broke the law but do not deserve the extremely cruel penalty of separation for 10 or more years. Anyone who knows me knows I am not a bleeding heart. The silence of the liberals who usually come on this board, including the crazed lady we all know and love, is telling. They are angry that they can't attack my argument, so they lie low in their damp little trenches until they can come back on a topic like gay marriage or abortion or...um...nursing mothers. But the truth is this, and it is not a political one: if we ignore the mandate of the Constitution because it's a politically popular move, we lose the right to have this magnificent document in the first place.— Christine
- Politics have high-jacked a responsible federal response to illegal immigration. Jan Brewer is my hero. Her constituency has spoken loud and clear. The best part about AZ's law is that almost every other sentence begins with "persuant to federal...." which pretty much negates the argument that AZ's law is racist or unfair. The way it reads, it makes it's own case that the federal government has abdicated its responsibilities. AZ and its US citizens pay a much heftier price for that, given their geography, than other states.
Lancer, you suggest penalties. What greater penalty could there be than deportation? I can't imagine the pain it would bring to my father if he brought me here as an infant and I got bounced back to a place I have no memory of whatsoever. It's not that the penalty isn't steep - we don't enforce it.— sadim - The justices need to simply apply the law correctly. The states are usurping a privilege (and obligation) of the federal government. The Tenth Amendment gives them no legitimate authority to do so. If the Arizona law were directed at curing police power and security problems without being directed at immigration, there might be a conceivable loophole there. However, it is clear that the law was aimed at curbing immigration, which a state simply cannot do. I would think that Scalia and Thomas, who in the past have been loathe to enlarge the powers of the federal government, would be equally loathe to allow the states to exceed their own jurisdictions. If the Arizona law is upheld, it would be a decision on par with Roe v. Wade in its quality (and you know how I feel about that)— Christine
- Christine,
Unfortunately I broke up with the girl for reasons other than her associations with foreign citizens who no longer had permission to live in the US. I wish I could tell you things worked out - but I don't know. They were in the process of righting the ship with an immigration lawyer when I last saw them, so I hope all is well with them.
I do know that two otherwise reasonable, college-educated persons were relegated to meager cash-based per diem employment without health insurance beacuse of their willfull choice to let their visas expire after graduation in 2002 because of a fear that their application for permanent residency might be denied since they were from a North African nation, Arabic, and Muslim. (Ah! good times)
For them it was a risk worth taking because it seemed such an easy route to follow. Really though, they were just young & naive and they did not fully understand the consequences of their choice until they had children - and discovered their education was useless and their future bleak without proper documents. A hard lesson to learn.
On a different note, the plumber is making assumptions about my convictions without having asked me of them. He must have slept through civics class at Central. I know they taught me better.— Lancer248 - Here is an easy shot on goal for you, Christine.
Since 8 justices are hearing the AZ case, should we not expect respect from them by their not settling for a 4 - 4 tie? That would be a great big cop out and a disgrace.— PlumberJoe - Lancer, you have demonstrated wisdom and common sense, based on both experience and...common sense. Bravo, my friend. And I know about student visas, there are a lot of traps to fall into there. Hope you were able to navigate it without too much angst.— Christine
- Lancer, lovely thoughts. Now tell me about Hope and Change. I need a few laughs before I turn on the nightly news. "Problems that can be solved should be solved." And just what does that mean. It is not "should" that matters, it is "how." I really would not want to ride across a bridge that you built.
Christine is an immigration lawyer. So I know where she is coming from. Hers is a front line view. I kid her here and she knows it.
But let's get real folks. It takes more than Hope and Change. It takes arduous dedication by talented people. Don't forget to include that in the mix.
OK, Christine, no wager. But you can be sure I will be back in a few weeks with an "I told you so."
Central really fell apart when it went coed. And Lancerr, I am just seeing if you can take it. I am sure you can. Almost anyone from Dear Old High, can take it. Even me.— PlumberJoe - Christine, you're making me blush!!
Problems that can be solved should be solved. Immigration process is one of them. I'm not a lawyer, but through a past personal relationship I witnessed the complexities of an expires student visa first-hand.
So many other problems become less so when people who want to become citizens can become citizens. There would be more taxpayers, more insured motorists on the roads, and more people covered by health care, more taxes collected at all levels of government, and most importantly,more participants in our political process....which will result in fewer ER vists, fewer criminals, and lower costs in law enforcement, education and health care.— Lancer248 - I don't wager on life and death issues.— Christine
- I also happen to believe that just as the court will find the individual health care mandate to be unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, they will not be hypocritical and ignore the imperative of the Supremacy Clause. Arizona must fall.— Christine
- Name your wager. — PlumberJoe
- Christine, I just posted a long answer to Lancer. Must be lost in the bowels of the net or standing in line at Ellis Island.
Short version. The SCOTUS will support Arizona. Sorry, justice and not bleeding hearts win this one.
— PlumberJoe - BTW, when you say fix the laws, that is the same as when Magistra say, "Somebody out to ....this...that." Won't happen. — PlumberJoe
- Lancer, keep in mind, "Thy Honor we'll cherish and laud is to the sky." — PlumberJoe
- Lancer248, all I can say is, you have restored my faith in human kind. Bravo. You are either an immigration lawyer, or a person who can see the world without partisan blinders, left or right. Again, bravo, and thank you.— Christine
- Comment removed.
- It's not about the size of the heart, but the reasonableness with which I perceive to ba a purely paperwork, logistics and demographic problem can be solved. Our forebears first needed only to show up to emigrate (Pilgrims, William Penn, et. al.), then they needed to also be disease free, and not crimials (the reason for Ellis Island). Now, we've made it harder than ever before to come to this country with quotas, skills criteria, waiting periods and red tape. Out of basic decency we still need to allow those who are willing to make the sacrifice to come here to do so provided they follow our rules for doing so.
However, I agree with Christine that rules we have are ineffective, easy to circumvent and costly to enforce. They need to be reasonably modified to reduce enforement costs, make the process simpler, and separate the undocumented person who may have originally come here legally from the illegal immigrant who smuggled themselves here.
What is wrong with allowing those who've done no wrong other than not fill out a form eventually realize their dream of qualifying for citizenship, once they've paid a penalty?
PS: Middle ages? HA! But it has been a while since I've been to Dear Old High— Lancer248 - Don't be surprised if the Court does not invalidate the entire law and never reaches the issue of the Supremecy Clause.— lport
- Lancer, my heart is as big and generous as the next person's. But America is not here to right the wrongs of the remainder of the world.
Stay in your country and fix its problems. We did that in 1776. And we helped out in WW1 and WW2.
We have immigration laws. If they err, fix them. Till then enforce them.
And if Christine's heart breaks for those who break our laws, then she can go to wherever and crusade there. And that is from a guy who 99% supports her views.— PlumberJoe - Are you a Central Lancer???? Or do you harken from the middle ages? — PlumberJoe
- There must be a benefit to come to this country legally. That benefit is no fines, no jail, and access to citizenship rights. The excuse of "I did it for my family/kids" must have a disincentive that affects you, your family and your children:
If you are undocumented because you overstayed a visa, and have a clean record, you should be able to pay a hefty fine and get a green card, but be ineligible for citizenship for a defined probationary period (say 5 years beyond current requirements?). Your children born here during the time you are undocumented and the probationary period would not be US citizens. If you're here because you smuggled yourself in, but have no criminal record, you pay a fine, and do some jail time (say 30 days + 7 days for each year you were here), then do all the above. If you have misdemeanors, you get additional jail time (on top of whatever you've served). If you have so much a one felony, you go back, and are ineligible to return. Any children born here to an illegal felon forfeit their citizenship until they are 18, and they go back with you. When they turn 18 they may apply ro reinstatement of thei citizenship rights, and must go through the aboveprobation program...provided they don't get caught smuggling themselves back into the USA...then it's so-long, farewell, auf wiedersien, goodbye for good.— Lancer248 - And if you look under the covers, you will see that Aunt Samantha's breasts are ripe and full. But Aunt Samantha's agents make her into a tart and are willing to sell not only her breasts, but all the rest, from head to valley, to all who vote their way.— PlumberJoe
- Arizona is right.
Christine, I believe fully that the front door on every house is entitled to a lock. And that the castle doctrine applies. And that is regardless of who is trespassing or what their reason.
The border is no different. Laws are laws. If they err, fix them. End of story. Or rid the Congress of those who cannot fix the immigration laws. Till then the border is sacred. No one crosses illegally and gets away with it.
And as far as the castle doctrine goes, if the police cannot be there on time to protect you, you protect yourself. If the Federal government cannot enforce the immigration laws, then the states must. Now we shall see what if any wisdom lurks in the judicial minds of the Supreme Court.— PlumberJoe
1
Popular Posts
About this blog
See Christine Flowers on Channel 6's "Inside Story" Sunday at 11:30 a.m.
Christine M. Flowers
Daily News Columnist
Email Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com Reach Christine M. at cflowers1961@yahoo.com.
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: