Home Social Issues McDonnell On Arizona Immigration Law: “that brings up shades of some other...

McDonnell On Arizona Immigration Law: “that brings up shades of some other regimes”

346
14
SHARE



Bob McDonnell likens the draconian Arizona immigration law to “other regimes that were not particularly helpful to democracy and civil rights.”  McDonnell is correct in this case (for once!), but I can just imagine how his comment – comparing the Arizona immigration law to…what, apartheid? fascism? – will go over with “the base.”  Apparently, McDonnell has decided to side with Meghan McCain over John McCain on this one. Heh.

UPDATE: In related news, it looks like the superb film on the Prince William County immigration resolution, 9500 Liberty, will be opening this Friday at theaters in the Phoenix, AZ area.

9500 LIBERTY traces the rise and fall of “The Immigration Resolution” in Prince William County, Virginia. Come find out why a Virginia county repealed the same police mandate Arizona just passed. view the 9500 Liberty trailer No one wants Arizona to suffer the same negative economic impact, negative public safety impact, expensive lawsuits, and higher taxes suffered by the people of Prince William County. This weekend, you can help support an award-winning film that, if successful, will inspire Arizonans to take action, and send a message to the Arizona legislature.

  • Since I don’t like to lose a chance to praise when praise is due, this was a very welcome post to see.  

  • Elaine in Roanoke

    Yes, I agree. Perhaps Bob McDonnell has rediscovered his more “moderate” side. Of course, Cooch may want to volunteer to help defend the law in court…as a “states’ rights issue.” 🙂

  • NotJohnSMosby

    you must be completely shit nuts.  

    Here’s the slogan for Dems running in Arizona this year:  “Even Bob McDonnell Finds It Too Extreme Right-wing”.

  • DanielK

    There is obviously going to be a rift in the Republican party because they aren’t united in how to deal with this.  The law has extremely good intentions in dealing with illegal aliens.  Prince William County’s problem was nothing in comparison to what is going on in Arizona.  Then pro illegal alien crowd is bringing up issues of profiling and everything else and forget that the standard used in this law, (reasonable standard) has been upheld by the courts and first developed by an extremely liberal justice in Terry v. Ohio.  There are plenty of ways to determine if someone is an illegal alien through lawful means.  It’s too complicated for me to go into here hut for example, you can’t get a driver’s license without showing some type if “papers” at the DMV nor can you get a license if you aren’t in the country legally (in VA for example and AZ)  Now, routine traffic stop, driver has no ID, and refused to provide any information and is being evasive during routine questioning.  Suspect is arrested for the traffic violation and brought to the jail.  That information is then sent to ICE after determining they are foreign born. Remember, even without ID I can determine if someone is a licensed driver with name and date of birth and even social.  Remember, they were arrested for the traffic violation and failing to produce any ID for release on summons and then can be ranthrough ICE databases to determine their status and thus be deported.

    The fact that so many people think cops will just walk up to any Hispanic person is just pitiful and the pro illegal crowd really needs to come up win a better argument. Cops can do ther jobs effectively in accordance with the law and reasonable suspicion is a low standard but it is a legal standard accepted and embedded in American case law.  That’s my take on thei whole racial profiling argument because the example I gave earlier is a prefect instance of officers going above the reasonable suspicion standard and using probable cause.

    Why isn’t any happy that for once there is a law proposed to go after the issue of sanctuary cities? It’s odd that localities can force their law enforcement to ignore federal immigration warrants and protect previously deported felons, like in Tacoma Park for example. Localities are allowed federally wanted fugitives to walk free on there streets.  This is supported by pro illegal crowds and usually by Dem elected/left leaning city councils. (Yes, there are some Republican but a majority are Dems)  No reform efforts have ever addressed this and even in 2007 legislators were afraid to add his in which is disgraceful to law enforcement and those who work tirelessly to protect our streets from all criminals in the country legally and illegally.

    Lastly, this law won’t be upheld given the recent cases that have come before the federal courts like in Hazelton or Texas which is unfortunate but a sad truth. Immigration reform will result in more Dem losses in the mid terms as I see voters having even worse anger towards rewarding criminal behavior with citzenship than forced health care.      

  • TomPaine

    many pro-illegal alien supporters on this blog; however, many of us do believe that the 14th amendment requirements — that all persons residing either legally or illegally in this country are entitled to both due process of and equal protection of the law — until such time that as constitutional requirement is either changed or revoked.

    That belief is not pro-illegal immigrant, just pro-republican and pro-democratic. Using constitutionally-dubious state laws just to harass residents of this country is plain and simply unamerican! It is just as wrong to do that to hispanics today as it was to the Irish in the 1840s, Eastern Europeans in the 1870s, and Asians in the 1890s.

    At the same time, we need to enforce our federal immigration laws fairly and consistently and if they are inadequate to the task then they should be changed accordingly by the Congress, not by political and racial bigots at the state and local governments levels.

  • DanielK

    I use the term pro-illegal alien after seeing years of many on the left coming out against any efforts at enforcement and stepped up deportation efforts. For example, going into workplaces and going after illegally employed workers is considered inhuman by some?  Why? Also, why do liberal city councils like Tacoma Park allow for their localities to be sanctuaries to illegals to include previously deported felons?

    In Arizona, if ICE was stepping up efforts to go after illegal aliens through constitutional means and methods then I have no doubt that many people will still be up in arms over it because it’s enforcement.

    Finally, these scare tactics about harassment and everything else is really getting old.  According to that logic if an officer pulls over a car and the driver can’t show he’s a licensed driver in the state (legal residence needed for that) and is detained, found to be illegal and deported how is that harassment?  Reasonable suspicion again is a long held and valued standard used by law enforcement, we know how to use it and it’s not harassment if that standard is meant, it’s called lawful. Those illegally in this country are given due process and people need to stop complaining and introducing scare tactics because they don’t like the fact that the enforcement aspect is going to be furthered in the future.  Arizona would have been smarter in deputizing their officers under 287g which has never been successfully challenged and also punish sanctuary cities that harbor illegal aliens and handcuff their law enforcement.  287g has been successful in many localities too include Maricopa County, AZ. Remember, just because you don’t like a law doesn’t mean it’s illegal.

  • DanielK

    First off, your attempts to distort my comments are on par with my supposed “strawman arguments” you say I make.  I never once said that I propose violating civil rights and definitely don’t do it in my job.  If you think I’m willing to risk my career and own liberty willfully violating someone’s constitutional rights then I don’t know what to tell you.

    Now, I have been extremely vocal and worried about right-wing domestic terrorist groups.  They aren’t malitias, they are terrorists plan and simple and one of the many threats in our society. Now, my “many onthe left” comment which I also gave the right it’s due acknowledge meant focused on those unwilling to put enforcement of current laws over any efforts o reform.  Right wing domestic terrorists are a threat but from someone who has to deal with various threats everyday I know there are more.  Again, you still refused to acknowlege why localities should be given a pass on harboring deported felons like Tacoma Park does.  This isn’t simply someone deported but rather someone who committed a felomy offense while in the country illegally, was convicted and then deported and unlawfully returned.    

    Now, onto Sheriff Joe….Again, whether or not they had the proper training is still under investigation and I guess according to your interpretation of your comment he must already be guilty.  So much for the due process you talked about earlier huh?  Also, I will support any locality that feels the need to use 287g as a method to further their enforcement efforts of crime fighting in their course of their duties. If Arizona had done that in The first place then this debate would really be moot.  287g is lawful and constitutional and I could care less if you don’t like it because law enforcement doesn’t care if law are unpopular because until the courts overturn it or it is repealed then it will continue to be enforced.  I get guidance from the judiciary and if the judiciary allows an officer to do something after being tested and scrutinized then that is really all that matters.  The old saying of we don’t make the laws we enforce them is the proper sentiment here.  It’s not my job to interpret and enforce laws I only agree with and disregard those We don’t like. That’s what the judiciary is for and rightfully so.  

    As a Fairfax resident you should be proud that I follow the law as it is written and interpreted.  I follow what the judiciary tells me to do which is the way our executive branch works.  You are absolutely right, it doesn’t matter if I like a law or procedure…..100% correct but the only thing that matters is what the judiciary and the Supreme Court says about a law iand it’s constitutionality. 287g has not been successfully challenged and therefore constitutional and thus deserves the support of everyone because like many laws it was given it’s due process in the judiciary and upheld.  The wonderful thing about this country is that we have laws we disagree with but in the end we are still held to them.

  • DanielK

    I wonder what of my comments in this debate show I am a loose cannon on civil rights?  Unlike you, I am held to an extremely high standard when it involves constitutional rights through my occupation. As I said prior, I can be held civilly and criminally liable for violating an individuals civil rights in the course of my duties.  Now, tell me how I would be a loose cannon?  

    I have simply and intelligently told you and anyone else reading that the judiciary is the one who decided if laws are unconstitutional and not anyone officer or deputy.  They are the ones responsible for it.  If I follow the laws, tests and standards then I am doing my job. I think any defense attorney who say my previous comments would recognize that.  If a law is deemed unconstitutional by the courts or a pratices is considered like in search and seizure then we change our pratices. Plain and simple.  Also, I  have never once said that anyone arrested or facing deportation preceedings shouldn’t be given full due process of the law and legal rights afforded to them.  (I’d like them if I were in their position.)

    Also, Sheriff Joe isn’t my hero.  I don’t have heros. I am typing everything from an iPhone and my spell check can’t get me even close to last name spelling so I leave it at that. Until the investigation is done we don’t know what happened and until the investigation has proven those credible sources accurate in their findings then it is all speculation.  

    Finally, I agree the law isn’t going to be upheld in the courts.  As I noted previously, the federal courts have upheld these type of efforts and the best example of the was Hazelton, PA.  Unconstitutional, maybe but I’ve spoken to enough informed people to say it could bring up interesting arguments and possibly new tests in this region of law.

    **I also apologize for any typos and such since my typing skills off my phone are lacking**