Follow PoliBlog on Facebook
Follow me on TwitterIt strikes me as noteworthy that concerns over aspects of Arizona’s new immigration bill are not limited to solely the leftward side of US politics.
To wit, Marco Rubio, Tea Party favorite and considered to be a conservative’s conservative had the following to say (Marco Rubio speaks out on AZ immigration law):
While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.
Indeed.
(Emphasis mine.)
The views expressed in the comments are the sole responsibility of the person leaving those comments. They do not reflect the opinion of the author of PoliBlog, nor have they been vetted by the author.
April 27th, 2024 at 12:48 pm
[...] tip- Poliblog SHARETHIS.addEntry({ title: "Florida Senate candidate has qualms about Arizona immigration law", [...]
April 28th, 2024 at 9:54 am
Even Tancredo has issues with the law.
April 28th, 2024 at 9:55 am
Even Tom Tancredo (former Congressman, former presidential candidate on an anti-illegal kick) has issues with the law per a story from ILW.com.
April 28th, 2024 at 12:36 pm
Yup. In fact, I noted that in another post on the law in question.
April 28th, 2024 at 1:34 pm
I'm a CA resident, and I actually sent this guy a campaign contribution! If he can't man-up and recognize the importance of AZ Governor Brewer's legislation, I want nothing to do with him. When will the American people acknowledge the reality of what the Latino movemnet is doing to our country? Do we really want to be reduced to third-world status? Is this what we envision for our children and grandchildren? Why did our founders go to the lengths they did to write the Constitution if we would eventually spit in their faces for their efforts? The U.S. is a SOVEREIGN country, meaning that we citizens are GUARANTEED secure borders and protection for foreign invasion. Are we really going to sit passively and watch our once bold, beatiful country slip into oblivion? One would think not, but then…..
April 30th, 2024 at 3:24 am
I just finished watching a C-Span interview with one of the architects of the law. He was a (R) legislator and 20 year+ law enforcement (finished a detective). It was quite informative, both in the nature of the law and the intent, and even insights into its crafting. In many ways it reassured me about some of the controversial points, but I will continue to have to watch how it is enforced (profiling and intimidation, etc). The state law mirrors federal law fairly closely, actually, and in many cases puts more safety nets in place to protect the public from overreach.
Among my resolved issues: no one is required to carry “papers” (which is actually WEAKER then federal law for immigrants). If, though, they voluntarily offer over papers (such as driver's license) they are automatically assumed to be legal. Also, this law does not empower immigration checks in and of themselves…they must be done in with probable cause, generally in association with already being under suspicion (i.e. rolling through a stop sign and ending up with a seat belt ticket as well). Racial profiling is specifically illegal as a sole basis for a check, as any trained officer already would know. It has also been pointed out by many that racial profiling is also completely impractical, as AZ is roughly a third Latino. Many people in large majority white populations fail to realize that AZ officers neither want to or are capable of profiling such a large population. Police chiefs, during the crafting process, specifically demanded certain features that would safe-guard their officers from potential pit-falls. Examples: immigration status checks cannot interfere with pursuing a crime (i.e. illegal immigrants are free to report crime without fear of reprisal) and must be abandoned if there are no offered papers and no probable cause, or if any other crime comes up (i.e. police get a crime-in-progress call, or a speeder passes by, etc.).
In fact, my main concern now is that anyone who knowingly transports or harbors illegal immigrants is also guilty of a crime. While this sounds good, and Lord knows human trafficking is a deadly serious issue around the border, I struggle to condemn, say, a priest for helping a family. I understand and respect AZ's right to make their own laws to deal with their state's problems, though. IL doesn't have nearly the same issues: border enforcement; border drug running; human trafficking (Phoenix is apparently a national hot spot); immigration- and drug-related kidnapping and murder. That is how the state system is supposed to work: each handle their own issues in the best way their people see fit (and AZ public overwhelming likes this bill) with little federal interference (in this case, the fed not doing its job).
April 30th, 2024 at 2:40 pm
[...] PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Rubio Has Qualms about AZ Law [...]