According to Miss Oklahoma of last nights Miss USA pageant, when asked as her interview question, Miss Oklahoma responded that she felt that with the recent Arizona law issues, that Arizona has the right to make laws with respect to immigration and that the whole issue is within the rights and powers of the states to handle. For video see below:
What I was interested with was that the crowd seemed to agree with her. They boo'ed the question initially, but cheered her answer as this being an issue of states rights. I was a little surprised that there was such a popular response in support of states rights.
Secondly, I was surprised that they offered such a loaded question to a beauty pageant contestant. Not meaning to insult beauty pageants, it hardly seems like the platform for lively debate on such a heated issue. But then again, she couldn't answer "world peace" so that was nice to see.
The 13 colonies insisted on a Bill of Rights in the Constitution because they wanted protection not only from the federal government but from state governments as well for those rights they considered most important. No state has the right to enact a law that deprives its citizens of their rights under the Constitution (as amended) and that's what Arizona has done. We have Republican lawmakers all over the country and in Congress proposing laws that abrogate the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights and the so-called Constitution fanatics in the teabag movement don't say a word. The teabaggers give hypocrisy a bad name.
ReplyDeleteCharles you are ill informed. Have you read the legislation? Nowhere in there does it infringe on individual rights. It simply creates a state law to enable state law enforcers to do what was already in the federal book of laws that the federal government was not enforcing. It's a requirement to show indentification. Do we not show identification for everything? the DMV, to cash or deposit a check, to apply for a job, to use a credit card? Where is the crime?
ReplyDeleteThe crime is that American citizens do NOT have to show identification to simply move about within their own country, except if they happen to look Hispanic and are traveling in Arizona. Yes we show identification to perform certain tasks (at our own discretion), but now if you look "wrong" and can't prove you're a citizen, you are subject to arrest.
ReplyDeleteDon't you find it strange that people who talk so high and mighty about personal freedom are so willing to turn the country into a police state?
There is nothing in the legislation that indicates that only hispanic looking people will be required to show id. And yes, as an American CITIZEN I am willing to show my identification if asked. If someone is not a citizen and is upset because they have to show ID because they are not a citizen, then wouldn't that be addressing the problem? That is the purpose of it, to determine citizenship and take action against people in the United States illegally. Why don't you just say what you really are, a lefty who wants amnesty for all illegals in the U.S. in order to secure your votes for your leftist agendas. I mean really Charles, be honest. That is what it is about isn't it? Because where is the violation of human rights to show identification. In fact there is racial profiling training to prevent that very thing written into the legislation. Like I said, if an officer asks to check my id to determine my legal right to reside in the US I am more than willing to show it. Don't be a nitwit.
ReplyDeleteI want to reiterate one more time that there is nothing in the legislation requiring hispanic people only to show id. So what is all the fervor for? Is there so little faith in our public servants to sustain and uphold the law? If that's the case then their ought to be outcry on other pieces of legislation that do in fact restrict or limit, or infringe on American citizen's rights, such as the Patriot Act. And that is legal American citizens I am referring to.
ReplyDeleteCharles, I fail to see your argument against the Arizona legislation as an issue of constiutionality let alone a violation of states rights.
ReplyDeleteThe law doctrine of probable cause is a well defined and protected matter of the law. The police are much too busy to simply walk around asking people for ID hoping to nab an illegal alien. Even if they were that bored they still need probably cause to do so.
But law enforcement has the right to search a vehicle and enter truly private space if there is probable cause. Enough lawsuits have come out defending and defining this right that law enforcement is not going to overstep the bounds of law.
And even if someone was asked to see their ID because they were Mexican, what violation is there? What offense has taken place? Is there property damage as a result of asking for ID? Are there lost wages because they were asked to show ID? Is it slanderous to ask for ID? Is there pain and suffering for being asked to show ID?
constituionalist and tea party people do believe in freedoms but not freedom from punishment or consequence. If someone is here committing a crime them that law should be enforced. I still maintain that asking for an ID is far from cruel and unusual punishment.
Charles no LEGAL citizen or immigrant will have trouble providing ID. Even if you don't have your ID with you they can look you up by your SS#. All kids are given one at birth and all immigrants are required to get one as well, so as long as they are here LEGALLY they will have no problem. If for any reason you cannot remember your SS# you can give your address and they look up citizens using that address in the DL and ID system.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, being of Mexican descent, I do not fear the law in Arizona, I am happy they asked and proud to prove I am an American citizen.
As for the Miss USA pageant, I wished the Amazon chick had won.
ReplyDeleteCharles D your comments are patently ludicrous. First off, why call demonstrators tea-baggers? If that is what you call them, then I suppose that left-wing protestors should be called fisters! Any who gives hypocrisy a good name? What a nonsensical idea.
ReplyDeleteI like how you mention the Bill of Rights and protection from the federal government when it comes to creating lawlessness in allowing uncontrolled immigration into this country. You then admit in our discourse in previous posts that you do not care for the 9th and 10th amendments, two from the original bill of rights. Those two serve the exact purpose you mentioned - protection from a federal government.
My question to you Charles -
Why do you like to cite the Bill of Rights in your attempt to justify apathy toward illegal immigration, but you dont like when the intent of that same Bill of Rights is to limit the federal government to specific enumerated functions, leaving all others to States and People?
Why cite a bill as a defense against federal power when you have already come out as being against some of its main provisions?
So what exactly constitutes probable cause to challenge a person's citizenship? What are the observable differences between native-born and naturalized American citizens and persons here illegally? Hmmm, I wonder...
ReplyDeletePahoran, you are right that I shouldn't use the Bill of Rights to defend one position when I don't care for all 10 of the amendments. I was using a bit of a verbal short cut and it was not appropriate. I don't believe Amendment 10 is relevant anymore and I don't believe that the NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment accurately reflects the founder's intent. I would be happy to repeal both. However, I believe amendments 1 and 3 through 9 are absolutely essential to liberty. I don't see that as a contradiction. The founders were not infallible but they were pretty darn smart.