Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« Montini is Right...The Media Are Idiots | Main | Two Out of Three Ain't Bad. »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

And the best part about it is that the latest coverage seems to be about the economic impact of SB 1070 on Arizona and how not only will our economy suffer, but our reputation has taken a hit as well.

So, let me get this straight: the media, with the Republic leading the charge, pushed a bunch of misleading (at best) and inaccurate information about SB1070. Let's pretend most of the country is against it and thinks we're backward and wants to boycott our state. Who is at fault?

An honest response from the Republic would be to admit that they got it wrong, they published inaccurate information, and any damage to Arizona's reputation is a result of their irresponsible actions. Yeah, that'll happen.

Obviously, we know the truth is that most Americans are supportive of what we are doing here. That said, people are being completely disingenuous who argue against SB 1070 and claim that damage to Arizona's reputation proves SB 1070 was a bad move.

RgP,
Do you have a job?

How long do you think it takes to type up one of these responses?

Yeah, I have a job -- it's the sleep that suffers if I spend too much time on my addiction to politics.

In what respects is the Valdez excerpt inaccurate?

@RgP

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

For one ... There is nothing in SB 1070 requiring US Citizens to "carry proper "papers"".

Let's start with that, that is inaccurate.

No one of normal intelligence could fail to see that this law will affect Latinos exclusively or that it will cause trouble for many more innocent people than for illegal immigrants. The law is openly racist and profoundly ugly. It's another shameful display from Arizona's GOP.

Its proponents say it's just about keeping us safe. Everyone everywhere wants that, but there are many ways to do it, including ways that don't cause injustice to innocent people. Doing it in a way that persecutes people whose only crime is to look Hispanic is totally unacceptable.

Bowers is just trying to obfuscate and make excuses for his racism. Sorry, Mr. Bowers, it just doesn't work for me.

@Tod,

I think your comment was actually directed at Johnny Utah.

@ Mr. Baker,

Like many before you, you assume the truth of your ultimate conclusion. I must not be of normal intelligence, so help me out here. "Openly racist," "persecutes people whose only crime is to look Hispanic." I have yet to hear one argument (from you or anyone) that explains how this law is racist. Perhaps you also failed to read the law.

Crying "racist" and promoting lies and misinformation about the law is what is truly shameful. Attempting to stoke fear among hispanics that they will be harassed because of the color of their skin should be "totally unacceptable" to all of us.

I would get into more detail here, as I have in previous posts here on EP, but I have a job...
(That's for you, Mr. Concernicus. By the way, I know who you are, and I know you don't know how to properly use a laundry chute.)

Tod:

If a law enforcement officer has a reasonable suspicion that you are an illegal alien, he is required to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine whether or not you are here legally. That means asking you to produce documentation of your legal status ("papers," figuratively speaking).

What Linda Valdez is saying is that Hispanics are the group most likely to fall under suspicion of being here illegally. So, you may have a situation in which Hispanic citizens (and legal residents), by virtue of their ethnicity, are asked to demonstrate their legal status by producing documentation (which, admittedly, can be as simple as a driver's license).

That's her concern: lawful residents of Hispanic origin being asked to produce documentation under circumstances in which a lawful Anglo resident would not be asked to do so.

I think there's a possibility of that happening, so I don't think she's necessarily being inaccurate or misleading.

SAJU:
Did you know that Arizona's demographic is 30% Hispanic (and that's only including those here legally)? That means that if you were to go out and talk to four people randomly on the street, one of them is bound to be of Hispanic origin. Some areas are even much more likely. If a police officer used race or skin color as his/her major indication of illegal immigration status, he/she would be wrong almost every time. I think police officers are smart enough not to walk around asking every Hispanic-looking person for papers. I don't believe it is the otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrant we are after here.

RgP: You would bring that up every chance you get in a public setting. Haha...

One quick thing:
I'm not saying that the law even allows for officers to ask random Hispanic-looking people for papers. I imagine that would be a quick trip to a suspension...especially after all of the debate the law has produced.

Here is the talking point (lie) that (Valdez) used:(see caps).

'The broad "ANTI-IMMIGRANT" bill passed by the Legislature this week makes it a crime to be in the country illegally and gives local cops the job of demanding documentation if they have reasonable suspicion someone lacks it'.

Anti-immigrant does not equal 'Anti-illegal immigrant', the open borders crowd loves to dismiss the 'illegal' part of this issue. Guess what? Lie all you want Linda nobody is falling for it.

Obviously this has really ht a nerve, so the open borders crowd is telling anyone who listens how effective they think it will be.

Just remember, the border WILL be ClOSED, by the legal citizens via the ballot box. (and sooner than anyone thinks)

The nut graph does not mention the private right of action afforded to citizens to sue local governments if they have a policy that restricts officers from enforcing immigration law to the fullest extent. It doesn't because that right is seemingly inconsistent with some of the bill's protections ("when practicable" "not interfering with investigation"). In other words, the bill is sloppy, internally inconsistent, subject to massive leaps of interpretation, and creates an atmosphere of distrust and division which does not help sort out the active and violent criminals from those who are just trying to get by - which is a key distinction. Supporters are now lighting on the phrase "it woke up the federal government to act." Ok. Yup. Probably right. So you are now acknowledging this bill was intended to be a political provocation, and now you're surprised that people got provoked?

At what point do we refer to the new law as ARS "12345" instead of "SB 1070"?

The comments to this entry are closed.