« Setting the Record Straight | Main | You Lie! »


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

If other states use Arizona as an example it will get as few results as Arizona will.

There is no problem faced by Arizona that could not be solved by a heaping helping of freedom (and limited government).

If Arizona wants less crime, end the prohibition of drugs, end the prohibition of immigrants and start eliminating government welfare whether that be health care, food stamps or education.

I don't see Republican candidates nor Democratic candidates offering solutions (that work).

I hope voters across America start taking a pinch of salt when it comes to claims to "secure the borders". Hayworth isn't going to secure the borders, McCain isn't going to secure the borders, Brewer isn't going to secure the borders, Napolitano isn't going to secure the borders and neither are Grijalva, nor Pastor, nor Mitchell, nor Kirkpatrick, nor Thomas, nor Goddard.

Freedom is the answer, no matter what the problem some people want government to solve.

Government is the problem.


If it takes a police state for people to feel free is it really freedom. I just want people to be here legally and pay taxes like the rest of us.

This is precisely why I thought the Democrats were miscalculating terribly by actually wanting to bring up an immigration reform bill in the Senate as a way to inflame Hispanic voters into casting ballots for Dems in Nobember. I think just the opposite would have happened - it would have inflamed independents and Republicans even more. Indeed, if they had followed through I believe they would have ensured their loss of the House and maybe even the Senate. Sadly it looks like they've punted, but I still hold out hope they'll reverse course (again) and bring it up.

It is only because of Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his willingness to enforce both state and federal immigration laws that we might see meaningful immigration reform. Sadly the Obama administration will continue to target Mr. Arpaio. U.S. citizens must voice our support form the rule of law and Mr. Arpaio.

The problem is not necessarily in the text of a law which includes many internal inconsistencies -- which is what each side of the argument attach themselves to justify their position. The problem is in determining how far, precisely, we want government and the police agencies to go in ridding our state of illegal immigrants. Is it enough to pass a law so hostile and open to interpretation that people will "self-deport"? Or do we have to require law enforcement to ask people if they have documents, but NOT ask them if they belong to a drug cartel, have engaged in kidnapping, or are using or selling illegal narcotics. Do we only question those we believe are illegal, or do we go farther and ask those we reasonably suspect know who is illegal. As I said, solace cannot be found in reading the law. Time will tell in the enforcement and operation of the law -- and that will be a much harder thing for us to grasp. In this case, the law potentially enables abuses rather than protect against them -- because it is contradictory.

The comments to this entry are closed.