Arizona’s new immigration law is causing quite a stir and negative reaction among the current administration, democrats in Congress and most national media commentators and liberal press. For example:
Obama says Arizona immigration law is ‘polarizing’
(AFP) – 11 hours ago 4-28-2010, (AFP is a large Global News Bureau like AP)

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama criticized Arizona’s controversial new immigration law, which opponents fear could lead to ethnic profiling, saying it was “polarizing.” (see Hope Hype photo below).

The law, signed by the southwestern US state’s Republican Governor Jan Brewer Friday, “allows police to question and detain anyone they believe may be an illegal immigrant, even if they are not suspected of committing another crime.” The move unleashed anger on both sides of the US-Mexican border, with California lawmakers Tuesday calling for an economic boycott of Arizona and a Mexican airline warning that it may cancel more flights to the state.

“WHY CAN’T WE ALL GET ALONG” see Arizona Immigration Group Photo below:)

With the above news release on PUBLIC RECORD:

Has anybody bothered to (including President Obama, Congress and the National Media) READ THE ARIZONA IMMIGRATION BILL? (it’s a relatively short bill and I challenge you to read it)

The reason I ask this simple question is because if you or they care to look at the facts (which anybody sane would do first), then you or they would quickly see that in the third Paragraph of this bill under PROVISIONS, the following verbatim statements:

• Prohibits law enforcement officials and law enforcement agencies of this state or counties, municipalities and political subdivisions from restricting or limiting the enforcement of the federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

• Requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.

• Stipulates that if the person is arrested, the person’s immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government.

• Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution.

So this leads me to the next question: WHERE did the AFP, Pres. Obama and most of the national liberal media get the notion that this bill gives (Arizona) police the right to question and detain anyone they believe may be an illegal immigrant, even if they are not suspected of committing another crime? Even when the bill specifically states that they can only do so when under investigation and have due cause that a law has been broken or a crime committed. The real fact is that President Obama and the liberal media along with the likes of Al Sharpton have decided to turn this controversial bill into a RACIAL ISSUE and are comparing it to police harassment of poor blacks who lived in the deep south prior to the passage of the civil rights bill of 1964. This is a false and extremist reaction and their reactions are based on fantasy and not fact. This is why more than 70% of Arizona voters approve of this new immigration bill (you know, the folks who have to live there with the problem?). You can easily guess who the 30% who oppose this bill are, both philosophically and geographic descent.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is saying enforcing laws, what’s within the Arizona Immigration Law text, will stretch federal resources. Napolitano didn’t have a problem with resources last year. She had plenty of resources and so many resources, in fact, Homeland Security issued a “Rightwing Extremism” report for law enforcement to spend their energy keeping a sharp eye on veterans returning from Iraq and Afgan wars as possible threats. Their resources were so bountiful that they admitted having “no specific information” prompting this report or eluding to any threats or actual acts of violence. But they wanted energy and time spent on it anyway. Law enforcement, those preciously stretched resources, were expected to monitor and investigate citizens who didn’t embrace Obama’s “New World Order,” i.e. people who supported the Constitution, as well as anyone who owned a firearm legally, anyone who worried about an economic collapse, and anyone who embraced the sanctity of life. Of course, you don’t have to Believe me about this statement, just go to Google or Wikipedia and read it for yourselves.

By Rick

Leave a Reply