Pot/Kettle
June 25th, 2012 - 11:37 am
Harry Reid on today’s SCOTUS ruling:
“I’m greatly concerned AZ provision endangering innocent citizens of being detained —unless carrying papers – will lead to racial profiling,” Reid tweeted. “Ultimately, responsibility to fix nation’s broken immigration system lies w/Cong.; Rs must join Ds to forge fair, tough, practical solutions.”
There’s that word again — papers. I’ve heard people say “license” or “ID” or “passport” or even “green card.” We don’t say “papers” in this country, unless you’re a Democrat trying to make some insinuation about how the country is headed towards fascism.
Try and get a room in Vegas without “showing your papers”, Harry. Go ahead, we’ll wait.
Dear Harry Reid: For every “racial profiling” meme you spout, I raise it with a “Tammany Hall” meme of my own. Stop buying illegal immigrant votes through pandering, because you can’t get votes from regular Americans like you used to.
I agree with his point, though. Like you, Stephen, I’m a “wide gate, high fence” guy. But I think this law raises a serious “burden of proof” problem.
It seems to me a fundamental principle of liberty that in a free society, law abiding citizens have a right to be free of police harassment. I oppose this law because of the position it places U.S. citizens of Latin origin.
They have a right to walk around without having to prove that they have a right to walk around. It shouldn’t be risky for them to leave the house without their passport. If that makes immigration’s job more difficult, then immigration’s job is more difficult.
Life should be hard like that for security personnel in a free society.
We all have a right to be free from police harassment, but if illegal immigrants are caught doing something illegal (other than coming here illegally), the police should do everything in their power to make sure that A) they’re here legally and B) send them back home if they are convicted of illegal activities. I don’t really think this is about “carrying your papers with you” insamuch as it is “verify that you are who you say you are.” Legal immigrants DO have to carry their papers with them as a result.
You pretty thoroughly missed my point tere, jason. I am talking about the law abiding, you don’t find out who’s legal and who’s illegal by asking just the illegals to show their papers. And just because that word isn’t commonly used in the US doesn’t mean it’s not an appropriate word–the fact that it is an appropriate word should be a tip off that there’s a problem.
I think Reid may be right. I saw what the SC struck down. It did not say ID, if I remember right. It said documentation. And the way it was written allowed them to stop anyone they suspect and demand “documentation”.
I am torn about this. I would normally resent such an intrusion, but if that is what is necessary, for a limited time I could go with it. I doubt there is a non-renewable sunset clause, though. Better to not give them such broad powers. I think they wrote it exactly the way they meant it.
Yeah, the SC got it right, 8-0. I did not see who dissented.
(Hope I am remembering right. Just awoke.)
Kagan recused.