Yesterday several Republicans came out against Arizona’s new immigration law. They are Senator Lindsey Graham, Florida senatorial candidate Marco Rubio, Governor Jeb Bush and Karl Rove. Each had reasons for their opposition.
Lindsey Graham:
CBS News: Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) said Tuesday he thinks Arizona's new immigration law is unconstitutional and that "it doesn't represent the best way forward" when it comes to addressing illegal immigration.He added, however, that the law reflects "what good people will do" when they are left with no other options.
Speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing today with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Graham said Congress eventually needs to tackle immigration reform but that it will be "impossible" to achieve reform until citizens in states like Arizona feel that the borders are secure.
"In this environment there is no hope of it passing," he said.
Graham did not say on what grounds Arizona’s law is unconstitutional and considering Graham’s past, I am not too sure he knows why either. What we do know is that he, like his buddy McCain, is all about the amnesty. What Graham did get right though is that until the border is secure Americans are not going to be happy with any suggestions for immigration reform.
Marco Rubio:
The Buzz: Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America’s blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. The American people have every right to expect the federal government to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration. It has become all too easy for some in Washington to ignore the desperation and urgency of those like the citizens of Arizona who are disproportionately wrestling with this problem as well as the violence, drug trafficking and lawlessness that spills over from across the border.
States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.
I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.
Rubio adds a new concern, the pressure the law puts on law enforcement with “reasonable suspicion”. Given the national attention this law has received, Arizona police officers will have to dot every “i” and cross every “t” to make sure they do not become the poster child for racial profiling. Despite overblown claims from the left, I think for this reason, police officers will use this law very carefully.
Rubio also raises the very same concern I had about giving the government an inch and them taking a mile. After watching Congress blatantly steamroll the public to pass ObamaCare, I think we should all be cautious about giving government new authorities.
Jeb Bush:
Politico: […]"I think it creates unintended consequences," he said in a telephone interview with POLITICO Tuesday. "It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well."
The measure, signed into law last Friday, would require police to check the immigration status of any individuals they reasonably suspect are illegal immigrants and arrest them if they can't prove legal status.
Bush said he understood the anger that prompted the bill, but that immigration should remain a federal issue.
"I don't think this is the proper approach," he said.[…]
Jeb mirrors Rubio a tiny bit, in regards to the pressure the law puts on the law enforcement. However, Jeb is being a little disingenuous when he makes the law sound like police will just pull people over they suspect of being illegal. Section 2B of the law makes clear that the police must first have lawful contact with the individual (e.g. you get caught speeding or the police come to your house because of a disturbance), then if they have reasonable suspicion can they ask about your immigration status. Jeb, like his brother George, is an amnesty guy.
Karl Rove:
Orlando Sentinel: Rove, speaking to a crowd of about 500 at the mammoth senior community as part of a national book tour, said that while the law is understandable, it does present difficulties. The law has become the nation’s toughest anti-immigration measure.
“I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,” he said to the standing-room-only crowd at the Colony Cottage Recreation Center. “I wished they hadn’t passed it, in a way.”
Still, Rove, who was promoting his book Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight, objected to comments by critics including President Barack Obama that the law will lead to problems such as racial profiling by police.
“These are modern police forces that respect the rights of people in their communities,” Rove said. “They’re going to do it on the basis of reasonable suspicion that these people are here illegally, like they’re driving a car with a Mexican license plate or they can’t speak English or they don’t have a drivers license.”
However, Rove said there may be other ways to tackle the issue.
“At the end of the day … I think there are better tools,” he said. “But I understand where it’s coming from.”
Rove too claims the law is unconstitutional, but also does not say how. I am not sure how it is unconstitutional since the reasonable suspicion part doesn’t kick in until after the police have lawful contact with a person.
The objections raised by the four of these men can all be tied to political reasons. In Rubio’s case it is because he is running in a state with a huge Latino population. In the cases of Graham, Bush and Rove, they are all thinking like Democrats, that amnesty will buy Hispanic votes for their party.
Via: Memeorandum
Via: CBS News
Via: Tambabay.com
Via: Politico
Via: AZLegal.gov
Via: The Orlando Sentinel
Posts
16 comments:
These GOPers should spend less time criticizing AZ for picking up the feds' slack and more time criticizing the feds for not doing their duty to defend the border.
Well great for them. Now they can all shut up and let Arizona stop immigration in their own state. No one asked them.
I'm thinking the federal level politicians are waffling because they are too worried about their political careers and the power they lose when states take care of immigration problems. They know that the Arizona law will expose how the Federal Government has failed, especially since the law is almost a carbon copy of existing United States laws. If they had enforced the laws we have, the illegal immigration problem would have never reached the current level.
In a perfect world, they'd be applauding, and supporting, the efforts of Arizona.
I'm most interested, of these, in Jeb Bush. What does he think is a viable alternative (the feds haven't done a thing to help Arizona, so simply saying it's a federal issue is rather . . . well, moronic.)? Rubio, I'm not surprised about, and I don't think in his case (or in Jeb Bush's actually) that it's about votes. It probably is with Rove, though, and Graham's a sickening prog RINO, so no surprise there.
Both Rubio and Jeb Bush have histories of sympathetic (even liberal) approaches to illegal immigration. They are both intertwined with Latino communities, and that's a good thing. But I think it's time they both came up with something that would actually work. Amnesty will not unless we close the borders.
Honestly, I'd be all for amnesty for the illegals in this country now, so long as they are law abiding and working, on the condition that we'd never have any further issues with illegals (i.e. the border is closed, existing laws enforced, and illegals deported). That's not going to happen, though. And it's quite true that giving amnesty once creates more problems--Reagan did it, and look what that got us . . . an avalanche of illegals (it's not crazy to imagine that they may have hoped that we'd do another version of amnesty).
since when is enforcing the law wrong, the worst case is the law stops sanctuary cities in Arizona.
"The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed."
http://tinyurl.com/2fmj23y
It sounds like they are just enforcing the already existent law...?
But I am sure these four are coming out in opposition for the reasons you stated. They are either running or plan to run.
I heard on Morning Joe that a majority of African Americans and (legal) Hispanics are against illegal immigration and were against Bush's amnesty bill.
I would think if Republicans handled this in the right way, they would benefit. Who exactly is against cracking down on illegals? It seems to me it's white democrats and illegal immigrants.
Rubio is Hispanic, Jeb is married to a Hispanic. Graham is obviously an illegal alien sympathizer and so is Rove. The fact that they don't like the law is no surprise to me.
I love all these idiot pundits and politicians saying that police officers will start accosting people, asking for "their papers." It would be hilarious, if it wasn't so infuriating.
Enforcing the law is wrong when it impede's an individual's civil rights. This is a hate law, plain and simple.
Russel Pierce, who sponsored the bill, is in bed with white supremacists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsHi6_l1XzA
With all of the resources available to us, we couldn't enact a law that didn't target those that look Hispanic?
Jan Brewer should be a leader, not a follower. As governor of Arizona, she should have taken a close look at that law, and said "hey, we're opening ourselves to lawsuits and boycotts. We're $2,000,000,000 in debt, and we can't afford something like this." It's not like it hasn't happened before, with the MLK Jr. scandal.
So keep on keeping on folks, but seriously I hope you're for smarter laws than this one.
Right Klik:
Exactly, laws like Arizona's would not be necessary is the Federal government was doing what it was suppose to. Put the blame where it belongs on Washington.
Liz:
You are correct so many people are giving their opinion on Arizona's law, but it is Arizonians who have to live with the consequences. They created a law that best suits their needs.
Jess:
The Feds have been working the illegal immigration angle for their own benefit, while the American people have suffered the consequences. People are finally fed up and are handling the matter themselves. Look for this law to spread to other border states.
Fuzzy:
I do understand that Jeb and Rubio's ties to the Hispanic community makes them soft on the issue, and you are right amnesty is not the full answer.
Graham and Rove are strictly playing political games. They should be ashame of themselves.
I too could go for amnesty but only if certain conditions are met:
1. the border is secure.
2. time is given to find and deport any illegal alien who commit crimes in the US.
3. a hefty fine is paid before amnesty is given. That money goes directly towards our debt.
Ron K:
There is so many misconceptions about this law, all because no one takes the time to actually read it.
If you read it, it is pretty clear that any illegal who doesn't break any laws, will pretty much go undetected.
trinity:
It is awful how these people carry on. The Arizona bill is only 17 pages long and light on the legalize. There is no reason to go around acting like this is Nazi Germany.
Anonymous:
I accidentally deleted your comment by mistake at first. I copied and reposted it again tonight, thus the time difference.
Now in regards to your statement. I have to ask, have you READ the bill? If so would you please show me the section that violates civil rights?
Here is the link to the bill http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
It is only 17 pages long, so you won't have any hunting to do.
Anonymous, if the enforcement of the new Arizona law leads to civil rights violations, I agree, it's a problem. However, there is nothing at all to suggest this will be the case, nothing except liberal lunacy writ large. The bill, and you should read it as Clifton suggests, does not allow stopping people simply to ask for their green card or proof of citizenship. It does, however, extend the right to the Arizona law enforcement to ask for this if someone is stopped, arrested, or otherwise engaged in suspicious behavior. Suspicious behavior, however, has not been amended in the law. It's the same bar that it's always been.
IF there is a civil rights problem that stems from this, and that means the police themselves break the law by harassing people who "look" Hispanic and for no other cause, than I'm with you. First, though, let's see how many cops want to through away their careers, pensions, and freedom to harass a few "brown" people. K?
Post a Comment