Thread: Viewpoints: Tide is turning in favor of Arizona immig. law

Viewpoints
Tide is turning in favor of Arizona immigration law
by Robert Robb, Republic columnist - May. 15, 2010 05:33 PM
The Arizona Republic .

From the political notebook:

• I sense that the tide is turning in terms of national reaction to Arizona's new immigration law.

When the law was passed, opponents reacted swiftly and fiercely and spun it as a civil-rights issue.

Opponents charged that Arizona was relegating Latinos to second-class status. The law was racist and xenophobic. Allusions to police states, the segregated South and even Nazi Germany abounded.

It's become clear, however, that most Americans see this principally as a law-enforcement issue. A steady stream of national polls consistently show the same thing: A solid majority of Americans (usually around 60 percent) believe that local law enforcement should be doing the kind of things the Arizona law provides. Moreover, a solid majority of Americans also believe that Arizona was right to take action on its own, rather than wait for the federal government.

That changes the game. It's easy for critics to depict a small state as a bunch of racist rubes. Harder to do that for the entire country.

• Attorney General Eric Holder's admission, in a House committee hearing, that he hasn't read the Arizona law is also likely to be a turning point.

Holder has denounced the Arizona law. He has said that the federal government would be closely watching its implementation and will consider suing to keep it from going into effect. All without actually reading the bill.

Holder's admission was both breathtaking and unsurprising.

Opponents of the bill routinely and grossly mischaracterize its provisions. Even national news accounts are far more often inaccurate than accurate in describing them.

I suspect that among those denouncing the law and Arizona, Holder is more the rule than the exception.

• Meanwhile, immigration-rights groups, whose top priority is legal status for those currently in the country illegally, are touting their own polls to encourage Democrats to get bold on immigration.

According to them, comprehensive immigration reform, including legalization, is an electoral winner. In fact, they claim that even legalization standing alone, not buried as part of ostensibly tough border and workplace enforcement, is a winner.

It's clear that Democratic politicians actually running for office don't believe this. Almost universally, their strategy is to allow as little daylight as possible between them and their Republican opponents on immigration.

Arizona's Democratic candidates are a good example. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, running for re-election in southern Arizona, is stressing her call to deploy the National Guard to the border. Ann Kirkpatrick, defending her seat in northern Arizona, has introduced a bill providing for an additional 3,500 border guards and denounced the calls to boycott Arizona because of the new state immigration law.

Harry Mitchell, running for re-election in the East Valley, will tell you he supports comprehensive immigration reform - if you ask. But what he voluntarily tells voters is all the enforcement stuff he favors. Jon Hulburd, the impressive Democratic candidate for John Shadegg's open seat, has a tough-as-nails statement on immigration on his website that doesn't even use the word "comprehensive" or refer to legalization at all. In fact, it flatly embraces the new John McCain position: "No discussion of immigration reform is possible without first addressing real border security."

Presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee Terry Goddard is stressing his support for making illegal border crossings a federal felony.

This is all because Democratic politicians understand an electoral dynamic that the immigration-rights groups don't: What a majority thinks isn't as consequential as what a majority of those who care about the issue thinks. In American politics, intensity matters.

[I deleted part of column not dealing with immigration.]

Reach Robb at robert.robb@ arizonarepublic.com or 602- 444-8472.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... -robb.html

I suspect that among those denouncing the law and Arizona, Holder is more the rule than the exception.

LOL! In other words it's an eloquent way of saying the mans a complete dolt - and so are the others against SB1070!

When the truth comes out about the AZ immigration bill, I predict every state in the country will want it, will pass it, and enforce it. Besides, now that interstate boycotts are on the table, we'll just boycott every state that doesn't pass it.

Originally Posted by Judy

When the truth comes out about the AZ immigration bill, I predict every state in the country will want it, will pass it, and enforce it. Besides, now that interstate boycotts are on the table, we'll just boycott every state that doesn't pass it.

YES!!! Every state that does not get on the enforcement boat....BOYCOTT THEM. We only have to find out what their particular weak spot may be...and hit em. And those that are the last to pass these bills ....not only will they be boycotted, but they will be flooded with illegals attempting to escape the states who do it first. This is going to be a GREAT SUMMER!!

Here is the link to credible polling that shows wide and strong support for AZ's new law:

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-198137.html

Originally Posted by redpony353

Originally Posted by Judy

When the truth comes out about the AZ immigration bill, I predict every state in the country will want it, will pass it, and enforce it. Besides, now that interstate boycotts are on the table, we'll just boycott every state that doesn't pass it.

YES!!! Every state that does not get on the enforcement boat....BOYCOTT THEM. We only have to find out what their particular weak spot may be...and hit em. And those that are the last to pass these bills ....not only will they be boycotted, but they will be flooded with illegals attempting to escape the states who do it first. This is going to be a GREAT SUMMER!!

YES IT IS GOING TO BE A TERRIFIC SUMMER!

I wish you were right Judy but I don't see it that way.

We now have the formal announcement of the ACLU in conjunction with other groups taking the state to court over the law. Our state Attorney General is Terry Goddard, a career politician who is running for governor. He has spoken out against the law several times. He is a liberal Democrat who has done good things even if you don't like his politics. So he is against the law but forced to defend it. I know where he lives though. (grin) And so do lots of illegals.

In my life experience the law is mostly just ink on paper and rarely enforced. Even if we get the law upheld - which is a possibility because the world is watching, there will be continual legal challenges bankrupting the already broke state.

Then enforcement is - well, who can afford it? The Mexican legal authorities at the border have been on the payroll of the smugglers for decades and have often engaged our people in armed conflict. What if Mexico decides to have a border war over this? The people of Mexico could decide without their government's permission. Especially after we start sending back more than they can handle. Especially after so many are no longer receiving the money sent back there. We could have food terrorism coming in the produce. We could have daily re-enactments of that scene from "Born In East LA" where so many flood the border that the Border Patrol just runs and hides.

I haven't been watching the world on this issue. When Italy deports a bunch of Algerian boat people do they shoot themselves in the foot with endless legal challenges about it? I kind of doubt it.

They are challenging us on our own principles of past immigration and what we claim we stand for as a nation. In recent years it seems that everything is about image, not fact. Our politicians who don't have their feet on the ground, don't live on the same streets as we do, do not have the same competition for few jobs really have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. They care about U.S. image though. We have a tough uphill battle and I don't know who is in our corner.

Hopefully people like Al Sharpton are walking away because they now realize this issue is much bigger than them and that to make it about race ought to get THEM deported.

Originally Posted by sarum

I wish you were right Judy but I don't see it that way.

We now have the formal announcement of the ACLU in conjunction with other groups taking the state to court over the law. Our state Attorney General is Terry Goddard, a career politician who is running for governor. He has spoken out against the law several times. He is a liberal Democrat who has done good things even if you don't like his politics. So he is against the law but forced to defend it. I know where he lives though. (grin) And so do lots of illegals.

In my life experience the law is mostly just ink on paper and rarely enforced. Even if we get the law upheld - which is a possibility because the world is watching, there will be continual legal challenges bankrupting the already broke state.

Then enforcement is - well, who can afford it? The Mexican legal authorities at the border have been on the payroll of the smugglers for decades and have often engaged our people in armed conflict. What if Mexico decides to have a border war over this? The people of Mexico could decide without their government's permission. Especially after we start sending back more than they can handle. Especially after so many are no longer receiving the money sent back there. We could have food terrorism coming in the produce. We could have daily re-enactments of that scene from "Born In East LA" where so many flood the border that the Border Patrol just runs and hides.

I haven't been watching the world on this issue. When Italy deports a bunch of Algerian boat people do they shoot themselves in the foot with endless legal challenges about it? I kind of doubt it.

They are challenging us on our own principles of past immigration and what we claim we stand for as a nation. In recent years it seems that everything is about image, not fact. Our politicians who don't have their feet on the ground, don't live on the same streets as we do, do not have the same competition for few jobs really have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. They care about U.S. image though. We have a tough uphill battle and I don't know who is in our corner.

Hopefully people like Al Sharpton are walking away because they now realize this issue is much bigger than them and that to make it about race ought to get THEM deported.

If Mexico wants a border war, then they will get it. We can no longer afford illegal immigration...not financially and not socially. The time has come to put a stop to this insanity. And as far as enforcing the law.....if the people stand up and demand it, then it will be done. We have been lax about expecting our legislators to do their job, so they didnt do it. We must be more dilligent in the future.

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-5264--0-0.html

Originally Posted by sarum

I wish you were right Judy but I don't see it that way.

We now have the formal announcement of the ACLU in conjunction with other groups taking the state to court over the law. Our state Attorney General is Terry Goddard, a career politician who is running for governor. He has spoken out against the law several times. He is a liberal Democrat who has done good things even if you don't like his politics. So he is against the law but forced to defend it. I know where he lives though. (grin) And so do lots of illegals.

In my life experience the law is mostly just ink on paper and rarely enforced. Even if we get the law upheld - which is a possibility because the world is watching, there will be continual legal challenges bankrupting the already broke state.

Then enforcement is - well, who can afford it? The Mexican legal authorities at the border have been on the payroll of the smugglers for decades and have often engaged our people in armed conflict. What if Mexico decides to have a border war over this? The people of Mexico could decide without their government's permission. Especially after we start sending back more than they can handle. Especially after so many are no longer receiving the money sent back there. We could have food terrorism coming in the produce. We could have daily re-enactments of that scene from "Born In East LA" where so many flood the border that the Border Patrol just runs and hides.

I haven't been watching the world on this issue. When Italy deports a bunch of Algerian boat people do they shoot themselves in the foot with endless legal challenges about it? I kind of doubt it.

They are challenging us on our own principles of past immigration and what we claim we stand for as a nation. In recent years it seems that everything is about image, not fact. Our politicians who don't have their feet on the ground, don't live on the same streets as we do, do not have the same competition for few jobs really have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. They care about U.S. image though. We have a tough uphill battle and I don't know who is in our corner.

Hopefully people like Al Sharpton are walking away because they now realize this issue is much bigger than them and that to make it about race ought to get THEM deported.

The ACLU has to file a suit. When they do, lets see what it claims, and go from there.