Arizona has been in the news lately, most of it critical and some of it vicious. Seems a lot of people, including those with no right to be here, have declared the 48th state to be racist, fear mongering, xenophobic, and probably fattening.
But there’s more.
Recent legislation has ended the requirement for adults to gain a permit for discreet carry in most places, and authorized such carry where liquor is served--as long as the patron does not imbibe. Both proposals drew entirely predictable bleating: blood in the streets and on the bar room floor. It is ever thus with firearms legislation, despite decades of evidence to the contrary. In fact, history demonstrates that CCW either diminishes violent crime or has no effect—the latter from the National Academy of Sciences in 2004.
Here’s a bit of Arizona lore.
In 1910, two years before statehood, Arizona Territory was represented at the national rifle matches in Ohio. However, the team had no flag for the event, and there wasn’t much time to produce one. So, aboard the eastbound train, the captain of the rifle team consulted with Carl Hayden, who became the state’s senior senator. Mrs. Hayden plied needle and thread to produce Colonel C.W. Harris’ design, and the first time the red, yellow, blue and gold emblem took the breeze was oe’r the snapple-crack of musketry.
Arizona has been gun country ever since—probably with more national and world-class shooters per capita than anyplace on earth.
Now, on to immigration.
Senate Bill 1070 passed with a 70 percent approval rating among all Arizonans, of whom about one-third are of Hispanic ancestry. Since the politically-inspired hysteria began, 1070’s statewide approval dropped to 52 percent (based on tourism fallout) before climbing again. Meanwhile, liberals immediately demanded a boycott of Arizona, to the extent that some brain-dead critics swore off Arizona Iced Tea—a product of New York. Those benighted souls didn’t stop to think (!) that Hispanics would suffer disproportionately from a boycott. Not to mention that LA gets ¼ of its electricity from Arizona…
The boycott is based on two factors: lies and ignorance. Contrary to what you’ll hear, SB 1070 neither permits nor encourages cops to confront any swarthy individual and demand “Your paperss, pleeze.” And oh BTW: if you travel in Mexico you are required to have your paperss on you at all times. In Guatemala gendarmes with submachine guns ask just that of gringos and others. Additionally, the manufactured Papers Crisis is totally disingenuous: I had to show ID the last three times I checked into hotels in New York and New Jersey.
Here’s the bill. Read it yourself and you’ll be way ahead of those who oppose it, including the Attorney General of the United States.
There’s a symbiotic relationship between immigration lies and immigration ignorance: the ignorant base their attitudes on the lies they’ve heard. A Californian called a Phoenix talk show saying she knew that 1070 permitted police inquisitors to demand papers BECAUSE SHE HEARD A LAWYER SAY SO ON TV.
The president of the United States said pretty much the same thing—be careful taking your kids out for ice cream, remember?
Plain fact is: those who oppose 1070 side with lawbreakers, many of whom commit ultra-violent crimes here. It’s called Illegal Immigration because coming here illegally is, well, illegal.
Now as for the polls: In 2008 John McCain barely won Arizona with 53% of the vote while Obama got 45%. Even using the lowest 52% approval of SB 1070 (a figure widely exceeded nationwide), a goodly slice of Obama voters reject his opposition to enforcing the laws he is sworn to uphold. That means all the laws: you don’t get to pick and choose.
It’s not about race or profiling: it’s about sovereignty. Among those who understand that concept is a retired Arizona Department of Public Safety officer who wrote the Republic: “Once a police officer has taken his oath of office, he swears to uphold the laws of the State of Arizona and to protect the Constitution of the United States of America. He has no choice and can't decide which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he won't.”
Speaking of the Constitution, Article VI, Section 4 says that the federal government is supposed to protect states from invasion. It's a national security issue. When the Mexican Government approves and the U.S. Government ignores the northward movement of 2,500 or more illegals per day, that is an invasion.
With millions of illegals not only permitted but encouraged to invade, what are the long-term results? One is an institutionalized culture of scofflaws: with favored groups permitted to decide which laws they will follow, you can fill in the blanks as to the effects downstream. You could make a case for American citizens being permitted to ignore specific laws when aliens are allowed to do so for decades. It’s called Equal Protection Clause. If you don’t have your copy of the Owner’s Manual at hand, look here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14 .
There’s also the immutable rule of economics. Illegals impose enormous financial costs upon Arizona and other states: health care, education, “entitlements,” and law enforcement. When the nation faces unprecedented government-imposed debt, the argument for supporting people with no right to be here falls even farther astern.
Since the reasons against illegal immigration are so clear, we’re left wondering why so many Democrats oppose enforcement. The reason is obvious: illegals already vote (illegally) and may have decided some elections. In 1997 “B-1 Bob” Dornan stated that he lost his California congressional seat for that very reason. But if people need to show legitimate ID to vote—as they do to cash a check—some Democrat seats become shaky.
And those seats look shakier. A USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 90 percent of Americans consider controlling our borders “extremely or very important” and another 21 % “moderately important.” A CBS poll shows 51% believe the Arizona law is “about right” while 9% say it doesn’t go far enough: 60% in all.
Are those majorities “racist”?
Depends on how much objectivity you retain, doesn’t it?