Steyn Defends AZ

Brilliantly, smashingly, in this column.

My favorite part:

That’s Arizona. To the coastal commentariat, “undocumented immigrants” are the people who mow your lawn while you’re at work and clean your office while you’re at home. (That, for the benefit of The New York Times’ Linda Greenhouse, is the real apartheid: the acceptance of a permanent “undocumented” servant class by far too many “documented” Americans who assuage their guilt by pathetic sentimentalization of immigration.) But in border states, illegal immigration is life and death. I spoke to a lady this week who has a camp of illegals on the edge of her land. She lies awake at night, fearful for her children and alert to strange noises in the yard.

I could add a lot more, and I may in the days to come. For now, Steyn and others are saying what needs to be said in defense of AZ. Even if you disagree with the law, the way the far-left, and sadly, certain Catholic bishops, are now treating AZ is despicable.

There can be no friendship and no discussion with such people.

97 Responses to Steyn Defends AZ

  • Amen. When Mr. Obama goes to Iowa and uses the race card to discredit the voters of Arizona making the situation worse and his Atty General thinking on challenging the law that State Rights are not for protecting their citizens and the Secretary of State sticking her nose in where it does not belong as she has fouled up world relationships and denies being interested in the Supreme Court opening and all this for the sake of votes rather than the enforcement of laws. When one sees protesters critical of the US and holding Mexican flags in demonstrations is no wonder that people are angry. People came to our country legally from all over and it is time something be done to employers and those breaking the law by haboring illegals regardless of country of origin to be given stiff fines and those illegals sent back to get in line even if it takes 10 yrs to return legally, and if they do it again to be barred from future enttry.

  • This law has been so demagogued that rational discussion ceased a long time ago. When I first heard about the law I, too, had reservations. But then I did an amazing thing – I read the bill. There are still valid arguments against it, but the people who keep insisting that some Gestapo like agency will now randomly be asking for papers clearly have no desire to engage in reasonable discourse. If MLB pulls the All-Star game from AZ in 2011, that might be it for me and the game I so love.

  • I oppose the law (and wrote a fairly strongly worded blog post in opposition a couple of weeks ago) as bad public policy because I think certain provisions, namely the ones regarding harboring and transporting undocumented aliens, are extremely vague and arguably make certain acts of charity illegal. I also believe that the bill will make policing in Latino neighborhoods more difficult, as residents could be less trusting and less forthcoming with information regarding criminal activity.

    That said, the most vocal opponents of this law (including a certain Cardinal Archbishop) are speaking and acting completely irresponsibly. I have long been a proponent of immigration reform that creates a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants who are already here and makes it easier to legally immigrate to the U.S. But the folks who are supposed to be on my side in this argument are completely alienating me with their overheated rhetoric and name calling.

    By the way, I DARE Bud Selig to move the 2011 MLB All-Star game from Arizona, as some idiotic busy-body lefty sportswriters like Mike Lupica have suggested. Like it or not, most people support Arizona’s efforts, and a steroid-tainted brand like MLB should keep its nose out of other people’s business.

  • Great minds think alike, Paul.
    ;-)

  • I’m glad you wrote that Jay, because it shows that even people opposed to the law are getting fed up with the rhetoric. If MLB follows Lupica’s advice, I might not actually completely boycott baseball – I might instead have to become a Diamondbacks fan.

  • “There can be no friendship and no discussion with such people.”

    Care to elaborate a bit here? These were some of the same bishops who opposed insurance reform last month, right. Archbishop Dolan, standing-o defender of the pope, right?

    Not only is friendship and discussion urged by our Catholic faith, but in order to arrive at a civil and well-discerned public policy, the conversation must certainly continue. People who opt for the not-so-strong, silent treatment (like that was every going to happen in the blogosphere) marginalize themselves from the next most important debate on the national scene.

  • Interestingly, opposition to the bill among Republicans has tended to come from border states, e.g. Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, Connie Mack, Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, Meg Whitman, etc.

  • I would also note, regarding the woman Steyn mentioned, that having cops enforce immigration laws will likely result in longer response times to things like emergency calls. So while I can understand her concern, I don’t think the law really addresses it.

  • I appreciate your honesty and your adherence to truth, despite the bombastic rhetoric coming from your religious leaders. It is refreshing to know that not all Catholics are blindly supporting opening up our borders to everyone.

  • Joe continues to mistakenly believe that this law does anything to fight drug violence. I’d agree that rational debate is impossible with all this useless rhetoric in favor of the law.

  • I would also note, regarding the woman Steyn mentioned, that having cops enforce immigration laws will likely result in longer response times to things like emergency calls. So while I can understand her concern, I don’t think the law really addresses it.

    Depends on the effect of the law on the general state of public order and whether the particular circumstances in which this woman lives would benefit more from border control or marginally quicker response times.

  • Jay,

    Amen, brother. I think this bill is a bad idea, but all of the “AZ is turning into a fascist police state” hysteria is out of place and frankly tempts me to support the damn thing.

  • This law has been so demagogued that rational discussion ceased a long time ago.

    Indeed. Lupica’s article amounts to nothing more than one long ad hominem against Governor Brewer.

    A few years back he accused Bob Stoops of running up the score on Texas A&M in football and then later had to admit he didn’t see the game. Oklahoma was simply that much better and it was almost more embarrassing for the Aggies that he was doing what he could not to let it get completely out of hand. I can only hope he’s learned since then and actually read the bill before writing this tripe.

  • Like Darwin, I also agree with Jay. I oppose this law for a variety of prudential reasons, but the rhetoric used by Cardinal Mahoney and others is irresponsible and unChristian.

    Todd, I think you misunderstand Joe’s comment that “there can be no friendship and no discussion with such people.” He was not making a normative point, but a positive observation. Once one has accused another of Nazi or Communist behavior the former has signaled to the latter that he is closed to dialogue.

  • Terry,
    Want to bet? Few people other than lawyers actually read laws, and that most especially includes newspaper columnists.

  • “Todd, I think you misunderstand Joe’s comment that “there can be no friendship and no discussion with such people.” He was not making a normative point, but a positive observation. Once one has accused another of Nazi or Communist behavior the former has signaled to the latter that he is closed to dialogue.”

    OI idsagee with Crdiabnls Mahony’s comment and finf it counterproductive

    I too oppose this law .

    That being said I am all for postive engagement with each other. I just do hpe American Catholic is one place where they will also give a critical eye and a loud voice of opposition and pyublic rebuke to those that try to make us immigration reform folks to be a serious threat to the Republic. WHich happnes all the time

  • Lupica used to be a great sportwriter back when I was growing up. Then he decided that being a sports journalist wasn’t good enough, and he decided to start writing about politics. As a result, not only is a terrible opinion journalist but he long ago ceased being anything but a self-parody on sports-related matters as well. What a shame.

  • I read the last line of the article as unchristian, too, thinking that Joe meant it as a denouncement.

  • You mean Lupica hasn’t ALWAYS inserted his (usually uninformed and dogmatically liberal) political opinions into his sports reporting?

    I admit that my only real exposure to him has been that I’ve seen him for the better part of 2 decades on ESPN’s “The Sports Reporters”, and as far back as I can remember he’s been who I refer to as “the annoying political one”.

  • Steyn is just reducing everyone objecting to this law as some sort of elitist, limo-riding liberal. Which is silly, but par for the course from what I’ve read by him.

    I object to the bill. And I read it, not just the commentary on it. I don’t live in Arizona, but I do live in a neighborhood (Richmond, California) with a large number of Hispanic immigrants. And I don’t feel unsafe or threatened by it either. I do think we need some sort of immigration reform, but this isn’t it.

    Also, look who is agreeing with you on this: the fellow named Robert posting above, who apparently runs this website: http://www.thevaticanlobby.blogspot.com/

    With friends like these…

  • With friends like these…

    Agreed, that was pretty bad. But, I’ll see your Robert and raise you an Al Sharpton.

    There are clearly loonies on both sides.

  • Steyn is differentiating the opinions held by various people based on their encounters with illegal immigrants. Residents of Arizonia live in a dangerous area with no protection. When they do stand up for their themselves, they are threatened by criminals smuggling drugs and illegal immigrants. Local law enforcement is unable to enforce federal immigration laws. The state of Arizonia is simply enforcing protection for its residents.

    People in other states may have different encounters with illegal and/or legal immigrants. Or, they may not have encountered them at all. These people should not condemn Arizonia. If they wish to comment, let them camp out at the border and see how safe they feel.

  • When I see people protesting the Arizonia law, I can’t help but wonder why is the Arizonia governor criticized for protecting its residents? Why don’t these people protest the Mexican president for not protecting Mexico’s residents?

    Protest the Mexican embassy and boycott Mexico for not providing for its citizens.

  • Believing that this law makes Arizona safer is irrational and there’s nothing wrong with calling it such. Even if you want to deport all illegal immigrants and believe racial profiling is a just way of accomplishing that, using drug smugglers as an excuse is disingenuous and dangerous. The bishops see the dangers of scapegoating but the flock won’t listen. I could use a Nazi analogy here but I’ll refrain.

  • Why refrain from using the analogy? You already made the reference.

  • “Once one has accused another of Nazi or Communist behavior the former has signaled to the latter that he is closed to dialogue.”

    Precisely, not to mention friendship. And sometimes it is appropriate – sometimes it isn’t. For instance, as I have said, I know for a fact that what communists want is open borders and unrestricted immigration.

    I’ve never seen such politically irresponsible and outrageous behavior on the part of the bishops – demoralizing an entire state and the majority of its citizens (who support the law) based on leftist rhetoric. They’ve been pulling this for years, and especially Mahoney has aided and abetted heresy and sacrilege for years in LA. So if they can’t even get the fundamentals of the faith right, I don’t care what they have to say about politics. They apparently know nothing more than their left-wing social research staff tells them, and they’re fine not knowing more, not listening to the other side, closing their minds and hearts to their conservative flock.

    Our right to defend ourselves from violence and lawlessness as individuals and as a society is a natural, God-given right. By the letter of Catholic teaching as well there has been no injustice done by this law, which has been grossly misrepresented and lied about by communists in the media.

    We certainly don’t need to wait for corrupt and ignorant bishops to tell us that its ok for us to take reasonable measures to defend our lives and property from some of the most violent men on the face of the earth.

    “Believing that this law makes Arizona safer is irrational”

    Constantly claiming that is irrational. If this law allows police to remove violent illegal aliens from the streets because of their immigration status, it will make Arizona safer.

    And even if you were right, the law STILL doesn’t amount to “Nazism” or anything close. So you and others complaining about it as if it were is STILL a hateful slander.

  • “Interestingly, opposition to the bill among Republicans has tended to come from border states, e.g. Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, Connie Mack, Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, Meg Whitman, etc.”

    Ha! BA, I would love to see Governor Perry put his money where his mouth his. With the increasing Hispanic population in Texas, I’d say easily that he’s pandering. In fact, a state rep. has gone on record saying she’s going to introduce legislation to mimic the Arizona law in Texas. I wonder what Governor Perry would say to that because there is significant opposition to immigration in Texas.

    On another point that Jay brought up–it was brought to my attention that the law was vague regarding basic human charity. A friend of mine works for Casa Juan Diego, the Houston Catholic Worker house that provides food, shelter, medical care, etc to immigrants, often illegal, and mostly battered pregnant mothers and women with children. Such a law would make the daily operations of this group certainly illegal, though much of what they do is already considered illegal.

    I hope this law stays in Arizona and better yet, is overruled in court.

  • ” Such a law would make the daily operations of this group certainly illegal”

    Show me the provision in the law that says that private citizens are mandated to investigate the immigration status of people who seek private charity.

    Show me that and I’ll be the first to say that either the bill or the section of it ought to be repealed.

    If you can’t, then maybe you shouldn’t talk about things you don’t know about. Because as far as I know, the bill only applies to the police. And the police don’t work at soup kitchens and they aren’t going to make it their business to raid charities.

  • Joe, this law makes providing illegal immigrants shelter, a crime. There is a legal ambiguity though which may be enough for courts to void it.

  • RR,

    I’ve just been reading it and it says that it is unlawful for a “person who is in violation of a criminal offense” to do so – not everyone in the state.

    Also, the crime is when you knowingly conceal them from the police. If you give them shelter and the police aren’t asking for them, then you haven’t broken the law.

    It does make illegal encouraging people to come to AZ in violation of the law, which is fine with me. Maybe its time the citizens of Mexico dealt with their government instead of coming here. Maybe the 10-20 million Mexicans that are here could march on Mexico City instead and demand more from their own government.

  • Joe,

    I did not say that the law “mandates that private citizens are mandated to investigate the immigration status of people who seek private charity.”

    I was referring to what Jay said and what a friend of mine who is a Catholic worker who works with immigrants was telling me she learned — certain aspects of the law as it is written is vague (e.g. harboring and transporting illegal aliens).

    Casa Juan Diego takes in battered pregnant women and women with children. Many of them, to my understanding, are escaping abusive relationships and lives that are less than ideal. When they enter the house, they take on a false name and the Catholic workers do not even know their real name–that is the height of the security. The Catholic worker house also works with male illegal immigrants and families.

    The regular practice of Casa Juan Diego — sheltering, feeding, provide clothing, enrolling children in school, helping men and women find work, driving them to and from the hospital, to church, and to various places — under a vaguely written law easily constitutes knowingly harboring and transporting of illegal aliens.

    I never alluded in any way that it will become police business to raid private charities. I never claimed explicitly (and I don’t think implicitly either) any absolute knowledge on the matter.

    I don’t know what I said that warrants you being defensive or short in your response.

  • Eric,

    You said,

    “Such a law would make the daily operations of this group certainly illegal”

    That’s just not true and I explained what its not true. You’re adding to the disinformation campaign being waged against the state of AZ. I just explained why this statement isn’t true.

    “The regular practice of Casa Juan Diego — sheltering, feeding, provide clothing, enrolling children in school, helping men and women find work, driving them to and from the hospital, to church, and to various places — under a vaguely written law easily constitutes harboring and transporting of illegal aliens.”

    Sheltering, feeding, and providing clothing is fine. There’s nothing in the law about food and clothes, and if you agree that the police aren’t going to be raiding private charities, then your claim about shelter is just pointless rhetoric. I’m sorry to say it, but it is. Besides, if the clients use an alias, then the charity workers can legitimately claim ignorance.

    Enrolling children in school, helping illegal immigrants find work – these are violations of the law. I guess everyone on earth though has an unrestricted right to an education and a job in the United States, because it is an unlimited resource that no one has to pay for.

    To top it off, once they get it, they’ll be sure to let us know how much they hate the United States and the gringos who built it.

    Yes, I’m being snippy. I don’t care.

    Let me put it this way. I would violate the law myself if it actually criminalized actual charitable behavior – providing food, clothes, temporary shelter, emergency medical care, or anything else that isn’t paid for by the state, that comes out of private pockets or from churches or whatever.

    I don’t think it does any of that. I think you’re wrong to present it that way, or at the least, you’re wrong to present enrollment in state schools and employment as charity.

  • If this law allows police to remove violent illegal aliens from the streets because of their immigration status, it will make Arizona safer.

    If they’re violent, they can be picked up and if they’re also illegal, they can be deported. This law does not enable them to do that job any better. The ONLY effect this law has as far as stopping violent illegal aliens is, as BA mentions, it takes resources away from fighting violent crimes.

    And even if you were right, the law STILL doesn’t amount to “Nazism” or anything close. So you and others complaining about it as if it were is STILL a hateful slander.

    Proponents, instead of dealing directly with the problem over which they are frustrated, blame a minority population, the overwhelming majority of whom do not contribute to the problem.

  • Joe, the sentence you cite is the ambiguity which many think is enough to have the section voided. Surely, it doesn’t mean that I can harbor illegal immigrants but not if I didn’t pay my taxes.

    Concealing is an additional crime on top of harboring.

    It does make illegal encouraging people to come to AZ in violation of the law, which is fine with me. Maybe its time the citizens of Mexico dealt with their government instead of coming here. Maybe the 10-20 million Mexicans that are here could march on Mexico City instead and demand more from their own government.

    And maybe Europeans should’ve stayed in Europe and demand change instead of fleeing religious persecution. Maybe people like Joseph Cao should’ve stayed in Vietnam. It’s so easy to tell other people to do what you probably wouldn’t.

  • I saw Jay Leno at Correspondent Dinner his best line was; “That was my favorite story (this year) Republicans and a Lesbian bondage club. It’s ironic, Republicans don’t want lesbian getting married but they do like watching them “tie the knot”. So I thought that was interesting.”

    You can say the same about Tea Party, they say they respect the Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence but they do not mind passing laws, through weak Governors (no one ever voted for this crazy) who only care about getting reelected on the backs of undocumented workers, that will not pass Constitution muster, just like Arizona’s House Bill 2779 from two years ago, keep passing them Arizona and the rest of us will continue to challenged them in the courts and you will lose again (and yes we will boycott you!). Their phony patriotism is sickening; they are just racists going by another name. We all know you are just itching to put a sheet on their head? Let’s face it the Republicans had eight years to deal with health care, immigration, climate change and financial oversight and governance and they failed. It appears that the Republican Party is only good at starting wars (two in eight years, with fat contracts to friends of Cheney/Bush) but not at winning wars as seen by the continuing line of body bags that keep coming home. The Republicans party will continue turned inward to their old fashion obstructionist party (and their Confederacy appreciation roots) because they continue to allow a small portions (but very loud portion) of their party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” to rule their party. I will admit that this fringe is very good at playing “Follow the Leader” by listening to their dullard leaders, Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, Savage, Sarah Bailin, Orly Taitz, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the Blowhards and acting as ill programmed robots (they have already acted against doctors that perform abortions). The Birthers and the Tea party crowd think they can scare, intimidate and force others to go along with them by comments like “This time we came unarmed”, let me tell you something not all ex-military join the fringe militia crazies who don’t pay taxes and run around with face paint in the parks playing commando, the majority are mature and understand that the world is more complicated and grey than the black and white that these simpleton make it out to be and that my friend is the point. The world is complicated and people like Hamilton, Lincoln, and Roosevelt believed that we should use government a little to increase social mobility, now it’s about dancing around the claim of government is the problem. The sainted Reagan passed the biggest tax increase in American history and as a result federal employment increased, but facts are lost when mired in mysticism and superstition. For a party that gave us Abraham Lincoln, it is tragic that the ranks are filled with too many empty suits and the crazy Birthers who have not learned that the way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked internet lies, then, and only then, do you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called “facts”. Let’s face it no one will take the Birthers seriously until they win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. I heard that Orly Taitz now wants to investigate the “Republican 2009 Summer of Love” list: Assemblyman, Michael D. Duvall (CA), Senator John Ensign (NV), Senator Paul Stanley (TN), Governor Mark Stanford (SC), Board of Ed Chair, and Kristin Maguire AKA Bridget Keeney (SC), she wants to re-establish a family values party, that’s like saying that the Catholic Church cares about the welling being of children in their care, too late for that.

  • Please. This is starting to get very deja-vu along the lines of people acting like precious china-dolls over the issue of torture. “OH! You voiced an opposition to torture that hurt my feelings!”

    Getting more upset over someone’s rhetoric than the message is usually a sign that there’s some issue dodging at hand.

  • “And maybe Europeans should’ve stayed in Europe and demand change instead of fleeing religious persecution. Maybe people like Joseph Cao should’ve stayed in Vietnam. It’s so easy to tell other people to do what you probably wouldn’t.”

    Garbage! What absolute vile garbage!

    You’re going to compare the religious persecution by absolutist monarchies and communist dictatorships with the inability to find a job?

    You don’t know anything about me or what I would do. Make it personal, like failing liberals do in every argument.

  • This isn’t about hurt feelings – this is about vile slander, which is a sin.

    If you don’t see it, then we have nothing to say to one another.

  • Getting more upset over someone’s rhetoric than the message is usually a sign that there’s some issue dodging at hand.

    Was that directed at Joe, because if it was I hope you are aware of the unintended irony of posting that considering the three comments immediately preceding it.

  • But I can see this turning into a “torture debate.”

  • You’re going to compare the religious persecution by absolutist monarchies and communist dictatorships with the inability to find a job?

    Yes. If you can’t live where you are, whether it’s because of religious persecution or poverty, you move.

    You don’t know anything about me or what I would do.

    So if you’re unable to support your family in Mexico, you’re going to march instead of crossing the border and feeding your family? Okay. But most of us wouldn’t.

  • OK, Joe. But if you want to get tough on these sorts of issues (like ignoring the cry of the immigrant, which last I checked, was one of the sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance), don’t faint all over the divan if people use harsh terms to point out the obvious opposition to Church teaching.

  • don’t faint all over the divan if people use harsh terms to point out the obvious opposition to Church teaching.

    Then point out where this bill actually opposes Church teaching. Spell out the specific language that contravenes Church teaching. Don’t make vague pronouncements and act like you have done anything other than slander your fellow Catholics.

  • John H,

    I don’t ignore the “cry of the immigrant” – I said myself I would break the law if it criminalized charity, and I meant it.

    But it is also a sin and a crime to argue as if governments and economies have unlimited resources to provide for unlimited needs. It’s insanity. Where does the Church teach that nations have no right to exist, to have immigration laws, or to enforce them?

    Show me that paragraph in the Catechism. Show me that encyclical.

    No one is fainting here. To call AZ a Nazi state is insane and stupid. People were trying to ESCAPE Nazi Germany – people are complaining about America and AZ because TOO MANY PEOPLE WANT TO GET IN. Why would people want to come live in a fascist dictatorship? What a stupid and risible argument.

    Then there’s the fact that Phony Mahoney opposes a law that doesn’t exist – the police are not mandated to randomly stop brown people and ask for their papers. As George Will pointed out, US Federal immigration law already mandates that aliens carry their papers with them at all times. This is enforcement of a federal law at the local level. If an immigrant is detained, he isn’t taken to a gulag or a gas chamber, but to the federal agencies that deal with immigration.

    Sensationalist, hate-filled lies do me make me angry, and I won’t apologize for that.

  • Paul and Joe–I’m sure we can find something, somewhere online that says why this bill is immoral.

    Here’s a start for you:

    http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2010/04/kansas-city-st-joseph-diocese-opposes.html

    http://www.diocesephoenix.org/_localnews/2010/04April.html#immigrationbill

    http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=36322

    None of these were from that continual ecclesiastical bogeyman Cardinal Mahoney. I’m beginning to think he keeps getting brought up solely as an example by Catholics who want to ignore the clear problems with this bill.

    This is beginning to remind me of Vox Nova’s stubborn refusal to listen to the obviously misled Catholic hierarchy when it came to the health care bill. Only their bogeyman was Archbishop Chaput.

  • A comment I made at Coalition for Clarity:
    I think this needs to be read in light of this natural right not being an absolute right. Many rights in CST are limited in one way or another. Thus while there is a right to private property, there are limits on property rights (taxes come quickly to mind.) That not everyone can immigrate to a country who wants to is evidenced by the fact that CST also teaches that the state has a right to set limits on immigration.

    Now if the Federal Govt. said that there could be no immigration to the US, one could say that the law would be contrary to CST. But that is not the case. US law allows legal immigration of 700 – 900K per year. It is estimated that legal immigration in the 1990s surpassed the levels of the last previous peak of legal immigration from 1901 to 1910. During that time period nearly 9 million legal immigrants were allowed into the United States. From the period of 1968 to 1993, it is estimated that 16.7 million immigrants entered the country legally. Of these 16.7 million legal immigrants, nearly 85% were from developing countries. This percentage is composed of nearly 50% legal immigrants that came from the Caribbean and Latin America and about a third that came from Asia. Given this data, I think there is much to be said that current US policy is consistent with CST.

    This of course requires a distinction between legal and illegal immigration. One that is frequently lost in the debate as if there is necessarily an equivalence between the two. To perhaps dispense with that distinction, one can consider the CCC quote’s final part:

    “Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants’ duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.”

    Illegal immigrants already have failed to “…obey the laws” of their host country. Perhaps arguments can be made for justifying such but I haven’t seen them. This particularly, as in this situation, that Mexico has been quite negligent in fostering an enconomic/social environment that is producing such immigration.

    I think this will ultimately be, as CST also teaches, an area that Catholics in good faith can disagree. Perhaps even with charity.

  • This is beginning to remind me of Vox Nova’s stubborn refusal to listen to the obviously misled Catholic hierarchy when it came to the health care bill. Only their bogeyman was Archbishop Chaput.

    I would say that’s a little inapposite. The position of the TAC contributors on this bill has hardly been univocal; BA wrote a great post that was critical of the bill and he has been active in the comments. I don’t like the bill either; analogies to the Third Reich are ridiculous and some liberals appear to be in love with shouting ‘racism’ in a crowded theater, but there are legitimate concerns about this bill. At this point, the national conversation on this issue is a shouting match, so it’s hard to have a balanced discussion. In any case, I haven’t come across the infamous the bishops just don’t understand the very complicated bill and so should defer to my expertise as a random blogger argument yet; Cardinal Mahoney aside, most bishops are responsible in their comments and accordingly those comments are deserving of our respect.

  • JohnH,

    I’ve already stated that I oppose the bill. I agree with the Bishops that there are major problems with it.

    Nevertheless, I find the hyperbole from some of those with whom I agree somewhat disturbing. Do you really think it’s helpful when a Cardinal of the Church compares the State of Arizona to the Nazi and Communist regimes?

    And how does that work anyway, that one can be both a Nazi AND a Communist? I’m beginning to think they keep getting brought up solely as an example by Catholics who want to make dubious comparisons rather than make their case on the merits regarding the clear problems with this bill.

  • The diocese of Phoenix – which in this case was speaking as a part of a coalition of “faith communities” to the GOVERNOR and not authoritatively to Catholics – does not say anywhere that the bill is immoral.

    It simply voices concerns, all of which are prudential in nature.

    This cannot be compared with a teaching on abortion. The plain truth is that the bishops have misread, misunderstood, and in some cases, misrepresented the bill. Beginning with false premises, they proceed to make false arguments.

    Catholics are under no obligation to oppose this bill, and I question the morality and the intellect of anyone who compares a state that people are trying to GET INTO instead of escape with a murderous dictatorship.

    The real murderers are south of the border in the narco-terror state.

  • I might also add that the Catholic bishops opposed the health care bill because of concerns that it would fund abortions and not protect the consciences of health care workers who did not wish to participate in abortion procedures. The first being a fundamental human right which cannot be directly denied and the latter being a right which cannot be denied except to protect the common good.
    Immigration is a limited human right. The state can in fact limit such immigration as I point out above. Thus I believe Catholics can disagree with their bishops on this while doing so on health care is a dicier proposition.

  • I might also say that the comments of some priests and bishops has more a sulfurous stentch than and charitable ring.

  • Jay–yes the hyperbole is wrong. But what gets me is the people who are more upset that an outgoing has-been of a cardinal said something mean than that a manifestly unjust law that was just passed in AZ may deprive fellow Catholics of essential rights. It’s a bunch of thin-skinned moral posturing.

    Joe: you say:

    The plain truth is that the bishops have misread, misunderstood, and in some cases, misrepresented the bill. Beginning with false premises, they proceed to make false arguments.

    Which is pretty much the same line Morning’s Minion and Henry Karlson have been making about the USCCB’s opposition to the health care bill.

  • JohnH,

    I don’t know what an essential right is in Catholic Social Teaching (actually the whole rights thing seems foggy at best.) At best I can gather are that there are absolute rights – ones that cannot be taken away for any reason. One of these is the right of the innocent not to be directly killed.

    Then there are relative rights. One is private property. Another is the right to conscience. There can be limits that the state can set on these. In this category is the right to immigrate. The Church does in fact teach that the State can set limits on immigration. So there is not an unlimited right to immigrate.

  • law that was just passed in AZ may deprive fellow Catholics of essential rights.

    In the interest of clarification, could you spell out what specific essential rights you believe the bill challenges? I am not disputing your assertion, just asking for clarification. It’s tough to talk about this without reference to the specific provisions that are the basis for your concern. It’s easy to issue blanket condemnations, then blanket condemnations of the original condemnations, and so forth. What right(s), specifically, do you believe this legislation deprives people of?

  • John H,

    You’re full of it. One of the most recognized figures in the American Catholic Church denounced the state of AZ, its government and the majority of its citizens as racist authoritarians without knowing jack about the bill.

    It was irresponsible. It was stupid. It was motivated by his corrupt ideology and theology, which have always been radical and subversive. Its just unfortunate that people in his position have the equivalent of tenure at a university, whereas the “fascists” in the AZ legislature who make only 24,000 a year are voted in and out on a regular basis because they are accountable to the people.

    “Which is pretty much the same line Morning’s Minion and Henry Karlson have been making about the USCCB’s opposition to the health care bill.”

    The difference between myself on the one hand and Minion and Karlson on the other is that I’m right and they’re wrong. What else do you want me to say? What the hell do I care if those two are mistaken about another issue? Does it mean I can’t point out the real mistakes being made over this issue?

    What an irrelevant objection. What pointless rhetoric. Chaput was objection to a bill that will end up using federal dollars to murder innocent babies. Mahoney is an ignoramus who is objecting to a bill that will empower law enforcement in the state of AZ to better deal with a violent and ruthless enemy. There is no comparison.

  • “Even if you disagree with the law, the way the far-left, and sadly, certain Catholic bishops, are now treating AZ is despicable. There can be no friendship and no discussion with such people.”

    Assuming that “such people” applies to the those listed in the previous sentence, which includes a not insubstantial number of bishops, then this statement is most unfortunate. And then you follow up with “corrupt and ignorant bishops” who have “aided and abetted heresy and sacrilege”. I thought one of the ground rules was that if you disagree with the bishops, they are at least owed some deference and respect.

    If you think the bishops are incorrect in particular prudential matter, then make your case with reason rather than resorting to testerone-fueled ranting. That is, if you have a case to make that doesn’t entail demonizing the foreigner as a malevolent other, which (as I am sure you realize) stands in stark opposition to how Christian view the world. Oh, and if does not represent your view, it probably doesn’t help that you give Mark Steyn a bit rhetorical sloppy kiss. After all, Mr. Steyn is well known for distorting facts and demonizing cultures he deems inferior to his own, and for supporting war.

  • Joe,

    I thought your position was that illegal immigrants from Mexico ought to be granted asylum because of the violence there. Is that no longer you view?

  • In the interest of clarification, could you spell out what specific essential rights you believe the bill challenges?

    As voiced by Bishop John Wester, he says:

    SB 1070 gives law enforcement officials powers to detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard, possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity. It could lead to the wrongful questioning and arrest of U.S. citizens and permanent residents as well as the division of families—parents from children and husbands from wives. It certainly would lead to the rise in fear and distrust in immigrant communities, undermining the relationships between their members and law enforcement officials.

    (more: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-080.shtml)

    The concerns he voices there are pretty much what concern me when reading the bill. I read it before it passed–and was worse–and it seems that a few of the more manifestly unjust parts, such as making the mere fact of being in the US an additional crime of trespass, have been altered. But what is still there is troubling enough, and cannot be read as suggesting anything less than widescale racial profiling.

    It seems to me that anyone looking at the debate on immigration in the US right now with an eye to Catholic teaching would conclude that this is a step in the wrong direction when it comes to reform. I cannot see how this promotes the common good.

    So, specific rights?

    The rights to education, preventative health services, adequate food and nutrition are all jeopardized by the bill. And, as noted above, the integrity of the family.

  • The rights to education, preventative health services, adequate food and nutrition are all jeopardized by the bill. And, as noted above, the integrity of the family.

    This is not so much an objection to the AZ law, which I do not support, as an objection to any enforcement of immigration policies (which I think are necessary). You appear to be claiming that all restrictions on immigration are a violation of individual rights; the U.S. denies, by virtue of having immigration restrictions, education, health care, and adequate food to the large majority of the world population; I don’t think this is a violation of CST on the common good.

    Separation of the family is a very serious issue. At the same time, it arises only after a person has violated the U.S. immigration laws. They may be perfectly justified in doing so, but it’s difficult to envision a law that permitted illegal aliens who gave birth in the country to stay, while forcing those who did not to leave. Are you arguing against all immigration restrictions or the AZ law?

  • The rights to education, preventative health services, adequate food and nutrition are all jeopardized by the bill. And, as noted above, the integrity of the family.

    All of these are salable goods and services subject to constraints of scarcity and cost. Who defines, enforces, and adjudicates these rights?

  • detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard, possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity.

    As you note, these provisions have been substantially revised. They no longer are particularly objectionable.

  • John H,

    So let me get this straight. You are asked, by several people here, to provide support for your claim that the bishops have accurately understood the bill by referring one of the questionable statements they have made, and not the bill itself.

    Are you capable of reading the bill? I think you are. I think you clearly understand the English language. So go read the bill, and then copy and paste that into the com-box.

    Lets look at these claims.

    “SB 1070 gives law enforcement officials powers to detain and arrest individuals based on a very low legal standard,”

    How so? What is the standard in question? The people who will be charged with violating immigration law will already be under arrest or at least investigated for another crime. That’s what “lawful contact” means.

    “possibly leading to the profiling of individuals based upon their appearance, manner of speaking, or ethnicity”

    Possibly. It’s a possibility, and I don’t think it is a very well founded misgiving to be honest with you. The law does not mandate that officers arrest and detain anyone who looks like they might be here illegally – it mandates that they investigate a person’s immigration status if they have reason to suspect that they may be here illegally through lawful contact.

    Seeing as how the vast majority of illegal immigrants speak little if no English and all come from the same place, to say that ethnicity and language can play NO ROLE in making this decision is tantamount to saying “please close your eyes and ears.” One of the complaints was that the officers were not “trained to avoid profiling”, meaning that they aren’t trained to waste their time investigating white, black, or Native American citizens in the same way they might a Mexican person who can’t speak English and is found at the edges of a day labor site. It’s the equivalent of telling them not to think or do their jobs – which is exactly what the left wants.

    Just admit it. You don’t want the police to enforce immigration laws, because you don’t think it should be a crime to come to the United States illegally. If you can just admit that then we can have the real debate. Otherwise I find this position to be irrational and incomprehensible.

    I’m not even going to waste my time with the rest. “It could do this”, “it could do that.” It’s speculation, its guesswork, it isn’t an official teaching and it isn’t based on the reality of the situation.

    “The rights to education, preventative health services, adequate food and nutrition are all jeopardized by the bill.”

    There is no right to education or preventative health services. Those are finite services and are for citizens, including people who migrate here legally. Nothing in the bill, however, criminalizes shopping at the grocery store, going to a free clinic, or any number of charitable services that people may avail themselves of.

    Here we are again, with the double-talk – just admit that you think there should be unrestricted rights, for everyone and anyone, to come to this country without any restrictions or laws and have unrestricted access to the full range of social services available to citizens. Just admit that the concept of citizenship means nothing to you. Or if it does, how you reconcile it, with these views.

    Next we’ll be hearing about their right to vote. That’s what will be next. We’ve given them everything else – jobs, free education, health care, social services of every kind – but how unjust is it that they can’t vote! Of course they don’t even really need to vote, since the politicians have been bending over backwards for years to appease them.

  • Oh, and to be clear: the LANGUAGE was revised because of leftist lies and distortions, not the actual content of the law itself, which was NEVER what it was made out to be.

  • BA,

    “I thought your position was that illegal immigrants from Mexico ought to be granted asylum because of the violence there. Is that no longer you view?”

    No, I said people fleeing from the Juarez Valley, if it can be established that it is where they are from, ought to be granted asylum, because they are being burned and chased out of their homes.

    But that’s nowhere near a majority of the people who come here illegally. It’s a few thousand that have actually made asylum claims. A few thousand would be fine. Millions are intolerable and unmanageable.

  • John Henry:

    You appear to be claiming that all restrictions on immigration are a violation of individual rights; the U.S. denies, by virtue of having immigration restrictions, education, health care, and adequate food to the large majority of the world population.

    Not at all. What I’m arguing is that once someone is here in the USA, there is an obligation to provide for their rights while they are here. And once you have a situation where someone has a family member (like a child) who is a citizen, then there’s additional problems to denying these rights or deporting part of a family.

  • What I’m arguing is that once someone is here in the USA, there is an obligation to provide for their rights while they are here.

    Ok. But do they have the right to remain here or not? Again, this does not appear to be an objection to the AZ law as much as an objection to all immigration policies. What is the connection between your objection here and the AZ bill specifically?

  • MM,

    “Assuming that “such people” applies to the those listed in the previous sentence, which includes a not insubstantial number of bishops,”

    Was there something unclear about that? Fortunately a substantial number of bishops, while voicing concerns, are not invoking Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. In case I was unclear, it is those who are making THOSE specific comparisons with whom there can be no friendship or discussion. And I stand by it, miter or no miter.

    “then this statement is most unfortunate.”

    Boo hoo.

    “And then you follow up with “corrupt and ignorant bishops” who have “aided and abetted heresy and sacrilege”. I thought one of the ground rules was that if you disagree with the bishops, they are at least owed some deference and respect.”

    It is owed to us as well, and it is trampled and spit upon when we are compared to Nazis and Bolsheviks. I don’t just “disagree” with this malicious characterization, I am outraged and disgusted by it.

    “If you think the bishops are incorrect in particular prudential matter, then make your case with reason rather than resorting to testerone-fueled ranting.”

    There’s nothing prudential about Mahoney’s public slanders, or those of any other bishop comparing the AZ law to the Nuremberg Laws.

    And I’ll take testosterone-fueled ranting over effeminate screeching or lukewarm mutterings any day of the week. Someone needs to fight back, and someone needs to speak for those who can’t.

    “That is, if you have a case to make that doesn’t entail demonizing the foreigner as a malevolent other, which (as I am sure you realize) stands in stark opposition to how Christian view the world.”

    I’ve done no such thing. I certainly tell the truth about the violence and savagery of the narco-terror state south of the border.

    I would be fine, though, with sealing the border, granting a path to citizenship to illegals who are already here, and amending our asylum laws to include refugees from the narco-terrorists. That’s my compromise.

    “Oh, and if does not represent your view, it probably doesn’t help that you give Mark Steyn a bit rhetorical sloppy kiss. After all, Mr. Steyn is well known for distorting facts and demonizing cultures he deems inferior to his own, and for supporting war.”

    I believe the culture of Catholic Christendom is superior to all other cultures. That doesn’t mean others should be exterminated. It just means what it means.

    As for war, I do disagree with Steyn. But that’s not the issue here, is it?

  • Joe, I’ve read both versions of the bill. And my objections stand.

    Since we’re playing at the “Can You Read” game, I’d suggest you start with the Catechism. Then move on to the Compendium.

  • John Henry:

    Ok. But do they have the right to remain here or not? Again, this does not appear to be an objection to the AZ law as much as an objection to all immigration policies. What is the connection between your objection here and the AZ bill specifically?

    No again. If I had my druthers, we’d allow for a federal worker program that would allow anyone with a clean criminal record come for a renewable two-year period of work, one that also created tax revenue for local infrastructure. But since we’ve got this insane “we need the workers, but we won’t change the system” mentality, the only feasible thing that makes industry work in the short term (at least here in CA) is turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. Oh, and doing arrest sweeps and factory raids around election time.

    Does anyone really think that if all illegal immigrants were deported our economy would grow?

  • John,

    I’ve read both. I know them both. I suspect that the reason you don’t cite them, or the bill, is that you know you have no case, and you’re just here to peddle leftist garbage.

  • we’d allow for a federal worker program that would allow anyone with a clean criminal record come for a renewable two-year period of work

    Absolutely dreadful idea. Invite people to settle here or tell them to stay home, but maintain the principle that in America we do our own work. You manufacture a domestic servant class, you beg for trouble.

  • Does anyone really think that if all illegal immigrants were deported our economy would grow?

    You mean economic growth, which has been going on (at various rates) for 300-odd years with interruptions seldom longer that four years would cease if we ejected our illegal immigrant population?

  • Btw, Stein addresses the economic argument too:

    “Almost every claim made for the benefits of mass immigration is false. Europeans were told that they needed immigrants to help prop up their otherwise unaffordable social entitlements: In reality, Turks in Germany have three times the rate of welfare dependency as ethnic Germans, and their average retirement age is 50. Two-thirds of French imams are on the dole.

    But wait: What about the broader economic benefits? The World Bank calculated that if rich countries increased their work forces by a mere 3 percent by admitting an extra 14 million people from developing countries, it would benefit the populations of those rich countries by $139 billion. Wow.

    In his book “Reflections on the Revolution In Europe,” Christopher Caldwell points out, “The aggregate gross domestic product of the advanced economies for the year 2008 is estimated by the International Monetary Fund at close to $40 trillion.” So an extra $139 billion works out to a spectacular 0.0035 percent. Mr. Caldwell compares the World Bank argument to Austin Powers’ nemesis, Dr. Evil, holding the world hostage for 1 million dollars. “Sacrificing 0.0035 of your economy would be a pittance to pay for starting to get your country back.” A dependence on mass immigration is not a gold mine nor an opportunity to flaunt your multicultural bona fides, but a structural weakness, and it should be addressed as such.”

  • Joe Hargreave you are on a roll. I’d like to ask those who are fond of misusing the Christian teaching on loving the neighbour with a view to undermining national sovereignity the following. Does the Catholic Church in Mexico not have an obligation to ensure that Mexico provide for her own? How does it become the responsibility of the US to provide for the citizens of a country that has been independent for a comparable period? Enforcing the borders will ensure that the Mexicans do not outsource their problems.

  • So, by Steyn’s own admission, the increased immigration is a net benefit economically. Sure, it may not be relatively much (although I’d gladly take a $139 Billion injection into my bank account any day), but it is a plus. Even if it were break-even, Steyn’s best argument is that it is economically neutral, which is not much of an argument (either way). So why not take the economics out of it?

  • Well, it becomes the responsibility of the US when the US takes advantage by exploiting cheap labor. If the border run were going south of Mexico to central american countries, then arguably the US would not have as much responsibility.

  • “I have lived in Texas since 1974 and illegal immigration has been around the entire time, if not from time immemorial.”

    Actually mass illegal immigration from south of the border is a very recent phenomenon, beginning in the 1960′s.

    http://www.usillegalaliens.com/images2/image094.jpg

  • Steyn’s best argument is that it is economically neutral, which is not much of an argument (either way). So why not take the economics out of it?

    Because proponents of laxer immigration policy argue that there is a very large net benefit from illegal immigration, and Steyn’s point is that there is not. Sure $139 billion seems like a lot to you, but compared to the overall scope of our economy, it is basically negligible.

  • The real flaw in the logic here is that some folks believe that the violence and illegal activity is due to undocumented workers. In reality, violent crime is down in Arizona but the media and the hard-liners in AZ make sure that if an undocumented worker is involved, it’s big news, but the facts are that violent crime has slowed in the last few years in AZ. The law passed isn’t going to stop the real problem which are drug runners and smugglers, It isn’t even going to slow them down.

    There was a great article in the LA Times featuring an interview with an ex-Phoenix cop who had to deal with these issues. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/immigration/la-me-0502-lopezcolumn-20100502%2C0%2C2732982.column)

    And he said it very plainly after a white cop was killed: “I told people that it’s not whites or Hispanics who killed Marc,” he said back then. “It’s drug-dealing cop killers. The issue isn’t ethnicity — it’s crime and drugs.”

    And this is the real problem with this law is that it doesn’t address the real issue, at all.

  • I am not sure from where the figure of $139 bn in benefits from illegal immigration arrived. IIRC, econometric studies put the benefit from all immigration accruing to the extant population at 0.1% of GDP when I was studying this issue a decade ago. I have been out of the loop for a while, though.

  • It should be obvious that enforcing the border would have the immediate effect of preventing said cheap labour from percolating to the US in the first place.

  • “The real flaw in the logic here is that some folks believe that the violence and illegal activity is due to undocumented workers.”

    No one said that. No one said “workers” – the real flaw here is that you think everyone who comes here necessarily comes here to work.

    I would say a majority do. But I would say a significant minority comes here to commit crimes, as part of a vast and trans-national criminal operation, a narco-terror state south of the border.

    “In reality, violent crime is down in Arizona”

    That is a statistic entirely divorced from the escalating crime caused by the drug cartels. If anything, what we’ve seen is this: fewer illegal immigrants due to the recession in the last few years. Again, its not to say that all illegals are here to commit crime – but this type of crime, the drug and sex trade, is an economic enterprise and is as much affected by the ups and downs in the economy as anything else.

    I can’t emphasize the “sex” part enough; the cartels and others are also involved in the international sex slave trade, with girls from all over the world being brought here to service workers on both sides of the border. They should be wiped out.

    “The law passed isn’t going to stop the real problem which are drug runners and smugglers, It isn’t even going to slow them down.”

    Everyone is a law enforcement expert now. How do you know it won’t slow them down?

    “The issue isn’t ethnicity — it’s crime and drugs”

    No one said that the issue was “ethnicity”; but the reality is that the crime and drugs are coming from a particular place, overwhelmingly. So to not deal with that reality and pretend it doesn’t exist is suicide. It is suicide, and for what? So some activists don’t complain, so some people don’t “feel bad”?

    I don’t care about anyone’s feelings. I care about lives lost, either murdered or poisoned with drugs, and property destroyed. I care about Phoenix becoming the kidnapping capital of North America, second only to Mexico City itself. For that matter, I care about the Mexico Citification of my home city.

    Mexico is a failed state. Mexico is one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. Mexico makes even some African states look well-run and efficient. Mexico is both unable, because of corruption, and unwilling, because of corruption, to deal with the growing threat of the drug cartels.

    I’ll be damned if I’m going to say nothing and do nothing while the southwest, while AZ, slowly becomes Mexico, a failed and corrupt society.

  • Mexico has high crime rates, dysfunctional labor markets, wretched civil administration, and an abnormally skewed income distribution. None of these are atypical in Latin America. Its level of affluence is about average in this world, and its political system is among the world’s more durable. It is not Somalia or Pakistan.

  • True Art, but it is next to us and that is precisely the problem, that and our lack of will to enforce our own laws.

  • Art Deco:
    ” It’s not somalia or pakistan.”
    Indeed, for Mexico is more violent and corrupt. There is a reason why Ciudad Juarez is called the world’s most dangerous city.

  • Mark, the per capita income of Mexico is 5x that of Pakistan and more than 10x that of Somalia. Mexico has seen a couple of localized insurrections over the years, but has otherwise been in a state of civil peace since 1920 and has seen no breaches in the continuity of its formal institutions in that time. Somalia has no central government and Pakistan has an ongoing insurrection in its frontier provinces; they may still have a lower incidence of brigandage, but I would not be too sure. I realize these indices are black boxes, but it seems worth pointing out that folk who make their living manufacturing comparative assessments of corruption have not ranked Mexico as more problematic than either Pakistan or Somalia.

    http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table

  • Jeez, everything you write, AD, has got to be an abstract to an academic paper.

    Don’t you ever just chat with your friends? Is it always a dissertation? I’m not bringing this up to discredit your arguments, which are always based in fact. I’m just curious.

    You’re really missing the point in bringing up Pakistan and Somalia. No one said Mexico was the worst country in the world, and I don’t agree with the last commenter that you corrected that it is “worse” than those two.

    But it is pretty bad. And don’t tell me Mexico is better than Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Costa Rica, etc. If anything its at the level Colombia. I think its worse than Colombia, to be honest, because at least there, there is a well-defined status quo among FARC, AUC, ELN and the gov’t. In Mexico its still total chaos, its like an African nightmare.

  • Out of curiosity, Joe, when was the last time you visited Mexico?

  • My friends, them’s that’s left, find me alternately dull and high maintenance, so try to minimize the time spent in my presence.

    If I understand correctly, Costa Rica and the Southern Cone are the most agreeable parts of Latin America. I imagine they compare favorably to Mexico.

    Mexico’s a troubled country. Sad to say, it’s about average for the human race.

  • BA,

    It wouldn’t matter if I’d never set foot in that hellhole, or if I hadn’t lived in AZ almost my entire life, or known several illegal immigrants.

    The last time I went to Mexico was probably five years ago.

    So what does it matter? I can’t read the news? I can’t read books about the situation? Every printed source of information about Mexico is invalid until I go there and “see it”?

    No, I don’t think you mean to argue that, but why even bring it up?

  • As I said, I was just curious. You seem to have some very strong opinions on what things are like in Mexico, and I wondered to what extent they were based on trips to Mexico vs. what you’ve read about it (I assume that you’ve not been to Colombia).

  • Joe may have been understating the case of how dangerous Mexico can be, especially for gringas:

    http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/05/senior-in-high-school-travels-to-mexico-to-learn-smuggling-comes-home-in-coffin/

    How in the world did this 18 year old girl think it was a smart idea to go to Mexico to learn how to smuggle illegal aliens? A completely preventable tragedy.

  • I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

    I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

    Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

  • “All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

    It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless they add more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.

  • Benito,

    Thank goodness we have the constitution or emotionally rationalized analysis like yours would make prostitution and murder legal.

    Maybe you would prefer to a more ‘better’ country if you find our freedoms distasteful to your delicate sensibilities?

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .