A law Arizona can live with

[CLANG]

"Misguided and irresponsible" is how Arizona's new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a "sanctuary city," an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of "nullification" and "interposition," anarchy and disunion. Strange.

It is passing strange for federal officials, including the president, to accuse Arizona of irresponsibility while the federal government is refusing to fulfill its responsibility to control the nation's borders. Such control is an essential attribute of national sovereignty. America is the only developed nation that has a 2,000-mile border with a developing nation, and the government's refusal to control that border is why there are an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona and why the nation, sensibly insisting on first things first, resists "comprehensive" immigration reform.

Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona's right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer's character and motives, saying she "caved to the radical fringe." This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a "fringe" of their state?

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy -- judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes -- because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things "beyond the reach of majorities."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042702741.html

George Will is a complete sleazbag. But we already knew that...

[ixion]

1. Uh, and this garbage was posted for what reason?

Yes, George Will is an idiot. So why post his crap and give him a search engine boost?

[CLANG]

2. Why post opposing opinions? I thought that had been answered many times before.

[billh58]

3. Nice try, but

any attempt at supporting this atrocious "law" speaks volumes about the writer (on in this case, the poster). Will's statement that, "Arizona's law makes what is already a federal offense -- being in the country illegally -- a state offense" totally ignores the racist intent of this obscene Jim Crow "law." One can not immigrate to Arizona, but only to the United States of America. What's next for Arizona? Going after Hispanic Federal tax cheats?

Federal law does not give Federal Agents, or anyone else, the "right" to apply racial-profiling, as a multitude of legal rulings have affirmed. Assurances by Jan Brewer that "proper training" will be given is laughable. Who will give this training -- Sheriff Joe? He has already stated that this "law" will give him even more power to continue his pogrom. Who will train Sheriff Joe?

The Arizona "law" was written by a white supremacist, for white supremacists, and passed by Republican bigots who are afraid that the Hispanic Democratic voter base is becoming too large.

You can support George Will's sad attempt at a defense of Arizona and the rednecks who run it all you want, but please do not attempt to apply legalistic "reasoning" to a blatant and transparent attempt at racial-profiling.

[CLANG]

5. If you think I'm supporting Will's beliefs, you are nuts.

[billh58]

6. So like FAUX News

you just posted an "opposing opinion" in the interest of fairness and balance?

If I have misjudged you, then I apologize, but this Arizona madness is way too serious to give the Republican racists even a slight measure of leeway. There is absolutely nothing even remotely reasonable about this transparent Jim Crow attempt at racial-profiling.

[CLANG]

7. I was attempting to expose his racist bigotry. Sorry if you misunderstood.

[billh58]

8. Mea culpa,

mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...;-)

[classysassy]

4. We will see in november

if racism wins.