Congressman: US should fight Ariz. immigrant law

[Divine Discontent]

Source: AP

PHOENIX -- An Arizona congressman urged the Obama administration not to cooperate when illegal immigrants are picked up by local police if a tough new state immigration law survives legal challenges.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, and civil rights activists spoke on Sunday to thousands of people gathered at the state Capitol and called on President Barack Obama to fight the law, promising to march in the streets and invite arrest by refusing to comply.

"We're going to overturn this unjust and racist law, and then we're going to overturn the power structure that created this unjust, racist law," Grijalva said.

Obama has called the new law "misguided" and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it's legal. It requires police to question people about their immigration status - including asking for identification - if they suspect someone is in the country illegally. Opponents say it would lead to racial profiling because officers would be more likely to ask people who look Hispanic.
<snip>


Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042600226.html

---

Thank you. I was saying the US Govt had better step in hard on this and throw it's massive weight around on behalf of it's citizens rights. This isn't just bad - it's unconscionable!

[boppers]

1. I've eaten many lunches with Raul in Tucson.

Since he's in DC now, I guess he hangs out at different places.

The first time a congressman gets "swept up", some serious shit will go down.

[Divine Discontent]

2. thinking along the same lines with a judge or top physician at a university or something like that,

but definitely, if it's done to a rep, or judge, etc, then the sh*t will truly hit the fan.

[boppers]

3. I think we should buy, as a people, vacation packages for our Supreme Court justices.

They work hard, they deserve a great vacation in Tucson, with bus trips across the border into Nogales.

Then they can try to get back in.

[joeglow3]

4. I don't like politicians who think THEY can choose to ignore laws.

If you don't like it, fight to change it. However, when we as a society accept politicians' decisions to ignore some laws, we are long gone as a country. I certainly don't want that precedent set.

That said, while I vehemently oppose illegal immigration, this is the WRONG way to enforce it. It places our legal residents in a situation to be harassed again and again. Rather, I would like to see a bill that goes after business owners and landlords. Make it a requirement, subject to hefty fines, to verify legal status before hiring or leasing to someone. That way, it is something that affects EVERYONE in a very infrequent manner, but also covers close to 100% of the population in the US (thereby avoiding any kind of profiling).

[Bette Noir]

8. So nonviolent resistance destroys countries?

So, that would mean Jesus, Mohandas Gandhi, and MLK Jr. were all destroying their countries?

Nonviolent resistance is the only correct response to a law that is clearly unjust.

[joeglow3]

9. When done by elected politicians, yes.

THEY have the means to change the law. The problem is that they are too chickenshit to do a damn thing about it, so they try to push the responsibility of the problem onto the backs of the people without the power to change the law. You choose to praise them, I choose to call them out.

[Iowa]

10. Nah...

First, a politician can't change a law unless a majority of politicians are willing to cooperate. You imply that a politician can change a law. That's often not the case.

But most importantly, some laws should be ignored as a matter of principle or for the sake of the country. This country would not have been founded were it not for the founders' determination to ignore laws. Rigid adherence to bad laws can be a far bigger threat to the country than ignoring horrible laws.

[joeglow3]

12. Who gets to decide which laws can be ignored?

When the thugs regain control, do we sit by when they decide to ignore some laws.

Our Founders recognized EXACTLY what you mentioned and, therefore, provided the means to undo bad laws.

[Iowa]

13. I beleive that your thinking on this matter fails on several levels...

"Who gets to decide which laws can be ignored?"

Your question is based on a false premise - the premise that someone must always "decide" and the masses must always follow. In a free society, conscience and humanity must sometimes trump rules. The thing is, liberty can be messy. It's not something that lends itself to being tied up into a neat, tidy, rigid set of rules. There was a time when it was illegal to hide escaped slaves. Who gets to decide whether such laws can be ignored? I do. You do. We all do. That almost goes without saying; it's one of the key things that separates liberals from conservatives.

"When the thugs regain control, do we sit by when they decide to ignore some laws."

Of course not. Once again, you appear to be operating from a false premise. You're presuming that if people of conscience ignore monstrous laws, they must therefore "sit by" and tolerate thugs who ignore laws that exist for the common good... tit-for-tat. But that simply isn't the case. Your thinking on this seems to be guided by a tendency to prefer the neatness of order, simplicity, and rules, which can sometimes lead to faulty conclusions.

"Our Founders... provided the means to undo bad laws."

True, but in an effort to mold this issue into your way of thinking, you're taking one fact and running too far with it. You're suggesting that because the founders provided the means to undo bad laws, it follows that all laws, no matter how reprehensible, must be tolerated unless repealed by the government. The founders would have rejected that type of thinking. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all". The founders would have found your thinking on this to be directly opposed to their own.

[John Kerry VonErich]

11. I agree

It only makes the political opposition look good by using the non compliance as "totalitarian".

[SargeUNN]

5. Yeah he is correct

I honestly believe we will get this hideous law overturned. Many are working hard to do so both inside and outside Arizona and truthfully even some local republicans are very upset about it that want it stopped.

[Wizard777]

7. The same thing can essentially be achieved with a Must ID In Public law.

States and even localities can require people in public places to be able to identify themselves. Anyone that cannot identify themselves is held for purposes of identification. You can ferret out the illegals that way too.

I also have a problem with lawmakers Aiding a Abetting crimes under the guises of political policy. If the laws are bad or just no longer the will of the majority. Then repeal them. Then you don't create these bastardization of our legal system that says sometimes it's okay to violate the law. Which creates further bastardizations in trying to figure out when sometimes is and who may do that. I'll close by reminding everyone that the US Constitution demands that out immigration laws be "uniform."

[deacon]

6. What do the small goverment teabaggers think of this? n/t

[pampango]

14. Ironically, probably the opposite of most allegedly "big government" liberals.

:)