Smearing Arizona

Visit NewsRealBlog

The New York Times has hit a new low today in its lead editorial, entitled “Stopping Arizona.”  The Times maliciously misrepresented Arizona’s new law , intended to combat the ravages within its borders caused by illegal immigration.  The Times‘ lies are typical of the race-baiting tactics employed by the progressive left.

For example, the Times falsely claimed:

The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.

The truth is precisely the opposite.  The new law does not empower local law enforcement officers to pick up anyone they wish who looks like he or she doesn’t belong in this country.  It requires first that the officer have a separate legal basis for coming into “lawful contact” with the individual, such as a speeding violation.  Then – and only if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that this individual may be in the country illegally –  can the officer ask to see the individual’s documents which federal law requires aliens residing in this country to carry with them at all times.

“Reasonable suspicion” is a court-defined standard, not a broad mandate for police harassment based on a person’s appearance.  The Arizona statute provides specific guidelines to govern law enforcement officers, including a list of documents such as an Arizona driver’s license which an officer must presume is sufficient proof that someone producing such a document is legally in the country.

Maybe the Times and other critics of the “reasonable suspicion” standard – including President Obama for that matter – should read the federal law stating that if an alien is encountered and they are not carrying ID they are in fact in violation of the law (8 USC 1304 (e)) and subject to fine or imprisonment.  The Arizona law is designed to aid in enforcement of this federal requirement, including requiring police officers to contact the federal government as soon as practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien.

To make sure that the new law will not be used as a justification for racial profiling, it provides that a law enforcement official, in making any stops and subsequent inquiries into immigration status:

may not solely consider race, color or national origin

The Arizona law also requires that it

be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

The New York Times shares an underlying progressive agenda of open borders with a coalition of radical groups spearheaded by such entities as the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

For example, the Times goes so far as to criticize another Arizona law, now before the Supreme Court, that revokes the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.  The Times evidently does not care about the near slave labor conditions that some illegal aliens are trapped in by exploitative employers.  Anything that might get in the way of the open borders philosophy is a no-no to the progressive crowd.

At the end of its editorial, the Times asks rhetorically:

Is our core belief still the welcome and assimimilation of newcomers?

The answer can still be yes while maintaining the rule of law.  It has never been the core belief of this country that anyone from anywhere in the world is entitled as a matter of right to enter this country whenever and however they want without following the rules for lawful entry and residence.

  • melpol

    It would take more than waving a magic wand to solve the illegal immigrant problem. The cost of catching, holding, processing, and deporting an illegal is over 40 thousand dollars. With over 20 million illegals, it would cost 8 trillion dollars to do the job. Americans have no choice except to make them feel at home, because they are here to stay.

    • Rifleman

      Ever heard of self deportation? No documentation, no job, no reason or means to stay. Think again.

  • Richard Weinberg

    To those who say, "The New York Times is useless," I say, WRONG! The New York Times is perfect for paper-training a new puppy or it can be used for the bottom of a bird cage. Other than those two examples, I'm stumped for another use for the times.

  • Richard Weinberg

    How about if we grind them up, put them in small cans and feed them to our dogs and cats? There are two benefits. First is that we get rid of the illegals. Second is a cheep source of food for our pets.

  • Richard Weinberg

    Melpol you're an idiot. Following your logic, we should set free all the murderers and other convicted felons, because it's cheeper to send them to Harvard than to keep them in prison.

    • Gary Rumain

      There's always the death penalty. That doesn't cost much. Just a once-off payment.

  • Snapper

    Without proper training from the smart people.

    • Rifleman

      Who are these 'smart people'?

  • Michael Trent

    Actions such as those taken by Arizona would be unnecessary if the Executive Branch of our government would fulfill its Constitutional requirement to enforce laws passed by the Legislative Branch of our government.

    The United States of America, as a sovereign nation has the right to enact and enforce laws governing itself, its people within its borders, including immigration. The Congress has passed and past presidents have signed immigration laws for these United States. Until Congress changes the current immigration laws, these are still valid and should be enforced.

    This President, and all previous Presidents since Dwight David Eisenhower, have chosen not to enforce these immigration laws (or more accurately, to selectively enforce these immigration laws) contrary to their Constitutional responsibility.

    Therefore, my question to the President is this: Did you or did you not take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America? Then, having taken an oath u to uphold the Constitution, it is NOT YOUR CHOICE as to which laws you shall enforce.

    If there is a change required for immigration, the Constitution outlines the process to be used, which requires the Legislative Branch (not the Executive Branch) to enact new laws or modify current laws. However, be mindful that our immigration laws are our strongest defense against terrorism within the borders of our country.

    Mr President, this matter is the result of your dereliction of duty and that of your predecessors. AMNESTY IS NOT AN OPTION ! ! !

  • Jim C.

    There is a magic wand. It's called enforcing the law. Why don't we do that (and Arizona really won't, by the way)? Because our economy is addicted to their labor and as melpol points out, it's way too expensive to deport them en masse.

    So…dry up the incentive: fine employers $20,000 per illegal–roughly the cost of each individual's deportation.

    Can the "good people of Arizona" live without the cheap labor to which they've become accustomed?

    • Rifleman

      Exactly, then they will self-deport.

    • kel

      Right on Jim C. I would add that we could accelerate the 'self deportation' if we offered a free ticket back to the alien's home town.
      So, 1. no job; 2, no place to live, 3 free ticket home = no brainer

      The cost of these steps would be a fraction of the what put Melpol's panties in a bunch, and would look a *lot* like a 'magic wand'.

  • Jim C.

    And why do you think they've chosen not to enforce these laws? The goodness of their hearts? Could they perhaps be afraid of telling the American people THEY are responsible for this situation?

    What happens if they really put the teeth into enforcement? It won't be simply a lot of cops rounding up Mexicans….

  • Snapper

    Police are to stupid to do this job.

  • Syd Barrett

    Start thinking, melpol.

    What happens if we start giving criminals a pass on their illegal actions? Where do you draw the line? "Illegal" immigrants are NOT immigrants. They are illegal invaders and must be jailed or deported.

    I have friends who are following the laws to become a naturalized citizen. We can, and should, welcome these individuals with open arms.

    Why can't the "illegals" do that? Why are they "special"? Because they're criminals and they think they're above the law. So, no matter what it costs us in terms of money, time or resources, we HAVE to act against them.

    Let them wait in the freakin' line with the people following the law! Why should they go to the "head of the line" because they snuck in?

    Also, what happens in your local theater when someone sneaks in? Should we let that happen, too?

  • Jim Johnson

    It is both the Democrats and Republicans who have the policy allowing total illegal immigration. Efforts to put an end to it have met with stiff resistance from the US Chamber of Commerce and related business groups. The wealthy have grown rich off of illegal labor and have no intention of letting any one hinder it in any way. The Democrats benefit because it gives them perpetual control over politics. The people who are hurt the most are the poor and especially poor blacks. It is the wealthy and the left who hurl insults at the majority of the American people who are being ground down economically.

  • Gary Rumain

    So train blacks in border protection. Or will that be labelled racist?

  • idf

    San Diego should be an interesting place to watch today. I noticed that a Counter Protest has been planned. Of course, if anything were to happen the criminal media in this country will blame the Right, so bring video cameras and document the Bloodsucking Left being who they truly are… Violent Anti-American Marxist Scum.

  • johncarens

    Wonderfully concise article. And we should be shocked that the home screed of Walter Duranty would carry the water for any wacked-out liberal cause why, exactly?

  • poetcomic1

    As we Americans rediscover the Constitution we will also discover that only on the level of state government can we 'empower' ourselves against Federal tyranny. Don't be surprised if someday there is an Arizona Underground State Government fighting with its own gallant Arizona militia against a United Nations 'peacekeeping force'. Don't laugh.

    • Stephen_Brady

      I never laugh at statements like yours. And it's good to note that blue-helmets make wonderful aimpoints!

  • Jacob

    Arizona has become the apex for decent on opposition to aliens entering the United States. Whether they bring terrorist, prostitute slaves, or just workers who are willing to work under the table, for no benefits, witch in the long run lowers the living standards for all people.____ __