2 years, 1 month ago
via phoenix-answers.com
Which McCain would you vote for today for U.S. Senate – Meghan or her Dad, John McCain*? Especially following their reactions...
...to Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration/racial profiling law.
Sure, Meghan McCain is not in office, nor is she running for office; that makes it easier to speak your mind. But, while explaining her views on SB1070 – the law that Gov. Jan Brewer signed this past Friday – Ms. McCain was able to say that she “do(es) not support the bill that was signed….” She explained why: “I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate, and also, in many ways, violates the civil rights of Arizona residents.”
The outspoken younger McCain notes that she understands the serious problem that the law is intended to address, and that the federal government (she did NOT blame the present Administration/Congress) has failed to address border security. But, she says, giving the police “a license to pull someone over for being Hispanic” is the wrong approach.
She could have pointed out that her father had long put his political neck on the line to try to get the fed govt to address it by passing comprehensive immigration reform. However, he is no longer willing to do that, because this time, it looks like it – his political neck – would be chopped off by hard right Hayworth and the Republican primary voters if he stuck to his beliefs.
Like Gov. Brewer, McCain has swallowed hard and is trying to support the new law. He called it “a step forward” and “a good tool” while his office is trying to tell reporters that that is NOT an endorsement of the law.
Soooo, would you vote for John, or Megan - the daughter who seems to have taken over the call-‘em-as-she-sees-‘em mantle that dad seems to have handed over?
* Yes, I know that there are other candidates: My former Rep., J.D. Hayworth, is running vs. McCain from the right in the Republican primary, and Democrat Rodney Glassman (Tucson City Councilman, USAF JAG Lt.). Other, lesser-known candidates, too.
Meghan McCain: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-25/hate-the-law-not-arizonans/
John McCain: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/23/mccain-descending.aspx ; http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/20/20100420lawmaker-says-arizona-immigration-law-like-nazi-germany-politico.html
Sure, Meghan McCain is not in office, nor is she running for office; that makes it easier to speak your mind. But, while explaining her views on SB1070 – the law that Gov. Jan Brewer signed this past Friday – Ms. McCain was able to say that she “do(es) not support the bill that was signed….” She explained why: “I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate, and also, in many ways, violates the civil rights of Arizona residents.”
The outspoken younger McCain notes that she understands the serious problem that the law is intended to address, and that the federal government (she did NOT blame the present Administration/Congress) has failed to address border security. But, she says, giving the police “a license to pull someone over for being Hispanic” is the wrong approach.
She could have pointed out that her father had long put his political neck on the line to try to get the fed govt to address it by passing comprehensive immigration reform. However, he is no longer willing to do that, because this time, it looks like it – his political neck – would be chopped off by hard right Hayworth and the Republican primary voters if he stuck to his beliefs.
Like Gov. Brewer, McCain has swallowed hard and is trying to support the new law. He called it “a step forward” and “a good tool” while his office is trying to tell reporters that that is NOT an endorsement of the law.
Soooo, would you vote for John, or Megan - the daughter who seems to have taken over the call-‘em-as-she-sees-‘em mantle that dad seems to have handed over?
* Yes, I know that there are other candidates: My former Rep., J.D. Hayworth, is running vs. McCain from the right in the Republican primary, and Democrat Rodney Glassman (Tucson City Councilman, USAF JAG Lt.). Other, lesser-known candidates, too.
Meghan McCain: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-25/hate-the-law-not-arizonans/
John McCain: http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/23/mccain-descending.aspx ; http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/20/20100420lawmaker-says-arizona-immigration-law-like-nazi-germany-politico.html
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
I'd vote for Meghan McCain, even though I disagree with her on this particular issue. I disagree with old McCain on almost everything and don't think he has any qualifications for office at all other than a rich wife who is a beer distributor. Not only does Meghan appear to be a progressive, if she were elected to something I'd get to see more photos of her.
But you seem interested in the new Arizona law. I think that is a worthwhile attempt to enforce the immigration laws. Like most laws, it has the possibility of abuse. However, I think most objections are due to a grossly simplistic reading of the law. It was mostly written by a law professor who did his research, not typically boneheaded state legislators. People read that the police are supposed to check when they have "reasonable" suspicion and are supposing that the police will be able to pick a definition of "reasonable" off the top of their heads; but, that's not so. Enshrined in our constitution is a prohibition of "unreasonable" searches, so the definition of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" has a long and extensive case history and has been continually refined by the courts for generations. The police know that stuff and the courts will correct them when they get it wrong.
Without state and local police enforcing the law the laws are pretty much doomed. Back during prohibition federal, state, and local police tried to enforce the prohibition against drinking. Where the local police didn't cooperate the law was virtually ignored. They are the only ones with enough "boots on the ground" to enforce most types of laws. And there is no constitutional problem with states making the same things illegal as the federal government, it happened with both prohibition and with the drug laws. The states just can't contradict the federal law without problems.
But you seem interested in the new Arizona law. I think that is a worthwhile attempt to enforce the immigration laws. Like most laws, it has the possibility of abuse. However, I think most objections are due to a grossly simplistic reading of the law. It was mostly written by a law professor who did his research, not typically boneheaded state legislators. People read that the police are supposed to check when they have "reasonable" suspicion and are supposing that the police will be able to pick a definition of "reasonable" off the top of their heads; but, that's not so. Enshrined in our constitution is a prohibition of "unreasonable" searches, so the definition of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" has a long and extensive case history and has been continually refined by the courts for generations. The police know that stuff and the courts will correct them when they get it wrong.
Without state and local police enforcing the law the laws are pretty much doomed. Back during prohibition federal, state, and local police tried to enforce the prohibition against drinking. Where the local police didn't cooperate the law was virtually ignored. They are the only ones with enough "boots on the ground" to enforce most types of laws. And there is no constitutional problem with states making the same things illegal as the federal government, it happened with both prohibition and with the drug laws. The states just can't contradict the federal law without problems.
images:
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Thanks for that link, alb. I was pretty sure that you were referring to Kobach. He has been in the news here because (Maricopa County) Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been paying him $250-300/hr for "training" the deputies on how to enforce immigration law now that the U.S. pulled 287(g) authority from the MCSO. I was not aware that he was also involved in the legislature's part of the playground.
However, you are right. Here is an article where he indicates that he has been an unpaid adviser to (AZ) Sen. Pearce, and includes an e-mail that he sent to Pearce just before the trailing corrections bill was passed at the end of last week. The e-mail indicates the motive behind allowing officers to initiate contact and ask for proof of citizenship for violations of municipal ordinances.
***
body of e-mail:
Russell,
I discussed all of the changes with Mike Hethmon and he concurred. But there is one additional point that he suggested--which you will certainly agree with.
When we drop out "lawful contact" and replace it with "a stop, detention, or rest, in the enforcement a violation of any title or section of the Arizona code" we need to add "or any county or municipal ordinance." This will allow police to use violations of property codes (ie, cars on blocks in the yard) or rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries as well.
I have not received anything from the people on the phone this afternoon. Please ensure that they make this addition as well.
Thanks!
Kris
***
According to the article, Kobach didn't confirm/deny the authenticity of that e-mail and acknowledged that he was advising Pearce. And, as you've noted, he is claiming authorship of the bill, though the article and e-mail and his MCSO consultancy make it appear that he it is more of a legit partnership - Pearce has been doing this stuff for years and loves to write this stuff.
article on Kobach (scroll down): http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/04/ricky_martin_blasts_arizona_bi.php (Author of article is award-winning blogger/reporter whom I have grown to respect; though he definitely espouses a point of view, he is a pretty reliable source of reportage.)
The law professor at the U Kansas who has worked on several related bills reportedly crafted the bill even though of course the politicians claim it.
The same sentence of the Constitution that is used to justify the immigration laws as being Federal does the same with bankruptcy and those have both state and Federal laws. If the judge feels the politicians were racially motivated then the law gets stricter scrutiny but the Constitutionality is based on the law not the motivation.
Whatever the motivation, there is really little point to the Federal government trying to enforce immigration laws without the help of the local police. It just doesn't work and it can't work unless we had huge Federal police force, which no one wants.
Alb, do you have any links handy for the Kansas law prof? There are not state bankruptcy laws - only where the U.S.C. specifically allows state laws regarding personal property exemptions to be opted for. (At least, that's the only one I can think of that you might be referring to. Unless... are you thinking of assignments for the benefit of creditors?)
Finally, the U.S. Govt HAS set up a method for working with state/local police - Section 287(g). But, that is different from different sets of immigration laws in different states.
Hey, alb, thanks for answering this Q! A couple of quick points - State Sen. Russell Pearce has claimed authorship of this bill (not just sponsorship). He may have worked with one of the attorneys/professors that he sometimes works with (do you know which one), but it is clear that he drives this bus.
He struck back at libertarians who had temporarily derailed the bill in March, partly by stating his bona fides - one of which is that he sponsored 10th amendment legislation to declare Arizona a "sovereign republic." He has a history of ties with people/groups whose motivation is racially-based.
He hands these laws off to the likes of Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio (and the Maricopa County Attorney until he recently resigned to run for AZ AG), who don't have the best of intentions when it comes to taking these laws and using them to target minorities.
I would suggest that the courts will find that the parallel federal and state laws - and enforcement schemes - are not akin to prohibition. Our nation's borders and citizenship are specifically the province of the federal.
I've gotta go, but will try to discuss it more later. (I've been doing some in-depth work on the upcoming legal battles.)
Thanks again--mm
We'll see what the courts think in a while. I think there is a good chance that both Federal and State law can apply if there is no direct conflict.
Here is link about the prof, it seems he is dabbling in politics too:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/01/1916932/an-immigration-storm-gyrates-around.html