Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
April 30, 2010
POLITICS: Immigration Update

Byron York continues his excellent reportage on the Arizona law with two items. First, he notes some changes made to the law to clarify that its "lawful contact" provision requires a stop for a non-immigration-related reason, which should eliminate the main source of complaint about the bill but won't stop people like Mike Lupica from uninformed rants against it. And second, York looks at how the Holder Justice Department could lose legal challenges to the law.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:48 PM | Politics 2010 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

I would suggest to Lupica that he stick to writing about sports, but considering how badly he does with that endeavor nowadays, maybe he just take up knitting.

Posted by: Paul Zummo at April 30, 2010 1:43 PM

So, Crank-you seemed to think a couple posts back that stops could easily be "arranged", for dubious reasons, to check immigration status-is that the case, or not? Does a cop just pull over everybody who looks Hispanic, and say he thought they had a light out? Or "you were doing 27 in a 25 MPH zone"? Cops can always find a pretext to harass people.

I'm still amazed that the same conservatives and libertarians, who think government does pretty much everything poorly, believe that government can "seal the border". How in the world is this possible? In fact, as a conservative myself, I wonder how, short of tyrranical measures, we could even begin to get a hold of this alleged problem.

Isn't it about who's coming, as you've said yourself ("were they Canadian illegals, I doubt there'd be much of an uproar"), rather than how many?

Is it simply beyond the pale to say racism plays a role here? In other words, has racism been utterly "eliminated" from the American mind? If not, might this reasonably be seen as an example?

And you'll never convince me that in a country that is inevitably becoming more Hispanic, this isn't insane politics for the Republicans. "We didn't want you here, but now that you are, please vote for us!"

Posted by: John Salmon at May 4, 2010 9:51 AM

There are also so many fewer people (Mexicans) coming into the U.S. illegally now than, say, 15-20 years ago this response seems unusual. Given what AZ's economy looks like or has looked like over the past couple to three years it would seem to make more sense to stay where you are.

Posted by: jim at May 4, 2010 11:46 AM

And you'll never convince me that in a country that is inevitably becoming more Hispanic, this isn't insane politics for the Republicans. "We didn't want you here, but now that you are, please vote for us!"

That's a nicely constructed strawman. I've been doing my best to keep up with this issue and, from everything I have read, I haven't seen anyone saying, "we don't want you here" to immigrants. Or, more aptly put, I don't see anyone that's against 'legal' immigration. Almost everyone tackling this issue stipulates that this country was founded on immigration and order for it to thrive into the future, we must have a policy that favors immigration.

However, it's a reality that an open border policy that doesn't curb illegal immigration is an threat to our long term economic stability.

So, if you want to argue against the policy, that's fine. However, don't make false accusations about "we don't want you here", as though Republicans (or conservatives, classical liberals, etc...) are against immigration in general.

Posted by: AgentW at May 11, 2010 3:31 PM

The term "open-border" policy implies that Mexicans are just streaming over the Rio Grande willy-nilly. Completely false. That's Michael Savage-level diatribe.

Posted by: jim at May 13, 2010 1:44 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg