Arizona, What Was the Point?

Clueless Protesters

FIRM GRASP OF THE ISSUES - Protestors take to the street in support and opposition to the recently enacted Arizona immigration law. After a lot of yelling and screaming, the protesters decided to recall the law because no one could remember the point of it.

Arizona passed a law to crack down on illegal immigrants. Sure, it’s stupid, unenforceable, and mean-spirited. It’s criticized as racist with at least some justification and it promotes profiling. Backers say they did it because the Federal government has fallen down on the job and has been unable to “seal” the border and say it’s not racist, prohibits profiling, and will dramatically cut illegal immigration.

Few could legitimately argue that the Feds have done a splendid job enforcing immigration laws – not just during this administration, but going back through several Democan and Republicrat administrations. Equal opportunity ineptitude if you will.

Are Ya Fer Us or Agin Us?
There’s a plethora of arguments for and against:

  • What are we going to do with the illegals already here?
  • How are we going to “seal” the border anyway? The French already tried something similar to keep the Germans out, can you say Maginot Line?
  • Who’s going to do all the work Americans don’t want to do?
  • Employing illegals is just another way of exporting American jobs – presumably the ones Americans do want, but that don’t seem to fit the profile of your average illegal immigrant farm worker?
  • People from Canada aren’t beating the doors down to get in, what’s up with the Latinos.
  • It’s the responsibility of business to stop hiring them.
  • It’s the responsibility of the state to stop them and turn them over to the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity who will deport them just in time to catch the next Coyote limo out of Mexicali for the late shift at the avocado grove.
  • It’s the Feds responsibility to act like a small government and arrest them. Although it is a little confusing to be a small government and run around picking up people were minding their own business.
  • It’s up to militias to take the law into their own hands, because, well, it just KICK’S ASS!

Ad infinitum.

He Spreaks the Truth

HE'S GOTCHA - Arizonans can stay only if they have the proper papers.

Sure, some of those positions are a load of crap, but others have value. But the thing is, the nation is split yet again over something that means absolutely bupkis and is no closer to solving the problem than we’ve ever been.

Here’s the thing. It’s not exactly clear exactly what the law does that’s much different than it’s ever been. Police always could stop people and ask for ID if there was probable cause – probable cause being anything from doing 36 in a 35 zone to wearing an AK47 as you try to board the Southwest flight to Amarillo.

Opponents of the law say it promotes profiling. True, despite the Hokie Mom’s claims that it specifically prohibits profiling. Right, “you betcha.”

But profiling has gone on since the first cop stalked the first criminal and as much as we are loathe to admit it, it actually serves some useful purposes. The trick is restricting it appropriately so that we don’t roll up every Tom, Dick, and Harry because they have brown skin, white skin, or a sort of mauve one – anything other than white, because everyone knows whites are genetically incapable of committing any crimes other than the white collar sort.

Opponents say it’s racist, and it sure looks that way, but it’s no more racist than the current laws. Cracker sheriffs always could arrest someone for breathing while being a minority. It’s not right, but it happens and the new law doesn’t change that one bit. Net gain to net loss – zero.

Man Up Racists, Embrace You Gooberness
And some advice to the law’s backers – don’t act so damned put out when you do something that you know – without a shadow of a doubt – will cause you to be labeled a racist if you don’t like to be called a racist. That’s just dumb. If you really think what you’re doing is right and you truly believe it’s the way of the world that Mexicans can only be pool boys, man up and own the word. Because after all, it’s a word – nothing more, nothing less.

So here we are with a new law that codifies something already practiced. Some police will enforce it as a Godsend from the scourge of dangerous foreign lettuce pickers. Others will refuse to enforce it because, well, it’s stupid. Lawsuits will fly. Federal, state, and local government will spend untold dollars and huge amounts of time on a law designed to reinforce the status quo while the Gulf of Mexico turns the consistency of grease in a McDonalds deep fat fryer and we’re bailing out companies that are simultaneously too big, too small, and just right to fail.

And the illegals?

They’ll keep coming and going like they always have.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

To Smite or Not to Smite Westboro, That is the Question

SMITE THEM GOD, SMITE THEM - Westboro's God Hates Fags campaign is an embarrassment to humanity. Yet they have the right to make idiots of themselves. Even if we do want to smack them down.

SMITE THEM GOD, SMITE THEM - Westboro's God Hates Fags campaign is an embarrassment to humanity. Yet they have the right to make idiots of themselves...even if we do want to smack them down.

There are few things as repugnant as Westboro Baptist’s “God Hates Fags” screeds at military funerals. It’s an understandable impulse to want to thump these yahoos to within an inch of their putrid lives, but if you do, expect to do some time in the pokey. Free speech is allowed, violence isn’t.

The Supreme Court will soon hear the question of whether free speech protections cover Westboro’s lunatic fringing. It’ll be interesting to see how it goes.

Cases like this pose a constitutional dilemma. For the most part – save the whole “shouting fire in a crowded theatre” question – I favor letting people say what they want. Free speech doesn’t mean free to anyone I don’t think is stupid, rude, or just plain wrong. It means free…for everyone…even if they are ignorant pootieheads.

Defending the Rights of the Asshatted
I recently defended the right of gay rights opponents to say what they want and received some not unexpected fallout for my trouble. Several commenters took a zero-tolerance line – they said it’s never OK to oppose anything as important as gay rights…period. However, you could just as easily turn that around to say it’s never OK for Republicans to speak either. No matter how much I fantasize about stopping their unending, infernal chants of NO it would be clearly unconstitutional and just plain wrong. The offense in Westboro’s case owes a lot to where you and your opponents stand.

The Constitution presupposes there is someone on either side who is rational and feels as strongly about others’ rights as they do their own. It assumes these people will speak and not poke each other in the nose. It assumes that words don’t cause permanent damage regardless of how insulting and wrong you may feel they are.

But cases like the Westboro Association of Pinheads’ picketing the funerals of innocent, grieving bystanders who have nothing to do with their “issue” seems to go a step farther. Is this the point where the right of grieving families and friends should be protected from a group if nimrods who have no respect for others? After all, my general rule is that exercising your right is OK as long as you don’t impinge on someone else’s right to exercise theirs. Not respecting their rights takes you one step closer to their values, not farther away.

GOD, ARE YOU LISTENING? - God needs a better PR person on Earth. Fred Phelps and his ilk are damaging God's brand.

GOD, ARE YOU LISTENING? - God needs a better PR person on Earth. Fred Phelps and his ilk are damaging God's brand.

The Slippery Slope
My first impulse is to squash them like the vermin they are. However, in the back of my mind I keep hearing a constitutional voice whispering that depriving Westboro of their idiotic fun may be the first in a series of slip slides down a mucky slope.

Who gets to make these decisions? What are the criteria? How much does asshatery cost per pound when compared with the cost of individual freedom? It’s too simple to just say STFU and be done with it. As clear-cut as it may appear, it’s anything but.

As with many issues, there isn’t a good black and white answer and I don’t profess to have one. At the end of the day, the Supremes will make a decision. In all likelihood, Congress will pass more legislation and the Supremes will have to retest the new version of Constitutional right and wrong. No doubt, this question will come back up repeatedly, if for no other reason than the Westboro loons are unlikely to stop until their God snatches up the last of them and casts them into a lake of fire. This is the juncture between the letter of the law and its common sense application.

The whole sordid affair makes me long to go back to my original thought and thump the stupid bastards to within an inch of their crapulent lives.

But that’s not Constitutional either.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]