Just You Watch...

Liberals around the country are going to use this terrible incident involving police officers in Seattle to attack the Arizona immigration law.

The racially charged videotape shows [two] officers stomping on [an] innocent detainee after they responded to several 911 calls for a report of an armed robbery in the parking lot of a night club near Lake Union.

In the video, a male officer is seen kicking the man who had been ordered to the ground while threatening him with racial slurs. Shortly after, a female officer kicked the man in the back of his leg.

I can see the narrative from the left now: "Police officers, who do wonderful things on behalf of our safety and security, nonetheless are prone to emotional outbursts that can flare up in the heat of the moment. As such, endowing police officers with the power to detain persons in Arizona and check their immigration status is a very slippery slope, indeed..."

Just you watch...

Yessss.....

Let's All Help the Greeks

Like any good socialist state, Greece is now paying for its ridiculous taxing and spending. The country is falling apart.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently announced a $145 billion loan to Greece. So what to do? How about use US taxpayer dollars in a likely-to-fail attempt to rescue the Greeks from their own mistakes?

We don't have our own problems here at home, do we?

This is another reason why I question US participation in international organizations such as the United Nations and the IMF, or US aid to certain foreign states, in the first place. If it does not further US interests, why waste our hard-earned money?

Al Sharpton Defines True Social Justice

I'm not going to pull any punches, here: I despise Al Sharpton. He is vile, and he perpetrates racism in our country. But today he came up with a real doozy:

Breitbart.tv » Al Sharpton: We Won’t Have True Social Justice Until Everything Is ‘Equal in Everybody’s House’

This is the liberal dream, and don't think Sharpton wasn't speaking literally. Everything equal in everybody's house. You know, kind of like how it used to be in the Soviet Union...

More on Arizona's Immigration Law

I enjoy reading Andrew McCarthy on National Review Online. Today, he offered three pieces on the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial immigration law here, here, and here.

I learned some important points about the law that make me feel better about its constitutionality. First, any communication between a police officer and an individual about immigration status can only come after the police officer lawfully stops the individual. In other words, a police officer cannot stop the individual and demand immigration papers on a hunch. It can only happen after a traffic stop, or if a search warrant is executed for another reason.

Second, the police officer may only question the individual about his immigration status if the police officer has a 'reasonable suspicion' about the individual's immigration status. This means that the officer must provide specific, articulable facts supporting his actions. A hunch will not cut it.

Third, any individual who is wrongly accused or questioned has the right to a civil action against the offending law enforcement agency.

These steps provide for greater protection to an individual that are provided under federal laws. A federal agent doesn't have to go through the steps that Arizona cops have to go through.

And finally, the law expressly prohibits any stop based on race or nationality.


There is a question about whether this law is constitutional under the Supremacy Clause, but I feel convinced that it does not violate Equal Protection laws - so long as police officers follow the mandates of the law.

Arizona's Immigration Law

Yesterday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law a bill that criminalizes the failure to carry immigration documents. President Obama has come out and spoken strongly against this bill, saying it offends traditional notions of fairness.

I have to admit that I don't like the smell of this bill, for several reasons. First, although generally I am all for states taking action instead of waiting for the federal government to act, immigration may very well be an issue where the federal government has the final say. Per the Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

In other words, federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land, and supercede state laws dealing with the same subject. A pretty strong argument can be made that immigration is of federal concern, and thus Arizona's immigration law could be made null and void.

Here is the rub, however - is there not federal immigration legislation on the books to supercede the Arizona law? This law appears to be one to enforce federal immigration laws, when enforcement mechanisms are obviously already present in the federal law. So is this law redundant, and if so, I'd expect lawsuits attacking the Arizona law under the Supremacy Clause.

For an argument to counter this line of thought, see Instapundit.

Second, how is this law to be enforced?

It requires police officers, “when practicable,” to detain people they reasonably suspect are in the country without authorization and to verify their status with federal officials, unless doing so would hinder an investigation or emergency medical treatment.

This is where it gets real sticky. This law empowers a police officer to (1) determine when it is appropriate to question an individual about his residency status, and (2) determine when it is "practicable" to detain someone the officer suspects of being in the country illegally.

Yikes. I have the utmost respect for our police officers, but giving them the power to question and also detain a person based on a reasonable belief about the person's residency status - especially when possibly 99 out of 100 incidents will involve Hispanics - is a risky proposition.

I would be shocked if this law is upheld as constitutional.

From a political standpoint, I think it is risky as well. For one, this law will be used relentlessly by Democrats this summer and fall to attack Republicans. Secondly, it could rally support for federal legislation that seems tame by comparison(amnesty, anyone?).

Remember November

Get ready for November.