“Lawful Contact” did not need to be redefined in Arizona illegal immigration bill

Once available, I took a few minutes to read the illegal immigration legislation provided by the Arizona legislature. I certainly knew what lawful contact meant, but some thought it vague enough to result in random ID checks.

Read more

How Do You Say “Oops” in Spanish?

Y’know that law in Arizona that has the Mexican government all upset???

From the AP, via Yahoo:

“MEXICO CITY – Amnesty International called the abuse of migrants in Mexico a major human rights crisis Wednesday, and accused some officials of turning a blind eye or even participating in the kidnapping, rape and murder of migrants.

The group’s report comes at a sensitive time for Mexico, which is protesting the passage of a law in Arizona that criminalizes undocumented migrants.

The Interior Department acknowledged in a statement that the mainly Central American migrants who pass through Mexico on their way to the United States suffer abuses, but attributed the problem to criminal gangs branching out into kidnapping and extortion of migrants.”

Now, what mechanism would be in place in Mexico that discourages illegal immigrants from seeking the protection from the Mexican federales, you ask?

“One of the main issues, Amnesty says, is that migrants fear they will be deported if they complain to Mexican authorities about abuses.

At present, Article 67 of Mexico’s Population Law says, “Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal … are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues.””

Pot.  Kettle.  Black. Sorry, wouldn’t want to offend anyone…

The Mexican law goes far beyond the Arizona law, which leaves inquiry into immigration status to the discretion of the officer.  Taken literally, the victim of a crime has to be interrogated as to their immigration status before the officer may so much as inquire as to the nature of the victim’s complaint.

How do you say, “Methinks the President doth protest too much” in Spanish?

Arizona immigration and advice to the Tea Parties

This is a show you will not want to miss. Thursday, April 29th (tomorrow or today depending on when you read this), two great guests and your phone calls. Arizona Representative John Kavanagh on the state’s new illegal immigration law and then John Samples from Cato on advice to Tea Party folks, “Don’t get too cozy with either party.” More after the fold on both men, plus CATO video. Read more

Liberals prematurely jumped out of their skin concerning Ariz. immigration law

Read the legislation. That’s all I ask you to do. President Obama and many others seem perfectly fine with letting illegal aliens rewrite the rules while encouraging law enforcement, cities and states to stick their collective heads in the sand. When Arizona citizens want something done – they’re racists.

Read more

Trouble on the Border.

Apparently, our neighbor to the South is less than happy with the Arizona state legislature…

“The Mexican government criticized Wednesday a tough immigration law approved this week by Arizona legislators, saying it could result in rights violations and racial profiling and affect cross-border relations.

Mexico’s Foreign Relations Department said in a statement relayed through Mexico’s U.S. embassy that it viewed the measure with great concern and said it “could have potentially serious effects on the civil rights” of Mexican nationals.”

Now, far be it for me to tell the Mexican government how to run their nation, although they seem pretty willing to tell Americans how to run theirs, but this is just a little too cute for words.

Illegal immigrants are, definitionally, criminals and, as such, are entitled to a bus ticket back to Mexico.  Now, I understand that these “undocumented tourists” might not be happy with the idea of returning to their country of origin, what with the poverty, the corruption and the violence in the streets, but that would be a “local matter” for the Mexican government.  The fact that they cannot even maintain peace and order in the tourist areas of the country speaks volumes as to the competence of their police and security forces.

Now, Mexico has a vested interest in keeping the illegal immigrants north of the Rio Grande.  Remittances — transfers of money for individuals in the United States — were the second greatest source of income for the nation, second only to the revenues generated by Mexico’s petroleum industry.  What we in the US call “illegal immigration” would apparently be Mexico’s “war on poverty.”  With all apologies to Horace Greeley, the Mexican answer to their woes is “go north, young man!”  The Mexican government has gone so far as to produce a manual on how to cross the border.

Now comes the Arizona state legislature which has, with the murder of a rancher, decided that, is the Federal government is not going to deal with the problem, then they would and have passed a law that seeks to address, among other things, the shift in the flow of illegal immigrants away from California to Arizona.  Never mind that Mexico’s legislation on illegal immigration is draconian, even compared to the strict law proposed in Arizona, it would seem that the government of Mexico thinks that the US economy is their private preserve.

Allow me to propose a compromise.  The United States should treat Mexicans here illegally as Mexico treats those who enter that nation illegally.  Who could complain about that, other than, of course, Mexico?

Obama on immigration

Yesterday, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed into law a bill that makes illegal immigration a state crime, and authorizes police to verify the immigration status of anyone suspected to be an illegal alien.

Ms. Brewer, a Republican, said the state action was forced by Washington’s failure to secure the U.S. borders and solve the nation’s thorny illegal immigration problem. “Decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation,” she said.

It is not so much Arizona’s law that caught my eye, rather, it was President Obama’s statement about it.

The president said it was the state [of Arizona] that was “misguided” and that the Arizona measure would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”

I’m curious, Mr. President.  What basic notions of fairness are you talking about?  Is it fair that thousands who would like to come to this country have to fill out voluminous forms, and wait years to learn if they will be lucky enough to be admitted, while others avoid the lengthy process and simply stroll across our borders?  Is it fair that states like Arizona have to pay millions to provide emergency health care and public education for the families of those who choose to evade our laws?  Is it fair that states like Arizona even have to pass such laws to begin with, and only do so because the federal government isn’t doing its job protecting our borders?

Don’t misunderstand me.  I believe firmly in immigration.  My grandparents on both my father’s side and my mother’s side emmigrated to this country in the late 1800’s.  But, they filled out the forms, waited in line, and hoped for the best.  Anything short of that is illegal, and such illegal behavior should never be condoned lest we make a mockery of our immigration system.

Bottom line, I guess I cherish different “basic notions of fairness” than does our President.

Mayo says no to Medicare at Arizona facility

My guess is Medicare patients overwhelm this operation simply because it is Arizona, home to retirees. It’s also my guess we will see more of this in areas where the over 65 crowd decided to congregate, whether that’s a region that retirees love to move to (Florida) or where young people have just picked up and left for lower tax states, leaving that state with an aging population (Connecticut). Mayo says not now … but …

More than 3,000 patients eligible for Medicare, the government’s largest health-insurance program, will be forced to pay cash if they want to continue seeing their doctors at a Mayo family clinic in Glendale, northwest of Phoenix, said Michael Yardley, a Mayo spokesman. The decision, which Yardley called a two-year pilot project, won’t affect other Mayo facilities in Arizona, Florida and Minnesota.

Remember, your Democrat Congress wants to solve America’s Health Care problem by putting middle class America on Medicare and Medicaid. But just because you are covered doesn’t mean you will get care … unless you also have cash … like Senators …. who are like Revolutionary war heroes.

“Many physicians have said, ‘I simply cannot afford to keep taking care of Medicare patients,’” said Heim, a family doctor who practices in Laurinburg, North Carolina. “If you truly know your business costs and you are losing money, it doesn’t make sense to do more of it.”

And I thought I would include this just for chuckles.


CNN instructs America on “assault” rifles

… and once again gets it wrong. I am sometimes stunned at the media’s lack of knowledge of firearms, and the 2nd Amendment. My guess is the world in which they live this is perfectly acceptable but it not only shows their ignorance but prejudice as well.

Here’s Jack Cafferty on the Situation Room at 5 p.m. describing a weapon-carrying man at a rally in Arizona. I actually agree with Jack that bringing the weapon to a rally as a “statement” is a silly stupid idea. A weapon in public should only be carried in defense … not as a form of protest. It’s not a prop or a toy.

BUT, Jack doesn’t say this. It’s just … well … scary.

Some points to remember as you watch. An AR 15 is not, repeat, is not an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons are illegal and I believe the new AR 15’s cannot be converted into automatic weapons. You can’t squeeze off shots any faster than a Baretta 45 or a S&W MP 45 or a Glock or … well you name the handgun.

Edited to add (Steve): The National Firearms Act (NFA) from 1934 rules apply when it comes to automatic weapons. You can buy a fully automatic weapon if you fill out the right forms with the federal government, go through the background check and pay a $200 stamp tax on each weapon you want to buy. Surprised? Of course, there are no “new” select-fire weapons on the market and you can’t just go out and order one either, you’re restricted to pre-ban weapons and they are not cheap, and very regulated. I’ll try to post more about this subject in the future.

Secondly, distance is irrelevant. The man is carrying open in a crowd.

But CNN is playing to an audience that will believe this crap, unfortunately.


To Jack’s credit … he got corrected … and thus he corrected the errors at the end of the hour. How many saw it? Good question. More importantly, why would Jack shoot off his mouth without checking first?  Damage done … nothing to see here … move along.


It now appears the whole thing was a setup … Rick Sanchex yesterday interviewed the “reporter”, Earnest Hancock, who talked with the man carrying the AR 15. Sanchex of course, is aghast. While Hancock does not give and inch. The “good stuff” comes about 3 minutes in.


Update: This story is picking up steam this morning … and you gun owners are the target. This from the Washington Post. To the president’s credit, he says he defends their right. But the rest of the article is filled with hysteria … or is it? (emphasis mine)

Anti-gun campaigners disagreed with Gibbs’s comments, voicing fears that volatile debates over health-care reform are more likely to turn violent if gun control is not enforced.

“What Gibbs said is wrong,” said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “Individuals carrying loaded weapons at these events require constant attention from police and Secret Service officers. It’s crazy to bring a gun to these events. It endangers everybody.”

The past week has seen a spate of men carrying firearms while milling outside meetings Obama has held to defend his health-care reform effort. On Monday, a man with an AR-15 semiautomatic assault rifle strapped to his shoulder was outside a veterans’ event in Phoenix. He was one of a dozen men who reportedly had guns outside the forum.

Phoenix police made no arrests, saying Arizona law allows weapons to be carried in the open.

I guess the implication here is that there should be a law. I think these folks are hurting 2nd Amendment advocates, but that’s just me. You make the call. Agree or disagree. Take the poll.