Arizona Immigration Bill Is No "Tougher" Than Federal Immigration Laws

By now everyone knows that last Friday, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed into law "the nation's toughest bill on illegal immigration."  However, I think this is an inaccurate depiction of the bill (SB 1070).

All of the rhetoric and misrepresentations of the bill reminds me of the accusations by Democrats that Republicans were intentionally telling lies or exaggerating the health care reform bill.  Except the Republicans seem to have been right (that's another post for a later date).

 However, the opponents to Arizona's new immigration bill are doing the same thing that they railed against during the health care debates; and they are largely wrong on their interpretations of the new bill.

Having actually read the bill, there is no authority for law enforcement officials to randomly question individuals about their immigration status (emphasis mine):

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.

The bill states that an Arizona law enforcement official can only determine an individual's immigration status after a lawful contact is made (i.e., traffic violation, domestic abuse, drug use, etc.) and that officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the U.S. illegally.  Even after that, an officer is not required to question an individual, but only when practical.  This gives officers in the field some flexibility.   Moreover, to prove you are in the U.S. lawfully merely need to show:

1. A valid Arizona driver license
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

As long as an individual carries a form of identification, that before issued, requires proof that they are in the U.S. legally, they have no problem.  A simple Arizona license is enough to prove that an individual is in the U.S. legally.  Even if someone does not have their license on them, I would think an officer would be able to look that individual up in a database.  In addition the bill states:

A law enforcement official…may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona constitution.

This is the standard qualifier.  Law enforcement officers cannot racially profile individuals.  It's in the plain language of the statute; however, opponents of the bill have obviously not read the bill or simply choose to dismiss this portion of the bill which gives a false representation of the legislation.

President Obama has stated that the Arizona bill is "misguided" and will "threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe. "


Obviously President Obama has not read the bill.  This is a blatant misrepresentation of the legislation.  The bill clearly states that Arizona wishes to enforce the federal immigration laws to their fullest extent (emphasis mine):

No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.

So based on President Obama's statements, he believes that the current federal immigration laws are also "misguided" and "threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans."  Surely this cannot be the case.  The federal government would never be "misguided."

The opponents of this bill have either not read the bill or are simply telling lies.  SB 1070 merely gives the Arizona law enforcement officers the authority to ascertain an individual's immigration status, after making lawful contact and with reasonable suspicion.

The hyperbolic nature of the opponent's rheteric is exactly what they denounced a few months ago (except that the comments they were denouncing were not hyperbolic).  But when it works in your favor, even if they are blatant lies, they are not swayed.

A True Role Model

Brian Davis, who has never won a US PGA Tour event, sunk an 18 foot put on the 18th hole in order to force a playoff with Jim Furyk at the Verizon Heritage in South Carolina.

Davis soon found himself in trouble on the first playoff hole; on the beach, yards away from the green.  On his back swing, Davis hit a dried reed; which was indistinguishable except on slow-motion replay.  No one noticed, except Davis.

Davis immediately called the rule chief over.  It turns out that hitting the loose reed is a violation of Rule 13.4:

Except as provided in the Rules, before making a stroke at a ball that is in a hazard (whether a bunker or a water hazard) or that, having been lifted from a hazard, may be dropped or placed in the hazard, the player must not:

a. Test the condition of the hazard or any similar hazard;

b. Touch the ground in the hazard or water in the water hazard with his hand or a club; or

c. Touch or move a loose impediment lying in or touching the hazard.

Davis knew he had potentially violated a rule and called the violation on himself.  After a discussion and review of the swing, officials decided that Davis had indeed violated 13.4 and assigned a two stroke penalty; giving Furyk the victory.

This is a lesson for everyone.  Davis was accountable for his actions and called the penalty on himself, conceding the victory; not to mention the loss of potential winnings ($411,000 to be exact).

Davis' actions yesterday should be applauded by all.  This is the exemplification of honor and accountability.  Davis might have lost, but what he gained by bringing his infraction to the attention of event officials (when he could have easily dismissed his duty and no one would have notice) is invaluable.  I am now a fan of Davis and his example should be taught to all who will listen.

Update to VAT

As I have stated earlier, a Value Added Tax is being talked about by individuals around Washington and within the Obama Administration (see my earlier post here). 

A VAT tax would surely bring in revenue; however, the negatives of the tax would far outweigh the increase to the nation's coffers.

Caroline Baum of BusinessWeek provides a much more in-depth commentary of a VAT here.

Boston Tea Party Part Two

Today I attended the Tea Party rally in Boston. The organizers, Tea Party Express, expected around 3,000 people to attend. From my perspective, that sounds about right. The vast majority of people attending were Tea Party supporters or individual out to see what the Tea Party is all about (myself included). However, there were a number of President Obama / Anti Tea Party individuals.

From what I saw throughout the event were peaceful, respectful, and boisterous individuals. I did witness some arguments, but no racial slurs or punches were thrown. Most ended in a handshake.

I think the Tea Party members knew that everyone would be looking for these sort of actions and were not wanting to get caught up the media storm that would surely follow.

I whole-heartedly agree with the Tea Party’s premise of a smaller, more fiscally conservative federal government; and many signs throughout the event displayed these sentiments.

The only negative throughout the event was during Sarah Palin’s speech. A line of individuals holding anti-war and pro-union signs were marching through the crowd yelling into a megaphone. I have no problem with them voicing their opinions; however, I could not hear a portion of Palin’s speech over their objections. Palin was by far the biggest draw for the crowd and I’m sure the majority wanted to hear her speech, but was interrupted.

The portion of Palin’s speech I did hear was nothing new. It did reiterate the principles of the Tea Party, however, and stirred the crowd to cheers and applause on numerous occasions.


Overall, the event highlighted what the Tea Party stands for and gave an opportunity for numerous viewpoints to be heard. It will be interesting to see how the national media portrays this event, if at all. I think it is always a positive sight when a group of citizens choose to voice their First Amendment rights and if anything else, that should be applauded.

Pictures are below. I tried to take pictures which would give a fair representation of the crowd.

Ron Paul for President

Rasmussen Reports detailed their results of a recent survey: Ron Paul is dead even against President Obama in a hypothetical 2012 presidential election.

“A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely voters finds Obama with 42% support and Paul with 41% of the vote. Eleven percent (11%) prefer some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.”

If you don't remember Ron Paul, he was the long-shot candidate in the 2008 GOP primary who created a grass-roots campaign.  Even though he was only able to obtain about 10% of the primary votes, he has loyal followers.  Ron Paul has the highest regard of the United States Constitution out of any other politician in Washington. He believes that the Constitution cannot be manipulated and would adhere to the Textualist interpretation of the document.

If this Rasmussen survey holds true and Ron Paul were able to win a presidential election, he might be the best chance America has at returning back to her founding principles.

A New Tax?

Paul Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman and current economic advisor to President Obama, said last week that a VAT or Value Added Tax should be imposed on the American public in order to curb runaway spending and the increasing national debt. A VAT is a form of sales tax by taxing the value added through each stage of the production process (this would apply to services as well). A VAT is an inclusive tax, meaning that it is included in the price the consumer will pay, hiding the actual tax within the price of the product (transparancy?). This system of taxing is commonplace in Europe and is even required to be a member of the European Union.

This is a terrible idea and would break one of President Obama’s main campaign promises (not raising taxes on any family making more than $250,000 a year…remember that one?) by raising taxes on everyone in the country, regardless of your income. This would not be the only time President Obama has broken a campaign promise, but it might be the most obvious. Some argue that a VAT is actually regressive and they would be right. That should raise some eyebrows on the left, who believe in strong progressive taxes.

President Obama wouldn't seriously consider this new tax, would he? After all, the new health care reform passed a couple of weeks ago actually reduces the deficit...right? Or could it be that the accounting gimmicks of the health care reform were just for show and that this new entitlement program will cost much more than anticipated?

The government has never been wrong before in its estimates of what entitlement programs will cost in the future. What about Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? These were all grossly underestimated and all passed with bipartisan support. The new health care reform, however, was strictly partisan and win or lose, it will be purely the Democrat’s bill.

Why now are advisors to the Obama Administration talking about new taxes? Our economy has not recovered from "the greatest crisis since the great depression" yet a new VAT is suddenly necessary? If this is ever enacted, there is no turning back. This would be yet another example of government confiscation of private property.

Mark my words, if a VAT is ever enacted the fact that this would be a blatant broken promise by President Obama will be dispelled. Most likely he inherited the problem from the prior administration. Additionally, the Left should just have as much a problem with this idea as the Right.

A similar idea has been proposed, which has been mainstreamed by Neil Bortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder; however, their idea is to replace the income tax with a national consumption tax, not in addition to the income tax. Read more about The Fair Tax here.

The idea that additional taxes are now needed, without considering reduced spending or using common sense free-market solutions to make the government more efficient (maybe putting government contracts out for bid) is unacceptable.  Once a VAT is enacted, it will be almost impossible to change.  Remember, once government has a power, they do not want to give it up.

A Value Added Tax is merely the way President Obama wishes to make us more like Europe. President Obama does not realize that this would significantly increase the already record unemployment rates, decrease the incentive to innovate, and hurt the portion of the population that President Obama says he is advocating for.

A New Voice

I am starting this blog in order to constructively articulate my whole-hearted belief that our country, currently the greatest country in the world, is moving along an ominous path. The United States of America is for the first time in her illustrious life in danger of transferring a lesser quality of life to the next generation than the previous generation enjoyed. This, in and of itself, is reason enough to voice an opinion. The fact that I am that next generation simply strengthens and amplifies that voice.

This blog’s purpose is to point out all of the hypocrisies, broken promises, and shattered dreams elected and non-elected officials alike, of ALL POLITICAL PARTIES, feed to the American people. I intend to highlight instances where our duly elected officials of this democratic REPUBLIC stray from the pivotal document on which this great country was founded upon. This document is the United States Constitution. The Constitution is not a living document. It is a document that has lived for more than 220 years and was so brilliantly written by our founding fathers that it is still pertinent today; in an environment in which they could never have imagined.

Granted they may never have imagined the world we live in today; however, they very much comprehended the cyclical nature of our world. Our founding fathers were libertarians and felt that a small federal government with robust individual rights was the best way to protect the citizens from federal tyranny. They realized that a democratic REPUBLIC would be the best way to organize our fledgling nation. Our founding fathers thought that a democracy was mob rule and eventually would lead to tyranny/dictatorship/monarchy. They did not want this…that is why they were fighting for independence from Britain.

In order to encapsulate their beliefs they wrote a great document – The United States Constitution. The Constitution gives this country its meaning, its mission, its path. And for any citizen not to understand that is to not understand the origin of their rights. They take for granted all rights in which the Constitution recognizes, not grants. As Patrick Henry, one of this country’s founding fathers once said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government – lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”

I fear that Patrick Henry’s words are coming to fruition. The current climate of our federal government seems to be so entangled in our everyday lives that there is no clear way to restrain our federal government from unnecessary intrusions. Like Patrick Henry once said in his speech to the Virginia Convention, which is credited with having swung the balance of the Virginia House of Burgesses to provide troops to the revolutionary war, “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Patrick Henry was willing to die for liberty, for life without liberty was not worth living. I concur; however, a more cheerful individual (one must always look to the positive side of things) might say “Give me liberty or give me beer!”