« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Winning the battle on SB1070

By: Martin Knight (Diary)  |  May 4th, 2010 at 01:44 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Former Senator Alan Simpson (R-WY) may not have been a conservative’s idea of an ideal Senator from a state as Deep Red as Wyoming but he was right; “An allegation unchallenged is an allegation believed.” Republicans still seem to not get this very simple idea; you cannot cede the information battlefield to the other side and expect to keep a lead, much less win.

Which brings me to the patently dishonest Leftist caterwauling about AZ’s new immigration law.

Now, screaming “Nazi!”, “Raaaaaaaaacist!!!” and other forms of hate accusations is simply standard Left-Wing behavior. And while the polls say the majority of the American public supports the law, I believe that there is enough ignorance and confusion in this particular case to let Left turn the tide their way.

I my opinion, the effective silence of the principals (Russell Pearse, Kris Kobach, Jan Brewer, etc.) in favor of this legislation while the entire Left-Wing establishment and their surrogates in the Press are busy painting the image of jackbooted Aryan police stopping innocent Hispanic Americans on their way to the park with their kids and executing them right there on the sidewalk if they don’t “show their papers” is nothing short of dangerous and can jeopardize the passage of similar legislation in other states.

My idea to counter this is simple; Governor Brewer and Senator Pearse should make a video clearly explaining what the law says, demonstrate (with actors) how it’s supposed to work and how the police are expected to enforce it, why it is necessary for Arizona from a basic fiscal and security standpoint and then point out a few facts that the media has been avoiding e.g. it’s been the law for over 50 years that legal immigrants must carry identification at all times – and furthermore it’s the law in Europe, in Canada, and yes, even in Mexico (the immigration laws of Mexico should play a starring role.)

Then send it to every major news outlet in the nation, have it played on AZ television and upload it to YouTube and the Governor’s website a day later. FOX would certainly play it on air and the other networks would be forced to follow.

It won’t shut the shrieks from the other side, but it would throw some major sand in their gears.

Game, set and match.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • acat

    The data is already out there for this.

    There are statements. Clearly, you’ve found them.

    The left and their Massively Stupid Media allies are *willfully blind*, they are lying about what’s in the law *on purpose*.

    This is not ceding the battlefield, or – to borrow from Sun Tzu, letting the enemy choose where to engage. This is a perception that the MSM “owns” the battlefield.

    IMO, Brewer et al have wisely clammed up about the law, and are instead ignoring the whining and shouting, and quietly moving to enforce it.

    My suspicion is that the People of Arizona are, in the majority, quietly ignoring the freak-show and protests and are instead looking forward to the quiet that will follow once enforcement is shown to not be racist.

    My thought on the matter is that the State of Arizona doesn’t give a damn about rounding up illegals – they want the convictions and *fines* – from shutting down firms that hire illegals… that is the *other* part of the law.

    Mew

  • Martin Knight

    I don’t expect it to work out this time.

    Otherwise, what exactly are you trying to say?

    • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com Beaglescout

      When Bush turned the other cheek he helped to kill the Republican Party’s connection to its base.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
        • E Pluribus Unum

          I really despise Karl Rove. His 50%+1 strategy was a big contributor to where the country is today. And I mean that in a bad way.

          It was manifestly craven and stupid from day 1, and I have always despised him for it, even back in 2002.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Of course, I have a lot of praises for Bush, but I digress.

            This is one of those VERY numerous examples of why I come to Redstate. EPU is here (and many others I learn from too, but after all, out of many, ONE!)

            I had always poo-pooed the whole 50%+1 strategy stuff because I had had only heard it mentioned by leftists that blamed the strategy on “polarization”, etc…more liberal memes..

            But, yes, it is also a function of the problem with Dubya in not being an ideological conservative and being for government that does too much in some degree.

            I guess I just feel sorry for 43 and Karl. I find it very ironic that libs see Rove as the genius that beat them so much, when we all see how lame he is in many ways.

            The confirmation was a few weeks ago when Rush had KR on to promote his book and Rush’s voice and silence were incredulous at Rove’s naivete re befriending Democrats in 2001-3.

            Agreed EPU.

          • acat

            For some reason, Conservatives seem to think that, if we can just get the Libs to like us, all will be well. That it’s some sort of communications gap that we can bridge.

            Just ain’t so.

            And the lack of ability – on both sides – to build bridges is why we, as a country, are not going to get out of this one without blood.

            Mew

          • Joe_Cor

            It’s less uncomfortable to pretend they’re your friends as you are savagely attacked. It’s self-abasing, and it’s kind of pathetic, and it’s really embarrassing to watch, but it doesn’t take anything near the psychic energy that standing up to them does. Plus, taking them out for ice cream requires a lot less thought and preparation than coming up with an effective messaging strategy does. Then there’s the whole Stockholm syndrome effect, where you begin to identify with your tormentors. There are just tons of reasons — all of them really bad, but appealing on a lazyness and backboneless level — to go the ice cream route. It seems to be a devilishly difficult pattern for Republicans to break.

          • Martin Knight
    • Scope

      and as you pointed out, Bush’s choice to not defend himself, or bother to get his message out allowed the leftists to define him, and the Republican Party.

      BTW, AZ isn’t clamming up. The mayor of Phoenix, a Democrat for sure, with some of the highest crime stastics in the state, is openly opposing the new law. Some other city councils, most assuredly Democrat controlled for sure, in the state are going to bring lawsuits against the new law. Go for it idiots.

      One thought I’ve had on the new law is that the state should start seeing a lighter load on it’s school system and hospital emergency rooms. That has got to help with the budget bottom lines.

      • Martin Knight

        The Democrats and their friends in the media are not clamming up – they’re ratcheting it up and getting it to spread into the popular culture. To the point that the damn Phoenix Suns (NBA) have decided to weigh in on the issue and of course, they’re repeating the false story about the immigration bill.

        This is why I’m saying this could be very dangerous. Never forget that politics junkies like us are rare – the vast majority of people are stunningly ignorant of politics and current events. So a lot of people tuning in to watch the Western Conference finals are going to see a bunch of basketball players from AZ wearing “Los Suns” jerseys, wonder why and be duly informed that AZ just instituted Jim Crow against Hispanics.

        Being silent, i.e. “wisely clamming up” as acat recommends only allows this story to spread much like how Bush’s silence ended up hamstringing his Presidency.

  • aesthete

    that might be good advice for Russell, but Jan Brewer has repeatedly made it very clear that she doesn’t know how SB 1070 works, or how it will be enforced. Her media appearances have been limited to local AZ news, and she’s danced around discussing what the law says and means. Reason.com cites her as saying, in response to a question of how cops are supposed to know when someone should be screened, “I don’t know. I do not know what an illegal immigrant looks like.” In another response worthy of a Profile of Courage, she gives a non-answer to the question of “What are some examples of reasonable suspicion, in your mind?” (-2:42) She has been giving these sorts of answers, and has been declaring that the law will not enable racial profiling, in practically every interview.

    In fact, no one in AZ really knows how this law will shake out. There are several parts of the law that are very broad, or confusing, and the changes signed into law recently don’t address the underlying problems with the law. The situation in Arizona has become, to borrow from Private Ryan’s German, FUBAR: Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been salivating in anticipation of the pretext he gets to run sweeps, Tucson PD has straight up said that it won’t enforce the law, and Tucson and Flagstaff’s city councils have voted near-unanimously to file suit against the state.

    I imagine that we’ll see several revisions, legal challenges, and enforcement problems with the law, and that in the meantime, we’ll completely ignore potential solutions that focus on landowner-tenant and employer penalties, which is a functional, Constitutional and non-controversial (if somewhat wealth-destroying) measure, making it the exact opposite of the “reasonable suspicion” provision.

    • Doc Holliday

      but sometimes a duck is a duck. The truth is we DO know what the average illegal in AZ looks like, particularly when he and 20 other guys are running out of a truck from the police. That might not be politically correct, but that is the reality they face on the ground. And now they have guys not running from them, but running after the police with all types of Mexican military weaponry.

      You say Arpaio is salivating, well I am glad of it. This is where my conservatism trumps my libertarian leanings. I think Arpaio is great. I know that his enemies are the hard left and La Raza, that tells me a lot right there.

      Having said the above, from an ideological standpoint I am still looking at the law and trying to be sure it fits with the Constitution. I do believe the authorities in AZ must do something and I do not think going after employers alone is the answer. If someone is a criminal, they also deserve to be taken on directly.

      I do try to be intellectually honest and I know conservatives and libertarians have historically opposed national ID cards. So if I oppose the idea that I must show ID on request, then I have a problem with asking others to do so as well. Now if they are under suspicion of a crime, that could change matters.

      We both know that leaving discretion to the police is a tricky matter. Most police do their job well and try to be fair, yet we know that police abuses occur every day in this country. It does seem that Arizona government officials are not exactly crystal clear on this law and they really need to be. I don’t support a commercial with actors lol, but a clear unified statement and implementation seems to be in order.

      You know, now that I think about it, if they just jailed the illegals they caught instead of just giving them a ride home to try tomorrow, that might make a dent in this without changing our individual freedoms. Either way, I do have concerns too Aesthete, but I am not on board with Libertarian orthodoxy on this issue, aka open borders, I need to study it more.

      • aesthete

        Then I moved to AZ :)

        Essentially, he gets lots of press from things that mostly aren’t objectionable for conservatives, like his parade with the prisoners dressed in pink or his $0.15 meals, but what gets into the local news is the more common stories of Joe letting his cops act like savages in general, harassment of citizens, and expensive, theatrical stunts. In the case of illegal immigration, he’s something of a late convert: Russell Pearse (nice guy, even if we don’t always agree) was the go-to guy for immigration up until about ’05, when Joe saw that the spotlight wasn’t on him and decided to go for immigration “sweeps” to raise his profile. Stories where Maricopa county cops harass citizens for no reason are a weekly occurrence.

        My problem is specifically with this law, and the conservative movement’s lining up behind it. OK, for instance, is considering enacting a similar law, but with an added asset forfeiture section (because everything’s more fun with government confiscation of property :) ). It’s in many ways a justified law, and those throwing around racism charges are dead wrong, but it’s not by any means a good bill, as evidenced by the way that it’s going down in AZ.

        I’m lined up with the libertarian orthodoxy on immigration, either. (Now that I think about it, I don’t think I line up perfectly with the orthodoxy on any issue.) I sympathize with (some) illegals, and if we’re being honest “getting in line” under the current system means that an immigrant who just wants a job and security has about the same chance of getting into the US legally as he does of getting a Golden Ticket to Willy Wonka’s Chocolate Factory. Even for many college-educated and skilled immigrants, the legal route is incredibly frustrating (though I expect little else from the people who thought that the DMV was a paragon of governmental excellence). I don’t know the perfect solution, though I can’t imagine a realistic one that doesn’t involve some form of amnesty. Mostly, I want the fence, increased legal immigration, and a reform of that lachrymose system that birthed this mess, as well as a guest worker program of some sort.

        • Doc Holliday

          he does like the limelight., I am not for amnesty because it only causes a greater flood of illegal immigration. Many Americans are surprised that this is not just an American issue, people want to get into Western Europe just as badly, at least the people nearby. In Spain they have had several amnesties, each time they gave automatic amnesty to millions from North Africa. And every ten years they do it again and say this time they are done.

          I say we need immigration that helps our nation. I want the preference to be for skilled immigrants. I also think each country should have a fair shot at immigration. It is totally wrong that 80 percent of immigrants come from one country simply because it is on our border. We should be allowed to decide who we welcome and when. It is not right that there has been a never ending bum rush from Mexico.

          I am worried about police brutality and abuses too. I know that many police really don’t even know the laws they enforce. At the same time, I respect the police as a whole, they do a job not many are willing or able to do. Of course I don’t expect them to protect me and mine, I take that responsibility upon myself.

    • Scope

      or are you intentionally running away from the landlord/employer illegal immigration fines that were passed by Hazleton PA in 2006? It was an issue that gained national attention. Many cities/states were awaiting the outcome to pass similar laws. Problem was, the ACLU fought against Hazleton’s laws, and a liberal federal judge ruled against the cities positions. In his long statement, he claimed that the cities laws went against Federal legislation that had precedence over local legislation.

      http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/27/nation/na-hazleton27

      So, as a Libertarian leaning soul, do you agree that states don’t have the right to pass their own laws? This case set back any state/county/city from dealing with the problem through landlord/employer solutions. The ACLU has been very successful, unfortunately, for anyone to solve the problems in the way you think it could be successful. Your solution has been already proved more than faulty. As long as the ACLU exists, and the Liberal judges ruling in favor of the federal government, and social justice, you can forget your ideas.

      • aesthete

        it’s kind of hard to run away from something that I didn’t know existed until now. First, such a law isn’t an usurpation of the government duty to secure the border; it’s one in a long line of regulations surrounding the ownership and operation of a business, which has a long precedent. Second, it sucks for PA that their bill is entangled in the court system, but we in AZ already went there and got the T-shirt: we have employer penalties. My policy prescription would be to make the already existing penalties much tougher, to the point where hiring an illegal would be prohibitively expensive.

        If all that’s keeping you from promoting employer penalties is a measly set of ACLU lawyers, then have fun repudiating your support of AZ’s law: there are already court cases based on the 4th, 5th, 14th, and God knows how many other Amendments, and various state statutes, as well as one based on the AZ Constitution. That’s not counting the police departments which have flat out said that they won’t enforce the law, the city councils that refuse to dedicate funds on enforcing SB 1070, and the lawyers who will try to interpret the broad provisions to their advantage. So it looks like, judging from the pragmatic framework from which you are operating in your last paragraph, you, too are against SB 1070! Welcome to the dark side :)

  • Common_Cents

    As I’ve posted before, take them up on their offers to put up or shut up.

    • Scope

      under the weight of the welfare issue for illegals, the state should refuse them any money to bail them out. You are right, put up or shut up.

      • Common_Cents

        Kinda like Greece. But keep bailing them and subsidizing them and the behavior will continue.

  • mbecker908

    Fact: SB1070 is currently the law in AZ and we’ve gotta see where it shakes out. It will be very ugly, and I’m guessing very few here will be happy with the outcome. Part of the outcome would be that when this turkey gets tied up in Federal Court for at least two years, none of the parts of it will be enforceable. We’ll be in exactly the same place we are today: overrun with illegals.

    Here are some inconvenient facts known to Arizona residents that are routinely overlooked:

    1. Jan Brewer is a complete idiot and so far over her empty head it’s pathetic. Current polling aside, the Dem has a good shot at beating her in Nov.
    2. Arpaio is the poster media whore. He makes McCain look like a shrinking violet around the press. He’s also responsible for Janet Nappy being Governor. He endorsed her in 2002 when Matt Salmon – a solid conservative Republican – was running against her and she won by one point with less than 50% of the vote. As far as being sheriff is concerned, he brags about all the money he saves us by running the jail on the cheap but he won’t discuss the roughly $500MM his department has paid out in lawsuit settlements.

    Now then, with respect to 1070:

    1. Nothing Arizona can do will reduce the number of illegal Mexicans in the US nor can we even slow down the flow across the border.
    2. The only thing we CAN do is make Arizona an inhospitable place for illegals. What we need to do is focus on ways to have them live in the relative paradise of CA, UT, TX, CO, MN, SC or wherever.
    3. We have lots of history being hauled into court by the Left. They are very well organized and the federal courts are Lefty friendly. And then there’s the Ninth Circus. The bottom line is that we have a really good record at winning but it takes three to five years to do it.
    4. Believe it or not, there is a subset of cops who can’t wait to have the ability exercise “reasonable suspicion”. It won’t be pretty and we’ll have a whole new class of rich brown people and rich lawyers.
    5. We already have the framework in place to make AZ very hostile to illegals while doing no damage or offense to people who are US citizens or here legally.

    6. Arizona currently has a law that requires every person to carry a photo ID. If a police officer has reason to ask for ID – traffic stop, any sort of disturbance, etc – and you don’t have one you CAN be arrested for a Class 6 misdemeanor. You will be transported to the nearest county jail and booked on that misdemeanor and you will be held until you can prove who you are. Part of the process includes being fingerprinted, having your prints run through NCIC, and having ICE check your immigration status. That is 100% routine in every country jail in the state and happens to 100% of the folks who are arrested. You won’t see a judge, you won’t have bail opportunity and you probably won’t even have the opportunity to see a lawyer before all that happens. If you have outstanding warrants, you are automatically held on those, without regard to the jurisdiction. If you’re here illegally, you automatically become property of ICE. Those two things happen without regard to the adjudication of the Class 6 misdemeanor for which you were arrested.

    Please note: the above has been in place and has been used commonly by all police departments in Arizona for years. No new adjudication required.

    7. Arizona currently has a requirement that every employer run E-Verify on all employees. The law has been on the books for several years, there is no penalty against a potential employee who fails E-Verify other than s/he doesn’t get hired. the problem with the current law is that it is basically not enforced, the penalties simply aren’t big enough to entice the enforcers.

    Now then, what should have been done?

    1. Instead of one law that can be tied up in court, we should pass a series of laws. That way we get to enforce the parts that aren’t going to be subject to litigation – or at least will get tossed upon filing.

    2. Part 1: Take away jobs. Enhance the current E-Verify requirement by making it a felony to employ one illegal. Require that E-Verify be run for all employees and all 1099 contractors. The E-Verify form becomes a part of the person’s permanent record with the business and gives the business an automatic exemption from enforcement if the employee/1099 later turns out to be illegal. In addition to the felony enhancement, the fine should be increased to $20,000 (pick a very big number) per illegal. The felony charge and the fines would accrue to the business owner or the senior on-site executive if the ownership is out of state. If the business fails, the fines would accrue personally to the business owner or would be shared equally by the Board of Directors of the business. The fines could not be discharged in BK.

    Given that at least a large plurality, if not a majority, of illegals are employed in the hospitality and construction industries, a felony will make the business owner’s business license/liquor license go away and they’ll never get another one.

    Again, this is nothing more than an enhancement of existing law and does not “punish” the illegal. Should have little risk of litigation.

    3. Part 2: Take Away Housing. This would be a new requirement for rental housing. Exactly the same mechanism as Part 1. The only enhancements would be place a lien on the property that was rented until the fine is paid and all residents must have E-Verify. Minimal risk of litigation.

    4. Part 3: Take Away Access to State Benefits. New requirement. You have to have a valid state issued ID to apply for any state benefit. ANY state benefit. It’s already a felony to possess a fake ID. I would also require all family members have valid ID. Will probably be litigated on the basis of “childrens services” and where the child is an anchor baby and the parents are illegal.

    5. Part 4: Take Away Access to Higher Education. New requirement. You have to have a valid state issued ID or proof of citizenship or legal residence to enroll at a Community College, a State College or a State University. This will get litigated.

    6. Part 5: Take Away Access to K-12. New requirement. Must have valid ID to enroll children in school. Would require both parents and children to have valid ID. Will absolutely be litigated and anchor babies will be a major problem here.

    OK, so we’re still pretty racist, but the bottom line here is that Part 1 will accomplish at least 99% of what everybody seems to “hope” 1070 will accomplish and we’re already supposed to be doing that.

    • aesthete

      Adding some clips and idiotic statements on Brewer’s part would be icing on the cake. The only thing I would disagree with on here would be K-12 for anchor babies (since the anchor baby in question would be a citizen). Besides that, though, your AZ plan sounds good to me.

      And yes, Jan Brewer and Joe Arpaio are complete idiots. I didn’t think of Russell as a fool, though — I have to wonder why he didn’t take a tack like the one that you outline here.

      • aesthete

        I mean. My bad.

      • mbecker908

        it really won’t matter a whole lot, I just tossed it in for icing on the cake. Put Part 1 into law and the anchor babies will be somebody else’s problem.

        With respect to Russell and why, who knows what stupidity lurks in the hearts of politicians. If I had to guess, they were looking to “make a statement” as opposed to accomplishing something. Plus, arresting illegals has less risk to their political coffers than arresting restaurateurs.

  • Martin Knight

    It could be better … but it’s a good start.