The "Spectacular Success" Of AZ SB 1070

At Hot Air, Allah Pundit writes:

The more I think about it, the more Iím convinced that Arizonaís law will be a spectacular success even if it never goes into effect. Look at how much itís accomplished: Itís derailed the Democratsí amnesty bill; itís refocused national attention on the disgraceful state of border enforcement; itís convinced some illegals that Arizonaís not worth the trouble; and itís baited bottom-feeders in the media into all sorts of dumb, self-discrediting analysis. All that in just a week, before the lawís even taken effect. Thatís some mighty efficient legislatiní right there.

In a post that approvingly provides an Ann Coulter link, the "bottom-feeders" line is particularly amusing.

If becoming an international pariah was Arizona's goal, there is no doubt SB 1070 is a smashing success. Well done, Arizona.

Speaking for me only

< U.S. Lets $101 Million Verdict Stand Over FBI Frame in Mob Slaying Case | Can Ignorance Be Stopped? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Long nights in the USA (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 02, 2010 at 08:34:58 AM EST
    even though technically they are getting shorter.  We have still lost our way though between drill baby drill, saving Wall Street and eff the people, hating on Latinos.  We are so bankrupt on so many levels.  The gulf coast is literally going to be destroyed, that's my backyard.  If only I felt like I had a President that championed the people on this issue, or any for that effing matter.

    Rick Perry is disavowing it for a reason (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun May 02, 2010 at 08:33:48 AM EST

    Has Jindal said anything? (none / 0) (#3)
    by observed on Sun May 02, 2010 at 08:55:46 AM EST
    He'd better (none / 0) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 02, 2010 at 09:27:07 AM EST
    It is hard for me to give him credit on anything, but he is a pol and it looks like a broke pol can even be right twice a day.  At least someone fears the voter or has some sort of a healthy respect.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#5)
    by Rojas on Sun May 02, 2010 at 09:42:21 AM EST
    Perry's base is a reactionary noise machine. Those make up a small percentage of the voters. His source of support are corporations and small businesses whose business models rely on a complaint third world labor source.

    Look, sorry (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 02, 2010 at 09:50:39 AM EST
    but somebody voted for him

    Thirty Nine Percent IIRC (none / 0) (#8)
    by Rojas on Sun May 02, 2010 at 09:55:12 AM EST
    Since he seemingly from your (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 02, 2010 at 10:21:15 AM EST
    comments didn't get the "indy" vote, I'd say he's angling for that now.  If you want to get reelected in Texas you don't start out by abusing Latinos.

    He's pandering to the Chambers of Commerce (none / 0) (#11)
    by Rojas on Sun May 02, 2010 at 11:37:21 AM EST
    and builders associations. The small manufacturers and service businesses who fear having to pay a living wage to those who run their molding machines or buss the tables. He's already stacked the deck of every regulatory agency in the state in their favor. He's assuring his power base that they've got a mutual interest in his continuing stay in the governor's mansion.

    And just for the record (none / 0) (#14)
    by Rojas on Sun May 02, 2010 at 05:02:23 PM EST
    Base and power base are two different entities here.

    How do some paranoids know... (none / 0) (#6)
    by szielinski on Sun May 02, 2010 at 09:42:50 AM EST
    ... when they are walking on the right path?

    They know when most everyone else hates their guts!

    If the GOP was wondering why they're irrelevant (none / 0) (#9)
    by abdiel on Sun May 02, 2010 at 10:19:28 AM EST
    this attitude is exactly why. They richly deserve to be in political purgatory, and apparently they've learned nothing from it.

    It's Not Merely (none / 0) (#12)
    by The Maven on Sun May 02, 2010 at 01:15:03 PM EST
    that "they've learned nothing from it," but as demonstrated here and countless other places, they positively revel in this sort of destructive know-nothingism.  In large measure, it's because they know that if the Democrats and/or the left ignore them, this kind of nonsense goes unrebutted, and if we respond, we've given a degree of credence to their blatherings simply by engaging their "issue" (not to mention the distraction it provides in diverting the public away from more substantive points).

    The Legislature has already back-tracked (none / 0) (#13)
    by Peter G on Sun May 02, 2010 at 01:36:33 PM EST
    in the face of the groundswell of opposition, by amending the law to change one of its more egregious provisions -- the obligation of any police officer to investigate legal status upon mere suspicion during any "lawful encounter."  I guess they realized that no victim of domestic violence or witness to a crime who was concerned about their own ability, at that moment, to document citizenship or other legal status to a "suspicious" police officer would chance reporting the crime.

    "international pariah" (none / 0) (#15)
    by diogenes on Sun May 02, 2010 at 05:29:08 PM EST
    I wonder how many of the international countries that condemn Arizona would open THEIR borders?  Heck, the Europeans are scared to death of admitting Turkey to the EU due to fear of immigration, and citizenship rules there are much more draconian.

    Pariah in Mexico? (none / 0) (#16)
    by diogenes on Sun May 02, 2010 at 09:01:37 PM EST
    For one thing, look up the way which Mexico treats illegal aliens who enter from Central America and try to live there.  

    You got a point man... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 09:14:58 AM EST
    many other countries are no better than us, or worse, when it comes to the free movement of free people.

    Doesn't make our policies ok though, just because they are comparable to other nations.


    Actually (none / 0) (#18)
    by nyjets on Mon May 03, 2010 at 01:09:28 PM EST
    A country has every right to regulate movement of noncitizens in there country. A country first priority is to protect there citizens, not non-citzens.

    Odd... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Mon May 03, 2010 at 01:24:01 PM EST
    I thought governments first responsibility, or at least our governments, was to protect individual rights.  I know, you would never guess that by looking at our government...but in theory:)

    I mean the Bill of Rights applies to everybody...papers or no papers, citizen or non-citizen.


    I disagree (none / 0) (#20)
    by nyjets on Mon May 03, 2010 at 10:12:26 PM EST
    The governments first responsiblity is to protects it citizens. Non citizens should not expect the same priveleges of non-citizens. And I have disagreed with the notion that the bill of rights applies to non-citizens. (I know that the courts disagrees .)

    RTF...C (none / 0) (#21)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed May 05, 2010 at 07:53:46 PM EST
    Try reading The Constitution with an eye for the use of the words "people" and "person(s)" as opposed to the word "citizen(s)".

    Citizens can vote and run for offices.  The other stuff applies to people.


    nyjets, (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Thu May 13, 2010 at 12:20:04 AM EST
    your disagreement goes well beyond just the courts, to the authors of the constitution themselves. they quite obviously distinguished between citizens, and everybody. i believe it's very reasonable to assume this was an intentional distinction, on their part, since it appears throughout the entire document.

    what you'd like it to say, vs what it actually does, and was meant to say, are two entirely different things. thank goodness you weren't one of authors.