George Will Goes Bipolar Over Brown

What can brown do for you? If you are George Will, apparently only mow the yard or fill the water glass at the local stick in your butt snob steakhouse. In the latest condescending pile of rancid, rambling garbage by Will, set for tomorrow’s Washington Post, Will defecates on about everybody he can find over the immigration law fiasco in Arizona:

“Misguided and irresponsible” is how Arizona’s new law pertaining to illegal immigration is characterized by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She represents San Francisco, which calls itself a “sanctuary city,” an exercise in exhibitionism that means it will be essentially uncooperative regarding enforcement of immigration laws. Yet as many states go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the federal mandate to buy health insurance, scandalized liberals invoke 19th-century specters of “nullification” and “interposition,” anarchy and disunion. Strange.

Uh, hey George, in the first place Pelosi is right, and your discreetly veiled misogynistic demeaning of her, and offensive put down of her hometown of San Francisco, are intellectually impertinent and scurrilous. The rest of the paragraph is such a non-sequitur you have to wonder about the stability of the mind authoring it.

Arizona’s law makes what is already a federal offense — being in the country illegally — a state offense. Some critics seem not to understand Arizona’s right to assert concurrent jurisdiction. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund attacks Gov. Jan Brewer’s character and motives, saying she “caved to the radical fringe.” This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a “fringe” of their state?

“Some critics”, namely George Fucking Will (that is what the “F” stands for, right?) do not seem to understand the concept of Federal preemption. Maybe Will is one of those conservative headcases who consider the Tenth Amendment the most supreme law of the land; but it is not, and there is a reason serious minds term such morons “Tenthers” in the same vein as the nutjob Birthers. Clearly George Will would not know a proper legal argument of “concurrent jurisdiction” if it hit him in the ass. The rest of that paragraph is gibberish unworthy of a grade school response.

Popularity makes no law invulnerable to invalidation. Americans accept judicial supervision of their democracy — judicial review of popular but possibly unconstitutional statutes — because they know that if the Constitution is truly to constitute the nation, it must trump some majority preferences. The Constitution, the Supreme Court has said, puts certain things “beyond the reach of majorities.”

What? This paragraph makes Charles Cheswick and Billy Bibbit in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest look sane. You have got to be kidding me. The link is to the Cliff’s Notes, because it appears George Will Is not familiar with the great American novel.

But Arizona’s statute is not presumptively unconstitutional merely because it says that police officers are required to try to make “a reasonable attempt” to determine the status of a person “where reasonable suspicion exists” that the person is here illegally. The fact that the meaning of “reasonable” will not be obvious in many contexts does not make the law obviously too vague to stand. The Bill of Rights — the Fourth Amendment — proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures.” What “reasonable” means in practice is still being refined by case law — as is that amendment’s stipulation that no warrants shall be issued “but upon probable cause.” There has also been careful case-by-case refinement of the familiar and indispensable concept of “reasonable suspicion.”

Brewer says, “We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent or social status.” Because the nation thinks as Brewer does, airport passenger screeners wand Norwegian grandmothers. This is an acceptable, even admirable, homage to the virtue of “evenness” as we seek to deter violence by a few, mostly Middle Eastern, young men.

Some critics say Arizona’s law is unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” prevents the government from taking action on the basis of race. Liberals, however, cannot comfortably make this argument because they support racial set-asides in government contracting, racial preferences in college admissions, racial gerrymandering of legislative districts and other aspects of a racial spoils system. Although liberals are appalled by racial profiling, some seem to think vocational profiling (police officers are insensitive incompetents) is merely intellectual efficiency, as is state profiling (Arizonans are xenophobic).

Aw jeebus. Little surprise Will is considered an intellectually big thinker in the party that selected Sarah Palin as its second choice to lead the United States through the perilous times extant in the current world. Well, yes George, the failure of the statute to define what is “reasonable” in pertinent circumstances, and the impossibility of defining such a concept in terms of suspect classes and equal protection concerns, does indeed make the statute presumptively unconstitutional; as does the fact that such status will “not be obvious in many contexts”. In fact, that is the exact context prohibited by a long and seminal thread of Supreme Court cases dating back to Terry v. Ohio and progeny like Dunaway v. New York. But, hey, facts and law are inconvenient things for George Will; even his own ombudsman at the Washington Post has confirmed. The attempt to falsely equate this law with “liberal” concepts of equality in education and government contracting is intellectually duplicitous and disgusting; and “racial gerrymandering” is a creature of conservative Republican bigots like Will, not “liberals”. Oh, and George, the highest law enforcement officer in the country thinks you are an idiot, as do the chiefs of police across the nation.

Will saves his lowest blow for last when he declares from his on high tuffet:

Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

Hey George, you introspectively incompetent imbecile, that is you who thinks that way, not Arizonans. As both an Arizona native and current resident, I am shocked and livid the august Washington Post would print this tripe by George F. Will. Will is an embarrassment to the Washington Post (if the Post is capable of such anymore), ABC News and the nation; how some blue blooded pampered pimpernel like Will is allowed to issue screed like this is unfathomable.

George Will is long the wrong side of his “use by” date, if he was ever fit for the use intended to start with. The grass is growing long in the pundit meadow, time to put this racist jackass out to pasture.

(perfect graphic by

137 replies
  1. cregan says:

    Bmaz, I have to disagree somewhat here. I think what Will is trying to say is that for most of the people mentioned, it would not matter what the law said or how it was enforced. They don’t want any law that would result in illegal immigration being stopped.

    They have no intention of allowing illegal immigration to be lessened.

    Now, that’s a position. Could be right, could be wrong. But, I prefer they just state it instead of hiding behind issues of profiling, etc. It wouldn’t matter if there was no profiling and everyone was treated with the utmost of manners and politeness; if it results in no illegal immigration, they don’t want it.

    Most would go even further and state that the US has an obligation to take in anyone who wants to be come and provide them with whatever they feel they need once getting here.

    Not saying it’s wrong, just be nice to have it upfront so a real discussion of the issue could take place.

    • OldFatGuy says:

      Nice broad stroke there cregan.

      I oppose this type of law but don’t believe in unlimited immigration. I’ve spoken to many folks here that feel the same way, although I do know that there are some that do feel the way you mentioned, that anyone should be able to come here if they want to.

      Funny thing is, a lot of those people DO state it openly.

      Please don’t lump all that oppose a bill with the views of others.

  2. PJEvans says:

    Gee, bmaz, tell us what you really think of Will!

    All the conservatives screaming about illegals, while supporting the economic measures that create those same illegals, is pretty, well, not amusing. You’d think that they believe the US is somehow different from every other country in the world, in that we should be allowed to close our borders and ruin other countries for our own benefit.

  3. orionATL says:


    are you going thru a second puberty?

    your voice is getting deeper, stronger, angrier with
    every post you put up.

    give’m hell, bmaz!

    give’m absolute hell!

    • bmaz says:

      Naw, I have always been a prick. Honestly, I could have taken up another couple of thousand words on Will’s tripe. I cannot ell you how many ways, as an Arizonan and human, Will’s screed upset and annoyed me.

  4. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Mr. Will must think Arizona has “concurrent jurisdiction” to make treaties or declare war with Mexico, too. (It doesn’t.)

    Law abiding Americans, which is assumed to include members of federal and state legislatures, acknowledge that rulings from the Supreme Court define the law of the land because that’s the role given to it in the document upon which our government and laws are based.

    Will’s libel of San Francisco and his misogynistic reference to Ms. Pelosi amount to gratuitous baiting of the Republican base. Last I heard, SFO was in California, and Ms. Pelosi was Speaker of the federal House of Representatives; neither has anything to do with extremists in Arizona.

    Enforcing Arizona’s new law, which invites civil suits against any police department to the left of Genghis Khan and that uses discretion in enforcing it, will make a mockery of the law and justice. Such a law cannot be enforced without racial profiling. Based on his violent and abusive history, Joe Arpaio won’t even try.

    Somebody give George Will a water pistol and let him shout, “Get off of my lawn” to neighbors who gawk at him attempting to get out of his driveway without hitting a garbage can.

  5. orionATL says:

    bmaz @4

    thank god there are folks left in america who care

    andwhom write about what they care about.

  6. earlofhuntingdon says:

    The illegals Mr. Will seems more comfortable with at 4.00 am are the dealmakers burning the midnight oil at Goldman Scratch.

  7. freepatriot says:

    the wapoop had a picture of Malcolm X, and a headline about Barack Obama speaking in Iowa

    this proves that you lefty liberal DFH crowd are unfairly targeting george will

    it isn’t his fault

    all those brown people look alike, blame them

    (duckin & runnin)

  8. TarheelDem says:

    Once again a Beltway pundit records events with the patented conservative “observation through projection” method.

    Next George Will will be for implanting illegals with microchips, a technologically that mysteriously only the right sees as a policy solution (and by projection fears that the health care bill will do it to them.)

    I’m waiting for the first arrest of an undocumented blonde-haired Russian or Swede.

    And for the arrest of an employer illegally importing labor from Mexico.

    But it ain’t gonna happen.

  9. Peterr says:

    Face it, bmaz.

    In George Will’s mind, the only reason there is an Arizona is because 30 major league baseball teams can’t all have spring training in Florida.

  10. harpie says:

    Thanks for the deep and refreshing lung full of outrage in the morning, bmaz!

    Speaking of “racial gerrymandering”, Greg Palast had this at Truthout Monday:

    Behind the Arizona Immigration Law: GOP Game to Swipe the November Election”; Greg Palast; 4/26/10

    The last paragraph:

    But that’s the point, isn’t it? Not to stop non-citizens from entering Arizona – after all, who else would care for the country club lawn? – but to harass folks of the wrong color: Democratic blue.

  11. klynn says:

    Thanks bmaz. My outrage is lost for words. Thanks for having enough words to represent my outrage too.

    Will is sick.

  12. Frank33 says:

    I love the smell of burning George Will early in the morning. But you could have mentioned Will is just another discredited neo-con. Perhaps Will’s war pimping was taxpayer financed, as was so much Irak War propaganda.

    Will, and the rest of the Irak War chickenhawks now need another weapon of mass distraction.

  13. Loo Hoo. says:

    Lordy, I couldn’t agree more with this:

    George Will is long the wrong side of his “use by” date, if he was ever fit for the use intended to start with. The grass is growing long in the pundit meadow, time to put this racist jackass out to pasture.

    We are seeing some fresh faces on teevee these days, soon one of them will boot Will, I would think. He’s just so freaking boring. Chris Hayes is really a kick, and Rachel is the star whenever she’s on MTP.

  14. knowbuddhau says:

    Loved it, thanks for the great rebuttal.

    Any idea WTF is up with Scott Horton’s affinity for the likes of G. Fucking Will and David “Axis of Evil” Frum? He’s a self-described long-time McCain supporter, too.

    WTF is up with that? He’s great on civil liberties, human rights, law of armed conflict, of course. I love his takes on music, painting, poetry, the arts in general.

    Then every once in a while he’ll post a puff piece about Will or Frum, and I reach for the brain bleach. Any ideas?

  15. jdmckay0 says:

    Will has been one of a cacophony of “conservative” pundits who have frustrated common sense for a long time now.

    I comment only because, despite all his excellent articles/insight into BushCo (mostly) legal/constitutional abuses, Scott Horton loved loved loved George Will during ’08 prez campaign. Can’t really help myself, but I’ve read Horton w/certain degree of trepidation since.

  16. ThingsComeUndone says:

    Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

    George Will he of the Oblique Classical References which I don’t think he understands is hinting we don’t get it because we are Elitists.
    Any bets George has house keeping staff, maybe nannies for his kids who are not legal?
    Any bets those fancy restaurants he goes to have illegal dishwashers and busboys? Any bets his fruits and Veggies were picked by illegals, his meat slaughtered his landscaping done by illegals.
    George talk to me when you live immigrant free for a month.

  17. AZ Matt says:

    The teabaggers must love government oversight into their identities cuz they ain’t saying nothing. Stuff must be good if it targets people of color, that isn’t discrimination, that is law and order! And I will agree with Greg Palast that this is a voter supression tactic.

      • bmaz says:

        Well golly, that is reassuring; quite the relief to know that people of all skin colors can have their civil rights violated at will by the aggressive police state and not just those who look hispanic.

      • AZ Matt says:

        What the law says and what will happen are not necessarily the samething. Define reasonable for me.

        • alan1tx says:

          If an officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor.

          Any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were in the country illegaly.

          Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

          Even if all the occupants of the car were Korean (12% of foreign born people in Arizona are Asian) or white (10% of foreign born Arizonians are European).

  18. spanishinquisition says:

    “Some critics”, namely George Fucking Will (that is what the “F” stands for, right?) do not seem to understand the concept of Federal preemption.

    When you are making a state law equal to or stricter than federal law things aren’t so clear cut. Federal preemption is most clear when a state is trying to legalize something that is federally illegal. I live in California and the state of California for instance can impose stricter pollution standards than what the federal laws are, but the state of California couldn’t legally say to ignore the federal Clean Water Act. Another example would be homicide, which is both federally illegal as well as states having their own state laws against homicide.

    • bmaz says:

      Actually, the clean air jurisdiction of California is not necessarily established as co-equal with the federal government at all; in fact it has been a highly contested point. Homicide is a historically state concern, while immigration has almost uniformly been within the occupied purview of the federal government.

    • robgard says:

      The Obama Administration is currently undertaking a review of the concept of “inherently federal” in an effort to bring a little more clarity to this issue. Comments are still being solicited and a report should be out in a few months.

  19. alan1tx says:

    US law, circa 1940:




    Part VII–Registration of Aliens

    Sec. 1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting

    (d) Certificate of alien registration or alien receipt card

    Every alien in the United States who has been registered and fingerprinted under the provisions of the Alien Registration Act, 1940, or under the provisions of this chapter shall be issued a certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card in such form and manner and at such time as shall be prescribed under regulations issued by the Attorney General.

    (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

    Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

    • robgard says:


      That covers lawful permanent residents (“green card holders”) but there are many other classes of non-U.S. citizens who are legally present in the United States, and they are under no federal obligation to carry their immigration documents at all times. The immigration courts are so overwhelmed that some immigration judges are giving hearing dates for “merits hearings” two years or more down the line, and those people are permitted to remain in the U.S. during that period. There are both work authorized and work not authorized nonimmigrants who must show their work authorization only for I-9 purposes when applying for work. There are “TPS” (Temporary Protected Status) aliens who have been allowed to remain in the U.S. (some of them have been granted TPS for 10 years or more) due to conditions in their home country. Canadians are generally visa exempt, and carry no visas or proof of authorization to be in the U.S. The numbers of unlawful border crossings have been diminishing for the last few years. The number of Border Patrol agents has almost trippled in the past few years. Deportations (or “removals” as they are referred to now) have been increasing over the past few years and really shot up when the Obama Administration came into power, so the Federal Government is not ignoring the issue, but those that are screaming for the Feds to take control of the problem ought to direct their attention to the party of “NO!!!” who stand in the way of any resolution.

  20. AZ Matt says:

    TPM – King is an Asshole!

    Watch out, Arizona Congressional District 7. According to Rep. Steve King (R-IA), you may now be a part of Mexico.

    King said on Fox News last night that Rep. Raul Grijalva’s (D-AZ) district may have been “already ceded” to Mexico, and suggested that Grijalva is “advocating for Mexico rather than the United States.”

  21. TEBB says:

    The city of Farmer’s Branch, a northern suburb of Dallas, passed a law requiring landlords to verify that potential renters are citizens before renting apts to them. This law has been challenged and the latest court ruling was that immigration enforcement was a FEDERAL action, and that the city could not get involved in it by attempting to enforce it. It’s possible the same result will be achieved by those challenging the Arizona law. By the way, the Farmer’s Branch city council wants to keep appealing and trying to push the illegals out but many of the city’s residents are angry at the money being spent on legal fees.

    • alan1tx says:

      Ordinance 2903 would have required apartment managers or owners to obtain and maintain evidence that tenants are U.S. citizens or legal residents.

    • tejanarusa says:

      Aaargh. I caught that mayor being interviewed on MSNBC by..uh-oh, don’t know her name – afternoon? Attractive (of course) young (of course) black woman interviewer, who was pretty upset at the mayor. As the mayor began to diss her back, I had to turn off the tv. A-hole bigger than George Will, and that’s saying something.

      Oh yeah, his argument seemed to be that because a nasty crime had been committed by a couple guys illegally present, it was better to punish all the innocent to “protect” the non-brown population. Disgusting.

  22. TEBB says:

    alan1tx: I’m a U.S. citizen. If the Arizona police stop me and I can’t show proof that I’m a U.S. citizen, they can throw me in jail. THAT is the issue with the Arizona law – it, in effect, forces ALL people to carry proof of I.D. That’s why you are hearing/reading the expression “papers, please” —— this requirement to carry ID is reminiscent of Nazi Germany and other totalitarian regimes that required all people to carry ID with them at all times and show it when asked, by law enforcement.

    • GDC707 says:

      So you don’t carry a Driver’s license or State ID card or have a social security card or any other form of standard recogized identification? No cash checks? Or drive car? Congratulations. You and yossarian are the unknown, unidentifiable men around town.

      These police state allegations make Progs look ridiculous.

  23. Twain says:

    Great post, bmaz. I detest “I know big words” Will. He is certainly a racist and should not be on TV spouting his hate. Life has moved past people like Will but they just won’t go away.

  24. azhealer says:

    Bmaz- independent of the new immigration law- is california’s effort to legalize marijuana nullification? It is against federal law and would be preempted.

    Are states trýing to pass same sex marriage laws engaging in nullification since federal DOMA preempts?

    I just hope, with all of your emotion, you are being intellectually consistent.

    We can be smarter and BETTER than Republicans, but we need to behave that way with consistency and, I might add, by using language that is a bit more appropriate.

    • robgard says:

      DOMA affects federal questions, while marriage has generally been a state regulated issue. Accordingly, while a state may authorize a same sex marriage, the Federal Government will not recognize that marriage for immigration purposes.

  25. robgard says:

    There are lots of Canadian “snowbirds” residing part-time in Arizona. They don’t have visas or I-94Arrival/Departure Record Cards (which show that they were lawfully admitted at a port-of-entry, their nonimmigrant classification, and the expiration date of their authorized stay in the U.S.) or any other documentation of their legal status. I wonder how they will be treated under the new Arizona law. Maybe their shoes or haircuts will give them away. Naw, who are those Arizona politicians fooling ? Those Canadians will not be stopped, questioned or otherwise bothered. This law was not directed at them.

    • AZ Matt says:

      Many of the Canadians drive the own vehicles down here so they have provincial license plates. Are AZ cops going to be checking all of these? Not likely. They represent too much money to the state.

  26. azel says:

    I am probably more politically left than most who read FDL, however, I applaud the Arizona law, though perhaps some rough edges need to be ironed out. If you are in this country you must be here legally, nothing more, nothing less. You need to see the news reports, the MSNBC talkers (shills for Dims), and Obama, for what they are, a dog and pony show to further engage (and fool) simple American voters. The Dims nor the Repugs, which are both pro-business, want immigration reform of any kind including the Arizona law, but the Dims and the Repugs need to take sides in the debate to make it interesting for gullible TV watchers. The Arizona law hurts business, no more exploiting of people. Mexico hates the Arizona law because it stops the flow of cash (via illegal alien) back into Mexico, the serfs of Mexico now become Mexico’s problem……See how this works?

    • AZ Matt says:

      “… , the serfs of Mexico become Mexico’s problem….See how this works?”

      I can see that your attitude is rather “old school”.

    • onitgoes says:

      Yes, and no. I think I “get” what you’re saying, and I agree with many of your points. However, as I’ve ranted before, this law is unlikely to end up negatively affecting businesses or the business owners. They will still hire undocumented workers for paltry wages to work in crummy conditions. If/when the undocumented folks get busted and shipped back to wherever, all the hassle falls on them. Mr/Ms BusinessExec? Nada will happen. They’ll just go wherever to pick up the next crop of undocumented workers. Given this dranconian law, Mr/Ms BusinessExec will actually do VERY WELL bc they’ll be able to pay undocumenteds even LESS than before with even crummier work conditions. Who’s going to complain???

      So with respect, I disagree with what I think is your bottom line. The businesses will continue to make out in much the same way as they do now. The undocumented workers??? Not so much. And whether you want to agree or not, our economy relies on this cheap labor. Should it be that way? No. But this law doesn’t really address that.

      Anyone who believes that the law will be applied “fairly” across the board – in that white skinned aliens will be picked on just as often – is living in a fool’s paradise. Yeah, yeah, the law “says” it applies to anyone who is undocmented. Fine. The PD will pick on the dusky skinned minorities. They ain’t out there looking for Ukranians, and that’s for sure.

      Plus if anyone thinks it’s “great” to have the PD asking for your papers… well, good for you, I guess. Go find some facist dictatorship and go live there for a while, and then come report back on how great the experience was.

      I definitely “get” why, in an ideal world, “good laws” (LOL) should be enacted around immigration, border control and all of that. I even kind of liked Bush’s idea about guest workers (which conservatives immediately gave a thumbs down), but you notice nothing happened with that, either.

      This AZ law? It’s horrible, and imo, does absolutely nothing to address any of the “real” issues.

  27. alan1tx says:

    Not walking down the street.

    The heart of the law is this provision: “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…”

    “lawful contact,” which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he’s violated some other law.

    • bmaz says:

      Well, no, that is not what that means. You are misrepresenting facts and dishonestly characterizing law. “Lawful contact” includes a whole host of interaction that is not limited to custodial detention for crime. If you want to support this law, give it your best shot, but do not lie about it.

      • RoodsterCrows says:

        Bmaz, don’t bite on this clown’s garbage. His comments @ 25, 31, 43 & 47 are virtually reprints of comments he/she made on another blog a couple of days ago. This is your daily troll alert.

        (Funny thing is that this is all really a rehash of Nixon’s “law and order” crap. Same tune, different century. lol)

    • robgard says:


      You must realize that “lawful contact” is one hell of a lot broader than what you have stated. Any questioning of a witness to a suspected crime is a lawful contact. Just about anything short of entertaining a working girl in the back seat of a police cruiser is a lawful contact.

    • tejanarusa says:

      That also means in a situation where a victim of a crime has called the police to report the crime.
      The cops responding wll be requuired by this law to question the legal status of the crime victim if there is any possibility in the cop;s mind that they are “illegal.”

      This is exactly why most police dept.s have opposed this type of law; if people think reporting a crime will get them deported, they are not going to report crimes.

      And that will make police work more difficult. It’s really very simple.

      And all this “concurrent jurisdiction,” comparison to environmental regs, etc., is beside the point. To me (yeah, it’s been awhile since I took ConLaw, I admit) this is precisely the question that was resolved when the States ratified the Constitution, and abandoned forever (!!!!) the Articles of Confederation, which allowed each state to act like its own little country.
      That’s why AZ has no business taking on immigration enforcement.

      bmaz? I’m a little rusty, being out of active practice for awhile. Am I way off in this argument?

      Now, gotta go – but I’ll check back.

  28. joelmael says:

    “Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.”

    Hispanics come in only two sizes dontchaknow, illegals(bad) and lawn mowers/waitstaff(good)

    Maybe my physician came over from Spain.

  29. GDC707 says:

    Thank You for the link to Will’s article. I usually disagree with Will, but on this I agree with him completely. As a person who spent nearly his entire life with Hispanics and who speaks conversant Spanish I find it amusing how Progs absolutely go into seizures over this issue.

    I notice you omitted much of Will’s last paragraph:

    Non-Hispanic Arizonans of all sorts live congenially with all sorts of persons of Hispanic descent. These include some whose ancestors got to Arizona before statehood — some even before it was a territory. They were in America before most Americans’ ancestors arrived. Arizonans should not be judged disdainfully and from a distance by people whose closest contacts with Hispanics are with fine men and women who trim their lawns and put plates in front of them at restaurants, not with illegal immigrants passing through their back yards at 3 a.m.

    I also work with Hispanics every day both as colleagues and patients. It is absurd and ridiculous to assert that there are no reasonable conditions to arouse suspicion of illegal alien status. Once I was trying to speak Spanish with a family of a patient and kept getting blank stares and no response. My Spanish is not perfect, but it almost always gets me by. Finally, someone from the front office (last name Alvarez) came by and said they weren’t Spanish speakers. They were Aztec and don’t even speak Spanish in Mexico. Well, My Aztec is a little rusty so we had to get through the procedure basically with charades and sign language. Afterward I asked the front office person who checked them in if they were legal immigrants or citizens. She laughed and gave me that “Oh yeah, right” look and went about her business. So these folks got treatment, (and believe me it wasn’t cheap) and you and I paid for it.

    At a time when so many American citizens can’t get medical care for all the reasons so well understood on this
    site, this family and thousands upon thousands of others just waltz in to the hospital and receive care, absorbing scarce medical care dollars, and those same Americans who cannot get care end up paying for it. Absolute theatre of the absurd.

    • onitgoes says:

      Ok, I’ll bite. I’m serious when I say, I don’t understand. How is that this purportedly illegal family who only spoke Aztec (is that still a spoken language? I know that there are Mexican Indians who don’t speak Spanish, though) gets all this free expensive health care, but US citizens cannot get the same kind of free expensive health care?

      It’s not that I don’t believe you, but I’ve never understood how this works. WHY/HOW is it that illegals are lining up and apparently receiving a ton of free expensive health care, but legal US citizens simply canNOT get the same?

      I’d really appreciate some enlightenment on this topic. thanks very much.

      • GDC707 says:

        OK. We all know that anybody who shows up at the Emergency Room will eventually get treated. This does apply to citizens and non-citizens alike, regardless of legal status. This actually works to the advantage of people who have absolutely no money or assets in that you can’t get blood from a stone so there is no problem in repeatedly using the medical system even for rather minor issues – but that is a separate problem. I have a friend who is dirt poor but she doesn’t worry so much about medical care because she just goes down to the ER and checks in. She doesn’t WORRY about it. That’s OK, we should ALL have that situation.

        But we all know that there are many people who DO have some money or some assets (not rich but have built up a few things) but for one or many reasons do not have health insurance. These people are compelled NOT to go to the doctor or the hospital because their money and assets ARE fair game for a rapacious medical system of which I am, admittedly a part of. (I’m a complete advocate for single-payer by the way.) So, in effect, this latter group of people are denied healthcare from fear of bankruptcy or a major financial hit. But, they still pay taxes and therefore subsidize those who have little or no money and THAT includes quite a few undocumented aliens or “international guests” or whatever the appropriate euphemism of the moment is.

        I’m NOT saying that we should deny care to anybody. We shouldn’t. But I am saying that is folly to think that continuing the status quo of wide open immigration doesn’t have serious financial and social consequences for everybody. Is the Arizona law the answer? Probably not. But I see it not so much as totalitarian or Nazi and more as a cry for help from the feds to DO something. To top pretending that real world consequences just aren’t happening.

        By the way, the story I related was absolutely true and I usually tell it to friends more in the context of continuing
        adventures in learning and speaking a 2nd language and funny things that happen in Radiology. It just happened to be germane to the immigration discussion, I thought, as an extreme case of” Hey! These folks just may not be citizens. I don’t know where I got that idea, just a hunch, I guess!”

        • onitgoes says:

          Thanks for the explanation, which does come into some amount of conflict with your prior post. Just about anyone who goes to ER can get health care. I think the “culprit” in your argument is the crapulously piss poor joke of a broken health care system that we have in this nation. But as you state that you’re in favor of single payer, then we’re probably on the same page about that.

          I think many posting here agree that unlimited immigration is not the answer, nor are many/any of us advocating for that (I’m not), but we seem to be painted with that brush if we disagree with this particular law in AZ.

          I still think this law sucks. As I’ve been ranting – here and elsewhere – and as I agree with oldfatguy @76 – this law just focuses entirely on the undocumented workers (illegal aliens or what have you). I have yet to see any law with real muscle being enforced on the businesses – mainly construction, ag, meat packing, and hospitality – that knowingly hire undocumented workers to pay them paltry wages to work in crappy conditions.

          I agree with oldfatguy: go after the businesses with a vengence, and this so-called “immigration problem” will be a thing of the past. But it’s not happening bc the businesses are protected by our elected politicians and with nods and winks from Immigration, Border Patrol, the PDs and so on.

          That’s why I call out this law for the racial profiling nonsense that it is… dumped out there for delight of the bigots who have eyes but refuse to see the reality of what’s really going on.

          Just bc I oppose this law does not mean that I’m totally and wholeheartedly in favor of unfettered immigration, nor do I agree with giving undocumented people tons of free services. But I also do not agree that undocumented people are as huge of a drain on our system as is made out to be. It has been proven over and over that most of these workers contribute financially to our financial coffers in various ways. So it’s spurious at best to say that they’re all getting this giant “free ride.” That’s not the case, either.

          And until I witness with my own eyes the obscenely wealthy doing away with their Mexican gardeners, pool boys, nannies, cleaning ladies, etc… and replacing them with documented citizens making at least minimum wages and the obscenely wealthy paying into Social Security and Medicare for these workers… well, wake me when that happens, and then we can talk more clearly about this.

          • GDC707 says:

            OK. I don’t think the law is as bad as everybody is making it out to be, but we’ll probably never know since I doubt it will ever be implemented.

            Otherwise we’re not so far apart on this issue and I have always respected you and OFG’s take on issues. Thanks for the discussion.

            • onitgoes says:

              You’re welcome, and thanks for explaining what you meant. I suspect we are closer in opinion, too, but as for that law… well, we’ll see.

              It has certainly opened a can of worms.

    • OldFatGuy says:

      Wow, talk about a strawman.

      So opposing this law means one supports illegals receiving free medical care at our expense.


    • robgard says:

      If you were rendering emergency medical care, then the institution had a legal duty to provide that care. If the care was not emergency care, then the institution on its own decided to provide the care, and was under no obligation to do so.

      • GDC707 says:

        If you show up to the Emergency Room, even with a case of annoying jock itch, the hospital has to treat you. This is where the word “Emergency” loses a lot of its meaning. And people do, bless their hearts, show up to the ER for all sorts of very minor things.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Pity for Americans that they live in the only civilized country that makes such emergency room visits the only way tens of millions of them can get any medical attention at all, short of dying.

          Thomas Hobbes’s observation about the life of man in his “natural state” remains true: it is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. It also illustrates the accuracy of Gandhi’s observation three hundred years later, when asked about what he thought of Western civilization, “I think it would be a good idea.”

          • librty says:

            when asked about what he thought of Western civilization, “I think it would be a good idea.”

            What a Mirror – the man had some great one-liners

            • OldFatGuy says:

              Yes he did. My favorite one went something like this (not sure of the EXACT quote)

              I like your Christ. I don’t like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

              Always been one of my favorites (and soooooooooooooooooooo true).

            • earlofhuntingdon says:

              That’s what you get when you have a Cambridge lawyer who is an ascetic, a rebel, and a human rights advocate. As with George Carlin condensing life into his jokes, the problem is too much material.

        • robgard says:

          The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986) does not require treating everyone who shows up in an emergency room, but many facilities will treat anyone for fear of being sued if there was a real emergent condition. Patients can’t be turned away if they have a medical emergency, even if that claimed emergency is not visible, but just verbalized by the patient. Medical emergency is defined as follows:

          “An emergency medical condition is defined as “a condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in placing the individual’s health [or the health of an unborn child] in serious jeopardy, serious impairment to bodily functions, or serious dysfunction of bodily organs.” For example, a pregnant woman with an emergency condition must be treated until delivery is complete, unless a transfer under the statute is appropriate.”

          • GDC707 says:

            Yes, so in practice as you say, for legal and some clinical reasons, the hospital feels it MUST treat everybody who shows up, regardless of ability to pay. After all, even an annoying jock itch CAN get infected and lead to sepsis and the pt, COULD die. Even a mild headach COULD be a tumor or an aneurysm, – so there you go. I was aware of the distinctions of the law, but I see no practical difference.

            • robgard says:

              Still, the facility is making the decision to treat everyone in the ER. It is not a legal mandate. The facility has determined that it would be more costly, bothersome, legally dangerous, and time consuming to make distinctions that would require some sort of medical examination to make in the first place. I’m not an open borders advocate, but, as others have said, opposition to this Arizona law does not make one an advocate of open borders. That said, I do have some sympathy for many of those undocumented workers trying to feed their families through jobs in the U.S., and I wonder what lengths I would go to in their situation (caused by a variety of factors, including NAFTA and other actions of our government).

              Under The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (1986, the Feds don’t have to remburse the states or the medical facilities. No one likes these unfunded mandates. Perhaps a real single payer health care system would deal with that issue.

  30. OldFatGuy says:

    Long time subscriber to the Post after The Washington Star went out of business. Read George Will every time his shit was in the paper.

    Cancelled my subscription in the lead up to the Iraq war when The Post was leading the charge and haven’t read as much of him.

    I do believe he’s become even more of an asshole. And I would’ve bet good money on that being impossible. Unbelievable.

    What an asshole.

  31. onitgoes says:

    PS Thanks for the rant about Will. Can’t stand that posturing phony either. Never read a word he says though… my blood pressure can’t handle it.

  32. lokywoky says:

    I think this law sucks. And not just because of the obvious racial profiling that will be done as the police are forced to stop people. Yes, you read that right – if the law enforcement types don’t get aggressive enough with this – they can be sued by other “upstanding” AZ citizens for not doing “their jobs”.

    Also, apparently a driver license and a social security card are not enough documents. You need a certified copy of your birth certificate and/or a valid US passport. And we all know how well the birth certificate thingy works.

    In an article on Truthout today, Greg Palast advances the case that this isn’t even really about “illegal immigration” but it IS about voting. This governor was the former Secretary of State – and during her tenure in office she purged the voter rolls after 2004 of over 10,000 names (nearly 100% hispanic names) – and these people were not told why, and most of them were not allowed to re-register. She has also denied the applications to vote of another 10,000 US Citizens – apparently for having hispanic-sounding names.

    The AZ Rethugs are scared – scared that the population of LEGAL hispanics (yes, US Citizens of the brown persuasion) are growing in confidence and power and are voting in ever increasing numbers. And voting Democratic. Since they now make up over one-third of the AZ electorate, the rethugs are pulling every trick in the book out to try to stop the inevitable.

    Boycott Arizona – when it hits them in the pocketbook – they’ll change their pea-pickin’ little minds. Just like they did on the MLK holiday.

  33. librty says:

    “Papers Please”

    Just can’t get the image of an SS or other Nazi POS demanding to see authorization.

    Granted the new AZ law in many ways mirrors current federal law and the immigration act of 1940, immigration has been a Federal responsibility forever and we did not have a federal police force that would demand to see our “Papers” (prior to the enactment of the Patriot Act and the creation of DHS).

  34. OldFatGuy says:

    Oh, was wondering if anyone else read the title and thought this was an article about something Will wrote concerning the new Senator from Mass. or the older one (in terms of Senate service) from Ohio.

  35. Mesa Mick says:

    Never in my life have I seen so many of my fellow progressives bleating and braying like a bunch of drama queens over AZ’s attempts to protect it’s citizens – regardless of their race, color, creed or ethnic origins.

    Here’s one for all those “open border” and immigration scoff laws” and “anti-sovern country” types out there. It’s the feds responsibility to enforce the federal immigration laws on the books and AZ can do the same. If the feds have exclusive rights to enforcement than for christsake enforce them so we Arizonians don’t have to! And if these federal immigration laws are “racist” them CHANGE THEM. Don’t diss AZ for that.

    And this horseshit about “papers please” is just that. Ever been stop for a traffic violation and been asked for driver’s license, registration and insurance card? Well guess what, you were just asked “papers please” and the color of your skin had nothing to do with it.

    And for all those out there who are demanding boycotts of AZ where did you learn the shake-down tactics of extrotion, coersion and intimidation, the Mexican mafia? And your thought processes on boycotts are fucked. That’s just what AZ needs – fewer jobs for the hard working lower middle class. Brilliant, fucking brilliant…

    Go ahead, flame the shit out of me for being against “illegals”. But as an Arizonian – not an AZhole – I’m working to clean up any of the inequities of SB1070 that might exist. However, I’m pissed at myself for not paying attention during the work up of this legislation but “workin” and not “bitchin” is in order now.

    The same goes for those same progressives that think that the Health Insurance legislation sucks – Are you “workin” to improve it or just “bitchin” because it’s what the “cool” libs do?

    This is America – If you don’t like a law then fix the fuckin’ thing…

    • OldFatGuy says:

      One can work and bitch at the same time. In fact, doing both might even be more beneficial.

      Try changing a law without bitching about it. You first have to convince others that it requires changing you know.

      As for the recently enacted HIPPA act (Health Insurers Profit Protection Act), I’m WORKING to the best of my ability to see that every politician that voted for it and is up for re-election in 2010 loses. Know that won’t happen, but it sure would be nice to knock as many out as possible.

      And I just can’t wait for 2012 to vote against the lying O.

      So yeah, working and bitching is OK.

    • bmaz says:

      No reason to fix a patently unconstitutional law; it just needs to be removed or set aside. I am a native and current Arizonan, and on the list of problems afflicting the state, illegal aliens is nowhere near the top of the list.

  36. biggkell says:

    I feel that states that border foreign countries are in a precarious position for that very reason,.. they border foreign countries. However, my problem is that this is a racially motivated law that targets people of color. My understanding is that the U.S. has not only a problem with illegal aliens from Central and South America that burden our economy but many millions of undocumented aliens from Europe as well, (white/white-like europeans, Irish, Russian, British, etc,), so surly this law will allow Arizona to target, inconvience and humiliate white people as well, looking for Illegal and undocumented aliens, correct? To enforce this law, EVERYone in Arizona will have to be stopped and carded, but we know that isn’t going to happen, and therein lies the problem. The european illegals are more likely to hold jobs that are in competition with white America than are hispanic people. As for the illegal activities of these illegals from south of the border, are the drug, racketeering and prostitution activities of their white counterparts any less dangerous a drain on our healthcare and economy.

    • lokywoky says:

      that burden our economy

      This is a total straw man. The IRS, the Social Security Administration, the CBO, and others in a position to know say this is simply not true. Undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes and income taxes. Because of their low income status and because many of them are using stolen or fraudulent SSN’s they are “eligible” for refunds of both federal and state income taxes. But they don’t file/claim them. This money is considered “overpayment” and is placed into special holding funds. That the government then uses to shore up whatever programs need it at the moment. Estimates range from a low of about $14 billion per year to upwards of $22 billion. These people also pay sales taxes, fees and the like. They are not a “burden” but pay their fair share and then some.

      As far as the “crime wave” cries – well, yes, the Mexi-drug-cartels are creating a lot of violence along the border region – but these are NOT immigrants – they may cross the border and create mayhem – but they run right back across at the first sign of trouble. Crime among the undocumented is the lowest among any demographic group – the lies of Lou Dobbs and others of his ilk notwithstanding. And for obvious reasons – they want no contact with authorities in this country.

      Likewise the saw that they get welfare, foodstamps, social security, medicaid, etc. They don’t. Those programs all require proper ID, and contact with authorities.

      The “doctor” above who was treating some Aztec people I am sure is not in private practice – but probably works in a community free clinic. Those clinics are currently supported more by private donations than government funding. But health care isn’t just about “rights” – it is a public health issue. If these people have a medical issue serious enough to go to a clinic – I feel a lot better they are being treated rather than spreading it to others, or dying in the streets. And by the way – American citizens CAN get this same type of health care. It’s not the best, but it does in a pinch as they say.

      Too bad so many commenters on this post are spouting all the same tired, untrue, Rethug talking points and haven’t done any researcy or just thought about simple common-sense ideas when applied to this issue.

      • GDC707 says:

        Never said I was a doctor. I am an x-ray tech CT scanner, in the field for 27 years. At the time of the story I was in a middle-sized hospital in the Central Valley of California which was supported by a variety of sources-public, private, charitable. In short your typical hospital.

        Your points about payroll taxes, social security etc. is not without controversy and I can say confidently that many immigrants do NOT pay these taxes because many are paid under the table. This is an established fact but is hard to quantify of course. Still I will allow that many do pay taxes and must duck and cover and not receive some of the benefits that would go to citizens but WTF? They sneaked into another sovereign nation and immediately started breaking state and federal laws. Seems like not getting the benefits of that country would be understood as coming with the territory.

  37. earlofhuntingdon says:

    This law seems to be two things. It is an auto-erotic, self-congratulatory handshake among neo- or proto-Nazis who hate and fear “the other”, regardless of their real rather than imagined behavior, some of whom are politicians who expect to cash in on this as if they were Sarah Palin quitting work to make money.

    More constructively, it is an attempt to get a moribund US Congress, hamstrung by nativists and flaccid “liberals”, to make immigration reform a higher priority. Were that reform to be instituted but not be to their liking, rest assured that some of these good Arizonans would go all 10th amendment about nullifying it. It seems to boil down to selfish, self-centered politicking at its worst.

  38. Twain says:

    We have had laws on the books re immigration for many years and they have never been enforced. I don’t think any new laws will be enforced either. The immigration question is almost as much the third rail of politics as the abortion issue is.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      A law that institutionalizes racist profiling and abuse of police powers, as this one does in fact if not on its face, will be used by those like Joe Arpaio as authority to do what they already do and to be more extreme about doing it. Just to make sure, this law’s authors allowed any citizen to sue their local police for not enforcing this law to their liking.

      How that works out, what with traditional notions of police and prosecutorial discretion, will be a nightmare clogging Arizona’s courts for some time. Good use of money for a state that claims it is so broke it has to sell off its office buildings (and rent them back at higher cost), wouldn’t you say?

      No one is going to ignore this law as if it were prohibition or a prohibition on transporting women across state lines for “immoral” purposes.

      • Twain says:

        I didn’t mean that people like Arpaio will ignore the law – quite the contrary, he will love it. I meant that the people in Congress will turn a blind eye when big agri business hires undocumented workers. That’s the way it has always been, at least in Ca. I don’t mind paying more so that people can have health care when they need it. I have no objections to people coming to this country. I simply meant that when it’s convenient, any laws will be ignored.

      • bmaz says:

        Well said. And you are right, this to be the “Death To Court Functionality Act” in that it is likely cause giant untenable problems on both state courts and the already terminally insufficient immigration courts. Jails and detention centers too.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Sheriff Joe will just put up a another tent and buy another gross gross of pink underwear. As with his deputies’ badges, the tenants of his tent city won’t need no stinkin’ water.

  39. OldFatGuy says:

    And I’ll tell folks why I don’t like this law and the way the federal government enforces immigration.

    I don’t believe in unlimited immigration. Maybe at one time in this country that was fine. But we can’t sustain that now, so I’m fine with immigration limits and laws, and believe they should be enforced.

    But enforcement has almost always centered on the immigrant, and not on those creating the incentive for the illegal immigrant to be here.

    You hire a million enforcement officers, and start investigating and raiding every business in the country to ensure they are only hiring those legal to be hired, and I guarantee you within two years the “illegal immigration” problem will take care of itself.

    But no, just like with this law, almost all efforts are focused on the immigrant rather than the business owner benefitting from their labor. I can’t go to a fast food restaurant without speaking Spanish anymore, and I’d bet what little money I have to my name that if any of those establishments were investigated some, most, or even all of them have “illegals” working for them. And everyone knows it. And no enforcement is taken.

    If you don’t want illegal immigrants (and their cheap labor), then attack the problem at the source, the employers paying them (and often times even bringing them here).

    As usual though in this country “business” can do anything with little or no accountability, but the little person (legal or illegal) is the one that suffers.

    Fuck. That. Shit. and this Arizona law.

    • librty says:

      You hire a million enforcement officers,

      I’ll take that job since I’m unemployed and I’m betting a few of the AFO-CIO construction trade folks would take it also (those that are out of work because of all the scab labor in their market)

      I find I’m agreeing with you again OFG

      (and I also appose the AZ Law) p.s. Doesn’t anyone else remember the reform of ’86?

      • Twain says:

        I agree with you but I don’t see any solution to the situation. I have heard the discussion of “we have to fix immigration” for at least the last 40 years and nothing worthwhile has ever happened. It needs a fix but I don’t see it happening unless we line the border with troops which I do not favor at all.

  40. BillE says:

    Can you imagine if Mr Will would venture down to something in AZ. And, while there get a speeding ticket and the cop was Hispanic and not from Maricopa county. More fun, the cop in protest of this law arrests Will for not having his birth certificate and being unable to “prove” citizenship, off he goes into wingnut Armageddon.


  41. JohnLopresti says:

    JBalkin wrote an article about the potential interference effects of implementing the AZ neocitizenship law. JB seems to suggest that courts soon could be examining chronicles of impacts upon federal regulation of the frontiers.

  42. anntink says:

    I’m amazed at how often liberals are willing to ignore laws when their perception of morality is involved, and yet they vehemently deny that same right to others. Seems to me you were all for jail time for Bush when he decided to break the law by wiretapping citizens’ telephones, and yet… you are against jail time for people who decide to break the law by entering the U.S. illegally. Are we a nation of laws or not? Who gets to decide which laws to obey and which can be ignored? Seems to me, the only reason for having laws is to ensure that everyone plays by the same rules. No one should have the right to ignore the law; not Bush; not Obama and not illegal immigrants and most assuredly, not the companies that exploit illegal immigrants. Issues of what’s right or wrong (morality) belong in a church (or Mosque or whatever). Issues of law is the government’s purview.

    • librty says:

      Who gets to decide which laws to obey and which can be ignored?

      To a certain extent we all do. My take on it: It’s a matter of conscience and I must be willing to face the consequences of my action.

      If I really feel convicted about a law, that it’s morally wrong or unconstitutional, I can take a stand against, allow myself to be placed in standing and face all consequences, then fight the law.

      Or I can become involved politically and attempt change in that arena.

    • Twain says:

      I don’t ignore the law but it should be applied fairly and in all the states. So far the gov’t has not been able to pass a law that works and they just spin and spin and nothing happens. I believe in obeying the law but I don’t want any people mistreated in our country.

    • robgard says:

      I haven’t seen anyone on this comment thread advocating open borders, but trespassing is not the same level of criminality as first degree murder. Running a stop sign is not the same level of criminality as ordering torture. Law enforcement resource allocation must be prioritized and rationally & constitutionally implemented. This Arizona law fails on both counts.

    • AZ Matt says:

      You ignore the racial underpinnings of this law. Russell Pierce had help writing this sucker. The group that did the work in Kansas has a philosophy rooted in the eugenics movement. That movement was a “scientific way” to justify racial superiority.

      Lawyer For White Nationalist Group Brags That He ‘Helped’ Sen. Russell Pearce Write Arizona Immigration Law

      And Russell loves himself some Neo-Nazis:
      Profiling Arizona legislator Russell Pearce: Author of immigration law is pals with noted neo-Nazi

      The roots of this bill are in the stinking crap of history.

    • onitgoes says:

      “Issues of law are the government’s purview.” I agree with you, but as a citizen, I am also part of the government of the people, by the people and for the people. Just bc some gov’t entity passes a law doesn’t mean I have to agree with it, and in fact, I am being a good citizen (imo) by investigating said law and either voicing my support or my protest. Speaking only for myself, I don’t take that lightly.

      It’s easy to paint all “progressives” with a broad brush and state that we all have knee-jerk reactions to certain things, like saying Bush should have gone to court. I think if you read this blog more carefully, you’ll find that, on average, the people blogging here are just as critical of Obama and Democratic politicians (and laws passed by Democratic majorities) as we are about Republicans. In the main, I find most who post here to do so in an informed way with some thoughtfulness behind their reasonings.

      I’ve posted several times now that I do not support unfettered immigration, nor do I wholeheartedly endorse undocumented workers or illegal aliens (or what have) to wholesale come into this country and do whatever – be it work, or avail themselves of services and institutions or whatever.

      However, I stated plainly and flatly that this particular law (and yes: I read it) in no way reasonably addresses the real issues surrounding illegal immigration. Most of those issues could be addressed much more fairly if the businesses who actively seek out, pursue and actually travel to third world countries (particularly in central america) to recruit undocumented workers, were punished fairly (not just taps on the wrist or cheap fines) for what they do. And quite simply: that’s not happening.

      It’s all very well to seek to deport undocumented workers, if they are found out. Yes, they broke the law, so fair’s fair: they get deported. But most wouldn’t be here in the first place if wasn’t darn easy for them to find work. If work were generally unavailable, you wouldn’t see nearly as much of it.

      Finally, Phoenix has a particularly egregious reputation in this regard. They recently went through a huge housing boom, and the construction industry actively sought undocmented workers (mainly from mexico and central america because they were so readily available) to work for cheap wages. Hey: it was a big fat WIN for the construction company owners, who made out like bandits off the backs of cheap labor. I’m quite cynical about that, and no, it has nothing to do with whether I’m “liberal” or not. I’m looking at cold, hard reality.

      Let’s look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina: those construction companies went into NOLA and MI and eagerly sought to hire undocumented workers – rather than locals (who protested vigourously to no avail) – so that the construction company owners could rake in the jackpot once again.

      Please come back and talk to me when the law is applied fairly across the board, which means that the corporations – who now have personhood status – face the same legal restrictions and punishments as real live human beings do.

  43. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Separate but equal was not intended to discriminate against people of color, either. It was intended to give them their own special resources, like water fountains and schools, so that they could enjoy being with people of their own, um, kind.

  44. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Juan Cole has a comparative take on this new Arizona “law” (links omitted; see original):

    The Israeli law resembles the one recently enacted in Arizona in one respect. Recently-arrived European Jews are demanding that Palestinians, who have inhabited the West Bank for thousands of years, must be able to show their papers in order to stay. In the same way, some of the Latinos who will be hassled by police in Arizona with demands that they ‘show their papers’ will be Hispanics, i.e. the old pre-US elite from the days of the Spanish Empire and early Mexico. The Arizonan yahoos who made this racist law to harass Latinos are recent, uncultured immigrants from the point of view of proud old Hispanic families. Others so hassled will be of mixed Latino and Native American heritage, so that some of their ancestors were in Arizona perhaps 10,000 – 16,000 years ago, but ignorant Euro-Americans are now demanding proof that they belong there.

    Racism everywhere tells itself the same transparent lies about blood and soil, and makes the same sleight-of-hand exclusions on the basis of ‘purity’ of blood.

    • bobschacht says:

      Juan Cole is absolutely on target, as usual.
      Add to this that Israel has targeted Palestinian bureaucracies that keep records, and before that British offices. Imagine, for example, that as a Palestinian you bought land in, say, 1940 in Samaria, under the British Mandate. Since then, the Israelis have taken over the state record keeping offices, and the Palestinians have taken over the local land records offices in Samaria. Palestinians have been bombed, chased hither and yon, homes destroyed, movement restricted. In the past 20-30 years, Israel has repeatedly bombed police offices and other Palestinian offices on the West Bank under various pretexts, always resulting in the destruction of records. Now, 70 years later, some Israeli shows up at your door and demands to see the deed to your property deed. What are the chances that you will have access to an unscathed official copy of your deed?

      Bob in AZ

  45. hijean831 says:

    This poses a semantic puzzle: Can the large majority of Arizonans who support the law be a “fringe” of their state?

    I’m puzzled at his puzzlement. If it’s okay to write off the clear majority of Americans who support a public option as the fringiest fringe of the left, the unambiguous answer is “Yes!” Duh.

  46. wayoutwest says:

    George Will thinks he is the new Bill Buckley but he’s not up to the task.

    I have a problem, i support the boycott but have a fishing trip to AZ planned for next month. Will i be ok if i yell at some poor Arizonian that i hate their law? That poor Arizonian will be my brother who i need to help me catch the wily Apache trout.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      If Arizona has the same law that Michigan once had (as applied to the illegality of expletives shouted down a rapidly moving river), I recommend being careful about what you shout at an Arizonan.

      The phrases one finds useful to that end would also be different, depending on whether one is avoiding new agers and the glitterati in Sedona (“Get your Range Rover off of my cactus!”) or the locals on the “wrong side” of Phoenix. Anywhere nearer the border than Flagstaff, and I would make sure it’s in English, to avoid being a test case for this new law.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          What, no exception taken to my description of the attitude of the good residents of Sedona?

      • bobschacht says:

        If Arizona has the same law that Michigan once had (as applied to the illegality of expletives shouted down a rapidly moving river), I recommend being careful about what you shout at an Arizonan.

        Yeah, especially when you consider how its legal in Arizona to bear arms, open or concealed, and many apparently do.

        Bob in AZ

        • wayoutwest says:

          Not to worry Bob the only person i’ll be yelling at is my brother from Phoenix and he disagrees with this law as much as i do. We will probably end up howling with the wolves after a few drinks.

  47. bayofarizona says:

    I still think this law sucks. As I’ve been ranting – here and elsewhere – and as I agree with oldfatguy @76 – this law just focuses entirely on the undocumented workers (illegal aliens or what have you). I have yet to see any law with real muscle being enforced on the businesses – mainly construction, ag, meat packing, and hospitality – that knowingly hire undocumented workers to pay them paltry wages to work in crappy conditions.

    I agree with oldfatguy: go after the businesses with a vengence, and this so-called “immigration problem” will be a thing of the past. But it’s not happening bc the businesses are protected by our elected politicians and with nods and winks from Immigration, Border Patrol, the PDs and so on.

    EXACTLY. Because of the recession, over a 1 million illegal immigrants left the US. If they can’t get jobs, they will leave. Painless deportation, I like to call it. You rarely hear any harsh words about emplyers. That is how you know they are racists, as opposed to ‘caring about the rule of law.’

      • wickchambers says:

        By “writing well” I mean writing clearly, concisely and persuasively for the benefit of the reader. I think it is difficult to write well using insults and venting one’s rage. The more frequently one expresses one’s anger and the more insults one writes, the easier it is to remember the anger and the insults; the harder it is to remember the reasons for the anger and the insults and to focus on why the reader should side with the writer.

        • bmaz says:

          That was my intent here; I wanted that aspect remembered. Sometimes rank pedantic posturing is not very interesting either.

  48. orionATL says:

    wickchambers @128

    george will does not “write well” anymore than maureen dowd is a “stylist” when it comes to writing.

    will is a psuedo-intellectual, a highly active republican party operative, and one of the sloppiest logical thinkers who ever soaked the wapoop syndicate for loads of money.

    george will loves to suckle from the same great private-wealth teat that nourishes legions (in the war-like sense)
    of right-wing psuedo-intellectuals.

    you can always tell an american psuedo-intellectual- they love to discuss baseball as if it were mathematics and history.

    in my view, will is a bitter, angry r-w republican in the personality mold of clarence thomas – mad at society for something that happened to him a long time ago.

    one cannot be said to “write well” if one’s writing is subservient to one’s political party’s immediate needs

    and chock-full of illogic and misrepresentation.

    • wickchambers says:

      We disagree about whether Will (and Maureen Dowd for that matter) writes well. I don’t know what a writing “stylist” is. I find it easy to understand what Will and Dowd write, what points they’re making and the reasons for their conclusions. There is difference between finding it easy to understand a person’s point of view and agreeing with that point of view. Life is short. Ideas are useful. Insults are not especially enlightening. They may be “fun” and they may be deserved, but they’re not very interesting.

  49. orionATL says:

    wickchambers @132

    george will does NOT write for “the benefit of his readers”; he writes for his confrers and his paymasters.

    george will does NOT write persuasively, unless you don’t know or care about the “facts” he is often mauling, or the rnc talking points.

    “i think it is difficult to write well using insults and venting one’s rage.”

    what claptrap;

    rage/anger at injustice, and, in the case of will’s sophistry, rage/anger at intellectual dishonesty,

    is a fuel for novels (you have heard of charles dickens and victor hugo have you not?),

    for poetry, for expository writing, and for philosophy.

    but if you are happy reading george will, that’s fine by me,

    now that i have expressed a counteropinion to your original comment.

  50. orionATL says:

    wickchambers @133

    “… insults are not especially enlightening…not very interesting…”

    you should tell that to political columnists, political humorists, and to political satirists;
    (perhaps you might be able to influence their general approach to their work),

    e. g., the perpetually angry, gender confusing “work” of maureen dowd,

    or the work of the political cartoonists, to whom anger at hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty is the engine for their drawings.

  51. orionATL says:


    i owe you an apology.

    i apologize for attacking your comment and you.

    there was nothing whatsoever in your one line comment that merited my response.

    i aologize for being so rude.

    i decided to to so after reading thru all comments and realizing you had commented once-one line.

    my response was not fair or proportionsl and was rude and disinviting – things i do not like to do.

Comments are closed.