I've run into a lot of opposing arguments for this law, and I've honestly tried to understand both sides and stay neutral. It's becoming harder and harder to do that.
The arguments against the idea of Arizona enacting its own law that mirrors the federal law (as this one almost perfectly does) are ludicrous.
The Obama Adm. is about to file suit against the state of Arizona today, and for what? The President calls it "misguided", but why?
Members of Congress are having a conniption over it. Again, why?
I ran into someone arguing in favor of the law today who brought up many good points.
These aren't my words:
"In the course of lawfully and peacefully going about my private affairs, in any given week, I am required to identify myself probably a dozen times or more. I carry my identification with me at all times. Producing said identification is quick, easy, and causes me no harm. It is a simple thing that takes no more than seconds to do. As I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
If I travel to a foreign country, I am expected to carry papers with me, such as passports or visas, and to produce said papers on request of local authorities. I was born and raised in the US. I look, act, dress and speak like an American. In any foreign country, I will stand out as someone, "who isn't from around here". I may logically expect increased scruetiny as a result. If I were to immigrate to a foreign country, I may logically expect such scruetiny to continue for some time as I learn to adjust and adapt to my new homeland. Again, if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
On constitutionality:
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". The Arizona law does not, as some have claimed, usurp that power. The Arizona law deals with those who are not naturalized and are here illegally.
Article I, Section 10 states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.". Arizona has been invaded by some half million foreign nationals, its citizens are being murdered by foreign nationals, Congress hasn't done squat to deal with the problem. Arizona is in "imminent Danger as will not admit of delay".
Article IV, Section 1, states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State".
Article IV, Section 4, states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion".
Article I, Section 9, states: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended , unless when in Cases of... Invasion the public Safety may require it.". Invading hoards of foreign nationals enjoy no special privileges or rights. They may be rounded up and detained as needed.
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""
Pretty good, pretty good. I was watching the news and two talking heads were arguing about the matter. One disagreed on the basis that it was wrong for any state to enact laws that are more strict than the equivalent federal law. The man arguing this would probably describe himself as an open-minded liberal.
I thought about his argument, but then I thought about something else.
By and large it is the left side of the spectrum that wishes to enact stringer gun laws, and they do so by enacting ones which are much stronger than the federal laws.
I wonder what he would've said had someone brought that up.
Anyways, barring simplistic arguments about racism and bigotry, what are your thoughts on the matter?
The arguments against the idea of Arizona enacting its own law that mirrors the federal law (as this one almost perfectly does) are ludicrous.
The Obama Adm. is about to file suit against the state of Arizona today, and for what? The President calls it "misguided", but why?
Members of Congress are having a conniption over it. Again, why?
I ran into someone arguing in favor of the law today who brought up many good points.
These aren't my words:
"In the course of lawfully and peacefully going about my private affairs, in any given week, I am required to identify myself probably a dozen times or more. I carry my identification with me at all times. Producing said identification is quick, easy, and causes me no harm. It is a simple thing that takes no more than seconds to do. As I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
If I travel to a foreign country, I am expected to carry papers with me, such as passports or visas, and to produce said papers on request of local authorities. I was born and raised in the US. I look, act, dress and speak like an American. In any foreign country, I will stand out as someone, "who isn't from around here". I may logically expect increased scruetiny as a result. If I were to immigrate to a foreign country, I may logically expect such scruetiny to continue for some time as I learn to adjust and adapt to my new homeland. Again, if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
On constitutionality:
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". The Arizona law does not, as some have claimed, usurp that power. The Arizona law deals with those who are not naturalized and are here illegally.
Article I, Section 10 states that: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.". Arizona has been invaded by some half million foreign nationals, its citizens are being murdered by foreign nationals, Congress hasn't done squat to deal with the problem. Arizona is in "imminent Danger as will not admit of delay".
Article IV, Section 1, states: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State".
Article IV, Section 4, states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion".
Article I, Section 9, states: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended , unless when in Cases of... Invasion the public Safety may require it.". Invading hoards of foreign nationals enjoy no special privileges or rights. They may be rounded up and detained as needed.
The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.""
Pretty good, pretty good. I was watching the news and two talking heads were arguing about the matter. One disagreed on the basis that it was wrong for any state to enact laws that are more strict than the equivalent federal law. The man arguing this would probably describe himself as an open-minded liberal.
I thought about his argument, but then I thought about something else.
By and large it is the left side of the spectrum that wishes to enact stringer gun laws, and they do so by enacting ones which are much stronger than the federal laws.
I wonder what he would've said had someone brought that up.
Anyways, barring simplistic arguments about racism and bigotry, what are your thoughts on the matter?
No comments:
Post a Comment