Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Obama folks having real t-r-o-u-b-l-e reading the new A-r-i-z-o-n-a illegal immigrant l-a-w

Maybe instead of childhood obesity, the Obama administration should focus its feel-good campaign attention on adult literacy.

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano is now the second outspoken member of President Obama's high-powered cabinet to admit she has not actually read the Arizona illegal immigrant law that she's been so thoroughly denouncing anyway.

Eye ChartRecall House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying Congress would have to pass the healthcare legislation before we could all read what was in it?

And remember all the mocking that went on awhile back when religious evangelicals criticized movies they hadn't seen or shows they hadn't attended? 

Well, the learning requirement apparently only goes one-way. And they're boycotting reading the law they want people to boycott Arizona over.

Testifying before Arizona's own Sen. John McCain this week, Napolitano was asked if she had read the law derided by so many for things it doesn't do. (See the fun C-SPAN video below, especially at the 1:01:20 mark.)

Napolitano allowed as how well, actually, no, not really. Not "in detail" is how she put it.

In case she -- or you -- would like to read it now, The Ticket published right here the full text and accompanying Executive Order by Gov. Jan Brewer way back on May 7. (See Related Items beneath the videos below.)

Previously, the attorney general of the United States, Eric Holder, a reputed lawyer, admitted to Congress that he too had not actually read the relatively short piece of legislation. No doubt too busy not closing Guantanamo Bay.

Hmm. So earlier this week trouble-making reporters asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs if the Smoker in Chief, another strong critic of the state law, had.... the legislation. And Gibbs said he thought Obama had asked his lawyers for information on the bill.

Which, of course, doesn't really answer the question. It's primo White House-speak for "probably not but I don't want to admit it."

Also on the video Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, proclaims that the Arizona act on illegal immigrants is legislation that she would never ever have signed as governor.

Without ever having read it.

Qwik Pick:

For those who can't read but got this far anyway, take a look at this other disturbing WSB-TV video report here from the Arizona-Mexico border, the sieve-like line that prompted Arizona's elected officials to enact the strict new illegal immigrant law.

Most people think of illegal immigrants as poor Central Americans seeking lucrative work in the United States. But WSB uncovered convincing evidence that the flow of illegal immigrants now includes Pakistanis and Afghans, trained in Spanish, with plans to look for targets, not jobs.

Related items:

The fight over Arizona's illegal immigrant law escalates to the power grid

A California mayor wants to hang out an unwelcome sign to illegal immigrants

Support broadens among Americans for Arizona's illegal immigrant law

See for yourself: Complete text of the Arizona law and executive order

Forget Obama, Arizonans like their new law

Arizona Gov. Brewer explains signing nation's toughest immigration bill

So what does the new Arizona law actually do?

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs controversial law in state melting pot

-- Andrew Malcolm

It is perfectly legal for everyone, whatever your immigration status, to click here to receive Twitter alerts of each new Ticket item. Follow us @latimestot  Or Like our Facebook page right here.

Comments () | Archives (17)

The comments to this entry are closed.

I've read the bill. It doesn't say, "Stop brown people." To some, like Mr. Malcolm, that must mean it's fine. The bill says that law enforcement shall check immigration status during a "stop, detention or arrest" and "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." How do you determine reasonable suspicion that a person is unlawfully present? Here in PA, a state rep who supports our copycat bill said its "a subjective decision" by the officer. Exactly. That's why it will lead to racial profiling.

Mr. Malcolm wants Obama officials to read. I'd like to recommend that Mr. Malcolm read the US Constitution. Article I, Section VIII states that "Congress shall have the establish an uniform rule of Naturalization." Numerous responsibilities are left to the federal government, and not the states, and that includes immigration.

Napolitano is a friggin' idiot.

I'm confused.....a post in support of the AZ law in the L.A. Times? Heads will roll when the editors hear about this.

Obama and his administration are dividing Americans with their lies, and inflaming racial tension to get the mexican votes and all minority votes. They force one party bills (demo) through without reading any of them. Obama pelosi and Reid are in it for the power to control your life, and do things their way only, while taking away your freedom. With them in charge, expect things to get worse.

@Posted by: Andy Hoover | May 19, 2010 at 12:30 PM

First off, the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that a certain level of profiling of race, ethnicity, gender etc is fair, reasonable and legal.

For example: AZ cop stops a guy who was speeding. Asks for his driver's license (like we ALL must produce in that situation) the guy doesn't have a license. The guy doesn't speak a lick of English and doesn't have any other form of ID on him.
There is NOTHING unreasonable about the cop thinking..."hmmm...maybe this guy isn't a citizen, let's investigate further perhaps"

Oh and by the way, check out the CA penal code. We have the EXACT same provision the AZ law is looking to enact. We just happen to no enforce it.

Also, NEITHER law contradicts US law (which you would know if you read it because it says that at least 15 times) it supplements it which is is legal.

Mr. Hoover, How exactly would the feds enforce immigration laws against illegals already here? (assuming they ever will) Asking for "papers"?
Are we supposed to just forget the reality that illegals coming across the Arizona/Mexican border are overwhelmingly Mexican?

" I'd like to recommend that Mr. Malcolm read the US Constitution. Article I, Section VIII states that "Congress shall have the establish an uniform rule of Naturalization..."

Those rules are already established, the issue is in the enforcement. As the Constitutionality of Arizona's new law, that's an issue for the Supreme Court to decide if it ever gets that far.

Perhaps you'll grant that some thoughtful people believe that the sovereignty of our nation should not be lost for the fear of asking for ID's.

I have a number of issues with the bill (which I've read). First, although racial profiling is prohibited, there is no way to complete eliminate all profiling from an officer's point of view. Driving while Black is still an offense in many urban neighborhoods. So in once sense, this is a form of racial profiling, but the officer will be taught to wait for a simple traffic violation and then stop the car.

Secondly, the bill does discriminate against Latinos, since the law does not ask everyone for identification papers. This is the only way this can be constitutional.

Third, anyone from outside Arizona must carry their passport, since the law only recognizes Arizona Drivers Licenses or a State issued birth certificate. So a Hispanic truck driver could get pulled over for a simple traffic stop and be held because he has a California license. That seems to be a federal issue since Arizona should recognize all states licenses as legal.

Finally, If a contractor hires an undocumented worker by picking them up on a street corner, that contractor is given a slap on the wrist while the worker can be deported. Why not confiscate the car? Put the hirer in jail? That would be too harsh for the poor white contractor.

A Hoover

What planet are you from? Of course it's racial profiling - so what?

It's not like 11 million people from Greenland have snuck in, or purple Martians:

It's 11 million mostly Indigenous people from Latin America - who DON'T SPEAK ENGLISH, have no education, and offer nothing but cheap labor to exploitative business, send half their earnings out of the country, and rarely contribute taxes (because they're working for cash) for the services their anchor-children consume

Do you not get it???

Are you that thick????

But if it makes you feel better, Hoover, maybe we can get the cops to stop you and your family too, so you can feel your holier-than-thou "solidarity" or whatever with the "oppressed".

@Andy Hoover - Yes, Congress has the power "to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization." It already exists. It's called the United States Code.

The issue is NOT about racism or profiling or so-called "reform," it is, quite simply, about enforcement.

How do you determine reasonable suspicion that a person is unlawfully present?

He doesn't speak English.

What a stupid question!

Mr. Hoover is states that "a subjective decision" will "lead to racial profiling." However, he provides no evidence. Anything *can* be enforced unfairly. No law can completely prohibit that. The question is one of balance. The Arizona law is very explicit that questions pertaining to immigrant status may only be asked if the person is already in contact with police for some other reason.

So let's see. A car with 5 people inside crashes into a building, or speeds at 90 miles an hour, or runs with its headlights off. After apprehending the vehicle, the officer (by the way, about 15% of them are Hispanic in Arizona) stops the vehicle and notices none of the individuals speaks English. At this point, only an idiot *wouldn't* check their status.

All legal aliens must carry papers -- it is the law. Any illegals have no right to be here. And any cop harassing an otherwise law-abiding American who happens to be Hispanic evidently has a career death wish. I doubt that there are many such police in Arizona.

Rich, you said you read the law but then go on to say residents of California must carry a passport.

May I suggest you follow the link on this page and reread lines 34 to 43 which says "...ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."

That says to me my California Driver's License is good in Arizona also.

I have not read it either
But anything that can cut down mass illegal immigration is good

Umm, I'm confused. This is the LA Times, the propaganda arm of La Raza and MALDEF. What's up with these posts?

I assume this is a joke on your faithful readers and beloved commenters. I'm amused. Or else your site was hacked.

Thanks for finally covering Mickey Kaus' candidacy by the way, it only took you two months.

America's Founders were "whigs." "Whig" means "anti-Roman Catholic." Whig Interpretation holds that history unfolds as a result of the conflict: between "Rome" (whose motto "Urbis et Orbis" - City and World - and multiple papal bulls, proclaim its belief that the Creator "gave the world" to Rome); and, everybody else.

Th. Jefferson identified Rome as "the real Anti-Christ,""an engine for enslaving mankind." Any who travel in Latin America, from which so many wish to escape, can witness in barrio and brothel the malevolent results of Rome's influence - The Old Sectarian Order - there.

The Roman Catholic Church's "The National Pastoral Plan for Hispanic Ministry," lays out, in thirty-six pages in Spanish and English, the organization, assigned duties, and means by which they intend to take over our country through the promotion of illegal immigration ("a blessing to the Church"), amnesty, naturalization, and voter registration "to construct the Kingdom of God." The Supreme Court's majority is Roman Catholic, having given us the treasonous 'Bush v. Gore' and 'Citizens United.'

Expect them to rule favorably on behalf of Rome's "Fifth Column" fascist plutocracy in America, whose continued spiraling concentration of wealth, built on lower wages, off-shored manufacturing and a compliant populace, requires escalating subjugation of the once sovereign People by any means necessary.

Rome wins in America - as it did financing Hitler and the Holocaust, through Rockefeller and Bush, from its collection plates; as it did having yet to be brought to justice for the assassinations necessary to maintain our military as its catspaw in its latifundial estate of Vietnam (John and Martin)...or the American People win.

The People cannot be sovereign, as The Founders idealistically intended, and Rome own the world through its manifest fascist plutocracy. The Supreme Court's Roman Catholic bloc has shown which "side" it is on. Expect its continued protection of Rome's organized invasion for conquest, and the "bi-partisan" false elite which presently "owns" Congress.

Hard to read the bill when you do not have the educational background to read!

I think the author of this fails to consider that legislators never actually read the legislation they vote for or against. Ever. Rather, aides and lobbyists inform them of all the important parts of the bill in question and that is what they go on. I'm not arguing for Obama, I hate his policy on almost everything, but you can't fault just Dems for things everyone does.


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: