I'm giggling at the way the mainstream media are howling over Arizona's new tough anti-Illegal-immigration bill -- and revealing their ignorance in every other sentence. The complaints tend to fall into three categories:
1) This law is unconstitutional because only the federal govt. is allowed to deal with national borders.
2) This law is racist because it would encourage "racial profiling".
3) This law is tyrannical because it would force citizens to carry proof of citizenship around with them, and "show your papers" to any cop who stops them.
*Sigh* You'd think that reporters would do their homework a little better.
First, nothing in the Constitution prevents any state from securing its borders against criminals, even if one of those borders happens to also border on another country. Go on, get a copy of the Constitution and look. If you don't have a copy handy (and most Americans these days don't), then look it up on the Internet.
Second, "Mexican" is not a race; it's a nationality and a culture (and not a very good culture at that). Mexicans are genetically part White (16th-century Spanish and Portuguese) and part Indian (and no, I will *not* use that Politically Correct -- and historically incorrect -- term: "Native American"). Well, guess what? So am I. So are a lot of American citizens. In fact, so are nearly 50% of the population of Arizona -- not to mention all those who are 100% Indian. Now just how are the local police (who include, of course, lots of full-blooded and partly Indian officers) supposed to do "racial profiling" on more than half the state? All the cops can do, really, is catch anyone they see doing something suspicious or illegal and ask to see proof of citizenship along with their other ID. Yes, this will apply to obvious White people as well; there was a scandal here some years ago about Russian agents sneaking into America via the Mexican border, and the cops still remember it. They're also keenly aware of Illegals who have sneaked in from primarily-Black countries and Asian countries. So it won't matter what color you are; when the cops pull you over, you'd better have proof of citizenship (or some other legal paper showing you're in the state legitimately), or at least have the phone number of a lawyer who can keep the cops from escorting you to the border long enough for you to go home and get such papers. There's nothing racist about it.
The media could have learned this, if they'd bothered. Ah, but "racism" is the accusation that the media, and media-influenced apologists, like to throw at anybody they don't like. I recall that a couple years ago I chased away a couple of teen-aged -- and yes, Mexican -- punks who were burglarizing a neighbor's place. I was holding a gun at the time, so even though I was wearing nothing else but my underwear, the kids had the sense to run. After they'd gotten about 20 yards away (fools: I can hit reliably within the 7-ring at 25 yards), one of them turned around and yelled at me: "You're a racist!" Sure. I snarled back: "You're not a race; you're a punk." The kid had enough sense to turn back and keep running.
Third, as for it being tyrannical to demand "your paperz, bitte", we gave up the right to complain about that long ago. 'Way back around World War One various states started demanding that anyone who drove an automobile on the public roads must (for a modest fee) get a driver's license, and allowed that police could demand to see such a license whenever they stopped anyone. Some decades later, they added annual car registration (for a modest fee), and added registration to the papers a cop could demand to see when stopping anyone. About 25 years ago, they added mandatory car insurance to the pile (for a not so modest fee), and now a cop could also demand to see your "proof of insurance" when pulling you over. Frankly, it costs less to get a birth certificate -- and a passport on top of that -- than to get a driver's license or a car registration, let alone car insurance. If all the other ID demands are constitutional, so is this one.
Again, the media quietly overlooked this odd little precedent. Could it be that they didn't know that Arizonans -- like most other Americans -- have to put up with showing a cop their "papers" on demand?
For that matter, damn few of the media have bothered to notice that Arizona has suffered severely from the flood of Illegals. They never mention the 35,000 tons of trash that Illegals on their way to Goody-land have deposited in our state parks and wilderness areas. They rarely if ever mention the cut fences, stolen or slaughtered livestock, stolen vehicles, robbed farms and houses, raped or abducted (and sold) women, drug-dealing, car-theft and extensive Welfare-cheating that the Illegals have caused. They've finally gotten around to admitting that it was "probably" Illegals who murdered rancher Krenz, but they don't mention the previous murders of local police that the Illegals have done.
Now is this plain ignorance, or deliberate slander-by-omission? It could easily be ignorance; the mainstream media don't tend to notice what happens outside of New York, Los Angeles or Washington DC unless it involves a sensational crime. After all, that's where the Important Stuff is happening, you know. The rest of us are just Flyover Country.
Meanwhile, curiously enough, the politicians have taken a different view. The young and brash happily follow the media pundits in denouncing Arizona's new law as unconstitutional, racist and tyrannical, yup, yup. You'll note, though, that the older and more experienced politicians are cautiously waiting to see how the electorate view Arizona's new law.
Their caution is commendable. A poll over the last few days showed that 70% of the voters in Arizona -- and 68% in the rest of the country -- were in favor of the law, media outrage or no media outrage. Perhaps some of them have begun to notice that the media are as out of touch with the citizens as most politicians are.