46 thoughts on “An Idle Word: It’s a dry heat”

1. Glad you’re back, Bill. Keep it up.

2. good to see you back in the columnist’s saddle Bill.

3. With all due respect, Mr. Cunningham, the bill signed into law by Arizona’s governor is not a “Draconian law of stopping suspicious citizens (i.e. Hispanics) and demanding proof of citizenship”. That kind of statement will only lead to an even greater race problem in America. And to be frank, it is purely political race-baiting, aimed at division – a tactic becoming quite common in American political discourse.

   The truth of the matter, and obvious to anyone that has had the time to read the actual text, is that the bill authorizes law enforcement to enforce the laws already in existence. It takes the burden of enforcement away from federal authorities (because they are not enforcing the laws) and giving the responsibility to the State of Arizona. If the federal government would enforce immigration laws, their would be no need for such legislation.

   How will it work? **If someone is pulled over for, let’s say driving under the influence, and that person has a passenger in the car, and that passenger speaks no English, and has no identification on them, then the police officer is allowed to ask for proof of citizenship. If they are here illegally, then that person will have to face the legal penalties of such violations.

   How will it NOT work? **If someone is walking down the street and they happen to be Hispanic, a police officer will stop that person and ask them for their “papers”.

   Do us all a favor and be honest about the law. Keep the race-bating and politics out of this matter. The vast majority of Arizonans support this law. An overwhelming number of Hispanic-Americans support this law. A crisis is happening on our border that involves drug smuggling, organized crime, murder, rape, and kidnapping.

   You want to talk about Draconian immigration laws? Take a look at Mexico and how they manager their southern border. Why are you silent on that?

4. It all depends who you talk to. My mother in law is mexican and hates illegal immigrants. She says they lower the pay for all the legal mexicans here and since she is a taxpayer can’t stand people who abuse the welfare and food stamps. But on the other hand she feels if they can make it here and get out of Mexico well good for them as long as they are working to get ahead. She makes my head spins sometimes.

   If we were closer to Del Rio or Laredo and saw the killings and kidnappings up close, we may feel differently about the Arizona law.

5. Rick, I know what you’re talking about. I too have Mexican American friends with the same serious concerns voiced by your mother. It’s like I say in the column, it is a serious concern with need for serious discussion. It’s just that the Arizona law is just so racist,towards even legal American citizens of Hispanic origin, that it poisons the whole concept of such a discussion,

6. I am wondering if a straight consumption tax instead of an income tax would eliminate a need for this whole debate. If everyone was paying taxes including illegals when they made purchases, everyone would be considered a taxpayer and would be deserving of a vote and services.

7. Welcome back.

   What really chaps my hide is that we all know this law is aimed at hispanics, period, end of discussion. Anyone want to bet there are illegal Thai, Indian, Afgani, etc in AZ?

   And yes the laws says law enforcement can’t stop only on the basis of ethnicity, but anyone who is being honest with themselves know they will, and make up an excuse later.

   We should all object to this based upon the assault on procedural rights alone.

8. Maybe we should all burn or government issued ID’s as protest. Make em deport us all.

9. We need more rationally-written points like this in the immigration debate. Unfortunately, thanks to the tone that Mouthbreathers in Arizona and elsewhere are setting, rational logic-driven aspects of this debate are becoming more endangered than the civil rights of a Hispanic-American citizen on a Phoenix freeway.

   Great article, keep chiming in on this issue because it needs more people who aren’t yelling.

10. Hmmm. Interesting discussion. And clearly a polarizing one at that. Just out of curiosity, how many of you posting opinions have read the bill? It seems to me that more people are tossing around their talking points on this issue rather than reading the bill and formulating an informed opinion on the matter. Just my two-cents. I could definitely be wrong.

11. Read the bill and quote to me which parts are racist, Bill. You talk a good talk, but let’s see if you can back it up with facts.

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

12. I’ve made a quick run thru.

    http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

    There are no “death panels” in this one either.

13. Ms. Valdez, the bill does not have to say “arrest all meskins” to be racist. It willbe unequally utilized against one race, therefore …

14. Regardless of how the law is enforced and whether it is effective, IMO, the issue is in Washington.

    I can’t sit at my desk and refuse to do certain parts of my job and then complain about how someone else chooses to do my job for me.

    How long has Washington been prattling on about the need for immigration reform?

15. 25 years?

16. Winchester –

    Your comment, “It will be unequally utilized against one race, therefore …” is irrelevant. Let’s think about it for one second. Are most of the illegal immigrants in Arizona Hispanic? Yes they are. Then wouldn’t a rational conclusion be that any anti-illegal immigration measure be “unequally utilized against one race”? You sure aren’t going to see more Norwegians deported from Arizona than Mexicans. Does that mean the illegal immigration policy is racist? No sir. It means there are more illegal Mexicans in Arizona than illegal Norwegians.

    Your race-bating, argumentum ad hominem attacks are wearing thin on us all. Time to go back to the drawing board. Americans are on to your tricks.

17. “As a Hispanic I recognize this ploy for what it is- a desperate attempt to incite militant Hispanic groups into protesting Arizona and liberals into boycotting the state. Why, you may ask? Because if what Arizona did spreads to the entire country, the Democrats are toast. And their media pals know this.” – Alicia Colon

    http://bigjournalism.com/aliciacolon/2010/04/29/from-one-hispanic-to-others-re-arizona-youre-being-had-by-the-media/

18. Ms Valdez, please learn the meaning of phrases such as ad hominem before using them rather than copying your bullet point. pecifically I challenge you to point out an ad hominem attackin my post.

    But I’m glad you think a) america is reading this website and b) paying attention to little ole me.

19. Where is the outrage at the federal laws that preceded the Arizona law?

    **Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), aliens are issued registration cards and must carry such cards with them at all times. Aliens who gain entry without the requisite inspection, and who therefore are not issued such cards, violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325. Consequently, a law enforcement officer confronting an alien who is unable to produce documentation arguably has probable cause to believe that a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e) (failure to possess documents or 8 U.S.C. § 1325(a) (entry without inspection) has occurred. (If the alien is undocumented and has been in the United States for longer than 30 days, he or she has also violated 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a)).

20. Winchester. Given that I have a Master’s degree from the University of Texas in History and a PhD in Political Science from George Washington, it’s safe to say that I understand the meaning of an ad hominem attack. When someone paints a person as racist, rather than discuss the merits of one’s argument, that is an ad hominem attack. You might not directly have called those that support the Arizona law racists. However, the implication was there no the less. Next?

21. Winchester. It’s interesting that you would rather discuss the “ad hominem” portion of my argument rather than the irrational judgment of your argument.

22. Ms Valdez, I did not call anyone a racist, what you conclude from my comments is your problem, not mine;whereas, you have called me irrational, pot and kettle, and please note that I psoted there are due process issues.

    At least you’re not signing in Dr. Valdez.

23. Once again, your dodging my critique. Here it is again, Winchester.

    “Your comment, “It will be unequally utilized against one race, therefore …” is irrelevant. Let’s think about it for one second. Are most of the illegal immigrants in Arizona Hispanic? Yes they are. Then wouldn’t a rational conclusion be that any anti-illegal immigration measure be “unequally utilized against one race”? You sure aren’t going to see more Norwegians deported from Arizona than Mexicans. Does that mean the illegal immigration policy is racist? No sir. It means there are more illegal Mexicans in Arizona than illegal Norwegians.”

    What’s your response? Defend your statement.

24. What specifically are the due process problems, Winchester?

25. And I did not call you irrational. I called your argument irrational. Seems like you are a little defensive on that.

    Is it anything like you implying that someone is racist for supporting a bill you claim is racist?

26. Winchester, you did say “the bill does not have to say “arrest all meskins” to be racist.” Your implication, whether you know it or not, is that anyone who supports a racist bill is racist themselves. Sorry, Winchester, but you moved beyond the “assault on procedural rights” and into the arena of racism. My description of your argument as being ad hominem is justified and accurate.

27. Sorry Ms Valdez, doesn’t fly.

    “I’ve got a PhD, it stands for post hole digger” Fred Eaglesmith

    Bill, if you have not heard Shooter Jennings latest, give it a listen.

28. Is that statement suppose to be racist, Winchester? Are you implying that a Hispanic cannot earn a doctorate degree and can only dig post holes for a living?

    Once again, Winchester, you are resorting to ad hominem attacks. You are now call my credentials into question because you have no answers to my questions. In other words, your position is utterly defenseless. At least you are exposing yourself to everyone that reads this paper. I will try once more…

    1) “Your comment, “It will be unequally utilized against one race, therefore …” is irrelevant. Let’s think about it for one second. Are most of the illegal immigrants in Arizona Hispanic? Yes they are. Then wouldn’t a rational conclusion be that any anti-illegal immigration measure be “unequally utilized against one race”? You sure aren’t going to see more Norwegians deported from Arizona than Mexicans. Does that mean the illegal immigration policy is racist? No sir. It means there are more illegal Mexicans in Arizona than illegal Norwegians.”

    What’s your response? Defend your statement.

    2) What specifically are the due process problems, Winchester?

29. Ms. Valdez, you seem to assume the conclusion to dismiss Winchester’s point. He said the law will be disproporitonately used against hispanics, which you dismissed because most undocumented workers are hispanic. His concern, and the due process concern, is those hispanics who are here legally will be stopped on reasonable suspicion. Then these citizens with every much right as anyone else to drive down I-10 without being bothered will be stopped, harassed and questioned. Eventually, they will be released, but how will they get their dignity back? How will they explain to their child in the back seat that they did nothing wrong and were only stopped because of their race? With official immunity eroding due process for the law-abiding, they have no recourse against the officer who stopped them.

    Sure the violence on the border is bad, but those who perpetuate the violence are breaking other laws for drugs and violence — Arizona cops can already arrest them. And sure our national immigration policy is not sound and our borders aren’t secure, but as a nation or state, we cannot take our frustrations out on the right of hispanic citicens to be left alone.

30. Valdez defeats Winchester. If you patrolled downtown San Marcos and asked every single person you met on the sidewalk if they were here legally and asked them for their ID, would it be racist to do so?
    Knowing full well that you would encounter 41 percent hispanic, 40 percent white and 10 percent other and asked every single person ?

    If you ask every single person regardless of color, is it a 4th amendment issue or are the police allowed to ask for my ID for any reason what so ever ?

31. John, how is this law any different that the federal law I cited earlier?

    You argument about getting stopped on I-10 and having to explain to your children that you did nothing wrong and questioning how one gets their dignity back is nothing more than a slipper slope argument.

    And please allow me to point out that anyone driving down I-10 without proper identification, be it a drivers license and/or passport, is in violation of existing laws beyond SB 1070. It is the policy of all law enforcement officers, in every single traffic stop, regardless of one’s race, gender, or ethnicity, to as for proper identification. Failure to do so will provoke suspicion on the part of the officer and warrant appropriate responses.

32. And John, nice use of the phrase “undocumented workers”. Why not call it like it is…illegal immigrants. This law is not only directed towards undocumented workers, but more so towards drug cartels, murders, rapists, kidnappers, and the like that are in our country illegally. Please don’t narrow the focus of the debate towards “undocumented workers” as that distorts the intent of Arizona’s law. It’s about border security and the safety of Arizonans.

33. If they stopped say 10 drivers.
    Third White, Third Black , Third mexican. None had any ID on them and they let everyone but the mexicans go. Then its racist.

    As long as the question all equally
    and detain all that are not in compliance equally I can’t say it’s racist.

    I still have a problem with being questioned and I think that is where a lot of the anger comes into play.

34. “Failure to do so” should have been “Failure to provide proper ID”

35. I agree, Rick. I too don’t want to be questioned. And in a perfect world, where the Federal Government actually enforced immigration laws, Arizona would not have spun out of control. Now we are faced with a real crisis. Drastic measures are needed to meet this crisis. And once the crisis is under control, we all hope that these drastic measures ease up and/or completely disappear. But until then, the State’s responsibility to protect it’s citizens trumps my objects to being questioned during a traffic violation, etc.

36. “Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither” Ben Franklin.

    I hope you are right Mr. Valdez. I think they want all of us under control. But I am a wild eyed conspiracy theorist.

    Lynsey Gramnesty confirms some of my fears though when he brings up Bio metric id’s and stupid Iowa congressional hopefuls talk about implanting chips in illegals just like he did to his dog.

    It is no longer a stretch to assume many of those in power will suggest patriotic americans be “chipped” for security reasons.

    I do not like having to fear my government. I just hope the walls we are building don’t end up being our self made prison.

37. I couldn’t agree more, Rick. It’s a very fine line and one that every American must monitor very closely. Beyond the security issue, a blanket amnesty for all illegals will only serve to extend the control of the Democratic Party well into the mid-21st century. And given that the progressives control that party, freedom will be a distant memory. Guards up, people.

38. Good job Rick; your plan would work, since it’s being applied equally, stop everyone treat everyone the same. Bravo. And you should head over to Sundance and get Black Ribbons.

    Ms Valdez, got nothing to do with race, got everyhting to do with trotting out a PhD. Yours means just as much to me as Mr O’Dells, norhing.We are all stating our opinion here, and a piece of paper on the wall doesn’t add any weight to any of them, mine included. You just keep on assuming things, didn’t call them into question, just dont care, because I’m a 6′ stunningly good looking black lesbian. BTW Fred is Canadian and I don’t know if he has a green card or not.

    Well, Steven & Townes Van Zandt and Terri & Jimi Hendrix call my name.

39. Winchester – When are you going to answer my questions? You are evading them; plain and simple. Here they are again, sir:

    1) “Your comment, “It will be unequally utilized against one race, therefore …” is irrelevant. Let’s think about it for one second. Are most of the illegal immigrants in Arizona Hispanic? Yes they are. Then wouldn’t a rational conclusion be that any anti-illegal immigration measure be “unequally utilized against one race”? You sure aren’t going to see more Norwegians deported from Arizona than Mexicans. Does that mean the illegal immigration policy is racist? No sir. It means there are more illegal Mexicans in Arizona than illegal Norwegians.”

    What’s your response? Defend your statement.

    2) What specifically are the due process problems, Winchester?

    And I don’t just trot out my credentials ‘willy nilly’. You made an sophomoric claim that I didn’t understand the meaning of an ad hominem argument; you then preceded to imply that I cut and paste talking points. I informed you why/how I would know what an ad hominem argument is, and why I can articulate my own opinions. I have yet to bring up my education again, nor did I offer it until someone made a personal attack on my understand of a very simple argumentative tactic.

    And you are incorrect to assume that a piece of paper doesn’t add any weight to an argument. That paper is precisely why college professors are paid to present their opinions; it’s why many authors are published. That piece of paper is a qualifier for many milestones I have achieved in life. You can minimize your education if you so choose. I worked hard enough for mine and choose not to minimize it. But I don’t trot it as you claim.

    Once again, why are you evading my questions?

40. Looks like Arizona has changed the language a little to address some of the concerns you all mentioned.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/in-response-to-critics-arizona-tweaks-new-immigration-law-92495249.html

    “[L]awmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

    Read the article to see the other changes. Hopefully, this will tone down the rhetoric a bit.

41. There is a little aspect of thois argument so far missed. With this law on the books, why would a illegal alian ever cooperate with police, ever report a crime, ever serve as a witness. If I were in law enforcement I would hate this bill.

42. So, a Scotch-Irishman writes a column writes a column defending the rights of law- abiding Hispanics to enjoy the same freedom from prosecution as other Americans and is take to taken to task by an Hispanic woman. “Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown.”

43. Here is an idea, instead of giving the police the power to check immigration status, why not give health and builiding inspectors that power. Then allow them to shut down the construction site or restaurant where they find undocumented workers. Just a thought.

44. Bill writes a column writes a column and is take to taken ? Are you here legally ?

45. I think so. I’m a sixth generation Texas but no one has checked my papers so I don’t know what to do if I go to Arizona. “By the Time I Get to Phoenix”the law may be amended.

46. I have read ALL of these comments from last April regarding the law passed in Arizona (my state or residence) and I find it very interesting that so many who do not reside here have so many opinions as to how we should act. I happen to live in Yuma located in the Southwestern part of Arizona. Every time I go on a trip whether North, West, or East, I have to stop at a Border Patrol Checkpoint where I am asked (usually by a hispanic member of the BP)what my citizenship is. Being 1/2 Filipino and 1/2 Irish English, I am not white (as some of you are). So far I have not had to produce papers to prove my legality. However, is asked I would do so gladly. We feel so badly for the “Poor Illegal”. I have no problem with ANYONE legelly entering our country. My father immigrated and became a ntturalized citizen. He made a life here for his family. IF YOU WANT TO COME TO AMERICA TO MAKE A LIFE FOR YOURSELF, COME IN THE FRONT DOOR LEGALLY, DO NOT SLIP THROUGH THE FENCE SOMETINES KILLING AMERICANS IN THE PROCESS. Since when it it wrong for us to protect our homes and property. As Dr. Valdez so properly stated,this Arizona law is not about Hispanics, it is about Illegals.