Posted on 06/06/2010 11:35:57 AM PDT by BillyBoy
Kirk says he opposes Ariz. immigration law
Kirk's stand comes in the wake of the flap at Highland Park High School where the girls' basketball team was stopped from attending a tournament in Arizona.
[Excerpt from http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=7448812 ]
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
The allegedly "anti-illegal immigration" Mark Kirk stabs conservatives in the back yet again, giving a thumbs down to the AZ law.
Not to worry, he's just being "moderate" again.
At least after the latest flap with Kirk embellishing his millitary career, we won't have to hear his apologists talk about his "honorable service" for a while.
Gov Brewer needs to tell him to come to Arizona & see the problem for himself & then try to say that statement again!!
Another NIMBY who refuses to see the problem & to deny that it is affecting HIS state.
He is very wrong.
Moroon.
Who gives a crap what he opposes, question is does the Supreme Court oppose it or think it unconstitutional
Another Dork who hasn’t read the bill.
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an “illegal alien” (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they’re illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what “reasonable suspicion” might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren’t already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official “may not consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in “solely” considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: “Reasonable suspicion” is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: “Reasonable suspicion” has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes “unreasonable searches and seizures”). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of “reasonable suspicion:”
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver’s license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . 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.”
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment). Source = http://www.numbersusa.com/dfax?jid=475466&lid=9&rid=123&series=tp06MAY10&tid=999725
IL 2010: Sen. John McCain stumps for Rep. Mark Kirk [McCain-Kirk alliance] [Axis of RINOs]
"The endorsement from John McCain does not come as a big surprise. Mark Kirk and John McCain are long-time friends. Both have similar positions on many issues and both are Navy veterans."
He lives in Illinois. Arizonans live in Arizona. I suggest he takes care of Illinois’ business and we’ll take care of ours. The Arizona immigration bill does not apply to Illinois. It is none of his business.
McC just seems to befriend every anti-sovereignty candidate, funny that.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone concerning Kirk.
He’s just barely a Republican.
We already know the only reason any Republican could legitimately want to have unlimited illegal migration is for cheaper hookers and bed warmers, so, is that what Kirk has in mind?
It’s a national issue. Every candidate should be asked their views on immigration.
Who is running against him? Any strong third party candidates?
Some Republicans turn a blind eye to illegal immigration because they like the cheap labor.
So, Congressman, how many Arizona CITIZENS did you ACTUALLY talk to?
For the first time I feel compelled to actively work against this idiot.
Cap & Tax? Educable mistake.
Mis-representing his service? Unforgivable. Lost my vote.
Wrong side of immigration? Now I’m working against you.
I can’t state emphatically enough what a bozo I now believe Mark Kirk to be.
What. A. Sack. Of. Dung.
Maybe we could restart the war eh?!
Let this guy go down the tubes. Better a leftist crook than this guy.
Randy Stufflebeam (Constitution) - Ex-State Party Chair, Retired USMC Veteran, Church Activist & '06 Gov. Nominee
Mike Labno (Libertarian) - Engineer & Construction Manager
John Blyth (Independent) - Health Insurance Agency Owner & Ex-Bricklayer
Will Boyd Jr. (Independent) - Greenville City Councilman, Minister & Ex-Democrat
Michael Dorsey (Independent) - Attorney
Stan Jagla (Independent) - Businessman & '08 US Rep. Candidate
Eric Wallace (Independent) - Apostolic Minister, Businessman & Conservative Activist
Bob Zadek (Independent)
I'm waiting to see who makes it onto the ballot and what kind of strength their campaign has before I make an official endorsements. That will probably be in August. I've supported Wallace and Stufflebeam in the past, both are good guys. Wallace was my preferred choice against Kirk in the primary but our so-called conservative "leadership" in this state pressured him out of the race in favor of a wealthy unknown (Pat Hughes) that Kirk easily dispatched. Zadek is solid on the issues but was an also-ran in the primary polling about 1%. The Libertarian candidate (Mike Labno) is also pro-life.
Usually I just skip RINOs on the ballot or cast a token third party vote, but I’m actively campaigning AGAINST Kirk. He’s done everything he can to screw the Republican base and now it’s payback time. The Chicago machine RAT might be worse on the issues, but he won’t be sitting it GOP strategy sessions or taking up GOP slots on Senate committees to push Obama’s socialist agenda. Indeed, Alexi Ginnalonnis is such a blatantly corrupt thug he’s likely to be a powerless laughing stock in the Senate and get indicted and removed from office early on in his term. But Kirk is an enemy within. He will do enormous damage to the Senate Republicans if we allow him to fester there for six years. The last we need right now is another Jim Jeffords in the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.