Unjust vilification | AspenTimes.com

Unjust vilification

Dear Editor:

After weeks of posturing, vilifications and threatening over the supposed unconstitutionality of Arizona’s much-needed immigration law, U.S. attorney general Eric Holder confessed in front of a U.S. congressional committee on Thursday, May 13, that he hadn’t even bothered to read the bill – he had “glanced at it.” Instead, as he acknowledged, he formed his opinions of that law from what he had “heard” from others and had seen on television.

And you can be sure that, based on his alarmist, hyperbolic public statements – OMG! Grandmother, who looks Hispanic, now can’t take her child to the ice cream store without getting jacked up by the fascist cops – President Obama has also not read the bill, at most a 15-minute read. Adding to those two reactionaries some of the local letters-to-the-editor writers, Mayor Ireland, and the lounge lizards at the ACRA, it is obvious none of them read the bill before they tellingly and ignorantly popped off about it publicly.

There is so much to be said in defense of that law and against the lies, damned lies and (manipulated) statistics prepped by the open-borders kooks, but do know this: In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Mena v. Muheler, in a Fourth Amendment claim, ruled 9 to zip that asking about immigration status in the normal course of local police work is essentially as basic a question as asking for name address and date of birth. Keep in mind that justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the former house lawyer for the national ACLU, was on that court. That decision was foreshadowed by complementary decisions in several U.S. circuit courts, including our own 10th Circuit.

Arizona has passed other immigration-related laws, while the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the usual suspects denounced them as unconstitutional. Every court challenge, and there were several, sustained the laws.

Case closed.

Mike McGarry