On Thursday, May 20, Mexico’s president, Felipe Calderon, stood before our Congress and criticized Arizona’s new immigration law. And, most of our Congress stood and applauded, politely, giving Calderon some measure of respect. Thankfully, Senator Orrin Hatch had the “stones” to make a statement that Felipe’s comments were out of line. Hatch said, “It is inappropriate for a head of state to question our laws, especially when the state of Arizona only acted in the best interest of its citizens.” Frankly, I don’t understand why some of our congressman did not walk out of the chambers during Caldron’s speech. Caldron’s own country-men are the reason that Arizona was forced to take action. The violence (murder, rape, kidnappings, human smuggling, drugs, etc.) that comes along with many of the illegals that constantly stream into our country is justification for Arizona’s law…..a law that closely follows the existing Federal laws on immigration!
Recent polls show that 84% of those surveyed felt that requiring people to show documents if officials have “reasonable cause” to ask was fair. 65% felt that any state should have the right to pass their own immigration laws to protect their borders. And, 76% favored allowing local officials to detain anyone who cannot prove immigration status. Pay attention, Washington!!!!
Yes, it is reasonable for many Mexicans to want to escape a country with a 17% poverty level, extraordinary high crime rates, corrupt local officials, and, murderous drug cartels. But, immigration must be orderly and controlled. The federal government has done little to protect our borders. The fences are mostly a joke because there is not adequate manpower to patrol them. We have tens of thousands of troops in distant countries….why not post a few thousand along our southern border?
Caldron was totally out of line with his speech! And Congress was out of line listening to him. The feds are asleep at the switch on immigration. Thankfully, American citizens are finally awakening from the hypnotic spell cast by the progressive left. Heads are going to continue to roll until Washington listens.
And, Felipe, get back across the border and try to get your own country under control before you criticize the greatest country in the world. Adios, mi amigo!
2010…Without Doubt, Vote Them Out!
P.S. Felipe is another Ivy Leaguer!
Eclectic Ramblings by Bob Johnson 
Careful what you ask for, Bob. Recall that our own leaders, from Reagan (“Tear down this wall, Mr. Gorbachev (sp?)” to Bush (I and II) to Clinton, to Obama have stood before numerous governmental bodies and criticized the leaders and leadership to whom they were addressing. Caldron in this respect was acting no differently, particularly given his remarks were regarding matters that directly affect his country, not the more moralistic positions our leaders have often taken in their remarks, although arguably well justified. Congress invited Caldron to speak, and well knew what he would say (just as was the case with Fox before him). Walking out would simply have been rude, and indeed would have undercut our ability to make similar remarks when our leaders are asked to speak before other nations.
This all said, Caldron was right about one matter and very wrong about the other. Let’s take the latter, first. The new Arizona law is NOTHING like how it has been portrayed, at least now in its amended form (at first it was, which is why it was so quickly amended). The only time a policeman can inquire about any person’s immigration status is AFTER that person has been stopped for other lawful reasons, and then only if there is a reasonable basis for making the inquiry. This is no different from a cop, who can’t search your car just cause he wants to, but can if he stops you for speeding and spots a bloody knife, or severed head, or tied up woman in the back seat. Yes, the rub lies with what constitutes “reasonable cause to inquire” once the lawful stop has been made, but that is and has always been the case. The law does NOT, as some continue to portray it, allow a policeman to stop and individual simply because he looks like an illegal. Thus, Caldron was wrong in his statements regarding Arizona, just as he was wrong in describing illegals as nothing but “emigration.”
Where, however, Caldron was right is with regard to our failure to maintain the ban on assault weapons. Our country is indeed supplying the drug traffickers with the weaponry they now use to fight both the Mexican policy and even its army. This is a very valid issue for him to raise. And to those who might argue that the Second Amendment does not allow for any restrictions on our ability to own such weapons, I ask two questions. First, does this mean a fourteen year old cannot be prohibited from owning and even carrying a submachine gun? And second, how in the world does our right to own a gun (even assuming that must include military grade weaponry) also mean that we cannot restrict the sale of such to non-citizens and similarly restrict their export outside the country? Caldron’s issue here is ours, too, as those very guns are being used to facilitate the effectively unfettered import of illegal drugs into our country.
Hatch showed no stones. Had he, his remarks would not have been to play the populist card and insult a visiting head of state, but rather to defend where we as a country are right (legally enforcing our immigration laws, just as Mexico does), and admit and deal with the issues on which we are not so right (prohibitions on the possession and sale of assault weapons), and which directly affect that head of state’s country.
I am now exhausted and must take a nap…
You, exhausted!!! Never! Glad you are, as usual, on your game this early in the day!
I totally agree with you, what a discrace from some members of congress. If I were in Mexico illegally, with their laws, I would be in jail. Perhaps they would even stop me because I’m white and blonde, hmmmm, wonder if that would be the exact same thing they believe in that they’re complaining about. It has nothing to do with racism anyway, EVERYONE, in the USA is required to carry a form of identificaton.
Furthermore, I am a first born from immigrants, that came here legally, learned English or already knew it and would be ashamed not to. It’s the USA first, not their country of origin and I’m betting illegals, ah USA first, not so much.
Interesting comments, Pain, but should we be judging our country’s actions based on what another, lesser government would or does do?
As to a requirement that all Americans carry an ID, that simply does not exist. Period. Indeed, the far right (led by the NRA, Libertarians, and the likes of Limbaugh, and particularly Beck) has adamently opposed any such scheme every time it has been suggested under the guise that it would give the government (people like you and me) too much power. The only time you must have an ID is when you are driving (your license), which is a voluntary act, and when you leave or re-enter the country (your passport).