Poor Megan McArdle takes the Libertarian, humanitarian side of a debate and what does she get in return?
McArdle: If you want to check citizenship status, do it for everyone, not just Hispanics.
Commenters: That's silly. We're white.
It's not a very good argument on either side, but we must make do. McArdle decides that inequalities that don't benefit her are bad, a generous statement indeed. The commenters point out that the bill would mostly enforce present laws on people breaking present laws, but leave out a detail or two.
G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
11 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
12 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
13 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
14 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
15 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
16 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
17 ATTORNEY FEES.
18 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
19 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
20 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
21 SUBSECTION.
22 H. A COURT SHALL COLLECT THE CIVIL PENALTY PRESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION G
23 AND REMIT THE CIVIL PENALTY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY FOR DEPOSIT IN
24 THE GANG AND IMMIGRATION INTELLIGENCE TEAM ENFORCEMENT MISSION FUND
25 ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 41-1724.
26 I. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IS INDEMNIFIED BY THE LAW ENFORCEMENT
27 OFFICER'S AGENCY AGAINST REASONABLE COSTS AND EXPENSES, INCLUDING ATTORNEY
28 FEES, INCURRED BY THE OFFICER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTION, SUIT OR
29 PROCEEDING BROUGHT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION TO WHICH THE OFFICER MAY BE A
30 PARTY BY REASON OF THE OFFICER BEING OR HAVING BEEN A MEMBER OF THE LAW
31 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY, EXCEPT IN RELATION TO MATTERS IN WHICH THE OFFICER IS
32 ADJUDGED TO HAVE ACTED IN BAD FAITH.
33 J. THIS SECTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH
34 FEDERAL LAWS REGULATING IMMIGRATION, PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF ALL
35 PERSONS AND RESPECTING THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF UNITED STATES
36 CITIZENS
The police must enforce immigration checks during "any lawful contact" or the department will be subject to enless suits. Employers must be able to prove they did not knowingly hire an illegal alien and so must check employees with a federal (Homeland Security) database. Punishment for hiring illegal aliens is fines and the loss of licenses.
Does this mean we can get rid of John Derbyshire and NRO? I know it's not retroactive and maybe we'd send him to jail and shut down NRO for nothing, but that's just a chance we'll have to take.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"If you want to check citizenship status, do it for everyone, not just Hispanics." That was probably the "thinking" behind the Dems proposal for a national biometric ID card, and it just goes to show how much trouble the Dems buy for themselves when they take advice from Megan.
When I read Megan suggesting everybody have a chipped ID card, and then some Fed politicians start recommending the same thing, I suspect a conspiracy, an effort to horrify Americans into repudiating the mere idea. But how does this benefit The System?
Besides, nearly all Americans, and legal immigrants such as my husband, has a National Card: our Social Security Cards. I got our daughter one a few months after she was born, so many insurance forms demanded it. Its puzzling that the Fed Gov hasn't 'updated' that flimsy piece of paper which is so easy to counterfeit.
I find it a bit frustrating that I live in Washington State, so I am not able to just jaunt down to Arizona at the drop of a hat and sue some law enforcement officials who I believe aren't doing the best job they are capable of. So, I am going up to the Canadian border at Blaine and demand that our State Troopers go arrest anyone who might be here illegally. I think this could be done without violating anyone's rights. For example, the person of interest might say, "eh?" a lot for now particular reason, usually at the end of sentences.
If everyone took Megan's advice they'd still be buying sub-prime CDOs with fake ratings.
If we can start suing government departments for not doing their jobs, I'd start with the financial sector regulators.
Post a Comment