Why Aren’t Tea Partiers Protesting Arizona’s Big Government Overreach On Immigration?

[SouthLink02 8]

My link

Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

But as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn’t materialized:

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn’t the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they’re actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer’s big government. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce ®, a Tea Party backer.

[autigeremt 6,775]

Isn't the premise of liberals government oversight and control?

It's about government doing what it's tasked to do...protect, serve, and enforce. Stupid apples and tomatoes analogy.

[CCTAU 3,355]

Because it is not an overreach. It is their right to protect their state from illegals and the federal government's shortcomings. Kudos to Arizona.

Maybe all illegals should be routed to New Orleans. We'd see how accepted this would be then.

[Tigermike 3,076]

Why Aren’t Tea Partiers Protesting Arizona’s Big Government Overreach On Immigration?

Maybe because the Tea Partiers are mostly interested in and focused on out of control spending by and enormous growth of the federal government.

Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

There are things the tea party people don't mind protesting. Big government and out of control spending are the two main issues. Sorry it does not fit the RACIST PROFILE the socialist want to hang on them.

But as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn’t materialized:

Eugene Robinson has never seen an issue he isn't ready to condemn as racist.

[autiger4life 3]

If Tea Partiers are interested in stopping Giant, out of control spending governments, then where have they been for the last 8 years. It seems they were a lot more okay with the giant spending government when it was republicans.

As I have said for a while, democrats and republicans are both for limited government when they are the ones running for it. However, as Bush and Obama show, they are all for massive government when they are in charge.

The Cato Institute will back this up and they are not for republicans or democrats. They are actually for real small government and have no qualms explaining(with real empirical data) how Bush nor Obama should ever be able to claim that they are for small government.

[AURaptor 1,128]

If Tea Partiers are interested in stopping Giant, out of control spending governments, then where have they been for the last 8 years. It seems they were a lot more okay with the giant spending government when it was republicans.

Obama's spending is 3-4 x's what Bush's was. And yes, there WAS griping about the excessive spending. Claims to the contrary are straw men arguments.

As I have said for a while, democrats and republicans are both for limited government when they are the ones running for it. However, as Bush and Obama show, they are all for massive government when they are in charge.

That may hold true for those inside the beltway, the politicians, but not of those who make up the TEA Party movement.

The Cato Institute will back this up and they are not for republicans or democrats. They are actually for real small government and have no qualms explaining(with real empirical data) how Bush nor Obama should ever be able to claim that they are for small government.

CATO is Libertarian. Bush was far from ever being confused w/ a fiscal conservative. By anyone.

[Auburn85 434]

Alot of those in the Tea Party are ok with states rights, at least the ones they like. The Fed is so far behind on the issue of immigration. This was a pretty decent issue in 04 and here we are 6 years later and little to nothing has been done.

The National Guard can be called to go overseas, but we can't get a massive amount of National Guard members to our own borders?

There are many elements to our immigration problems. Folks in our country like to buy and use drugs. Illegal immigrants are looking for a better life for them and their familes. Folks want to cause trouble. Companies actively pursue cheaper labor.

Texas4 Auburn explained this well.

If Tea Partiers are interested in stopping Giant, out of control spending governments, then where have they been for the last 8 years. It seems they were a lot more okay with the giant spending government when it was republicans.

Slow simmer to a boil. The Republican party has now shrunk. Republicans were voted out in 06. Lost even more seats in 08. A book about a tax system became a best seller (Fair Tax) in either 05 or 06. There have been Fair Tax Rallies for a few years now. Ron Paul raised a great deal of money and he didn't even make near the campaign stops as all the other 08 candidates. Some conservatives right now are going through an indenity crisis.

What gets me is a $3 trillion dollar budget wasn't enough. That's how bad Bush f'ed up the Republican and conservative movement. All that Bush did and didn't do counts as conservatism and Republicanism. Democrats couldn't come out and say that Medicare RX was bad. Their response to this issue is either- it wasn't paid for or it didn't go far enough. No Child Left behind- again more of that great bipartisanship we crave. Democrats again aren't fully against. It didn't go far enough. Cause politically, why aim for the same or less than the Republicans offered and wanted that you might actually support?

Why did the approval rating for Bush drop so low? Alot of Democrats and Liberals didn't like him. That's a given. Republicans and conservatives began to jump ship. Then, in 08, we had a bank bailout and an auto bailout. Again more of that right wing extremism, let the market forces work it out. Then a Democrat won, and they couldn't take it anymore. While there is a fringe of racism, alot of people are seeing alot of similarities in the two presidencies and the newer congress.

Bush won 2004 because enough people didn't want to change administrations during a peak of both wars. Plus, Bush won on the social issues. How many states also had a referendum on gay marriage around this time? And just a presidential election later, we've on the verge of repealing Don't Ask Don't tell. Evangelicals didn't come out in this election like they did in 04. Pat Robertson endorced Guliani. James Dobson waited until McCain was way ahead in the delegate count to endorce Huckabee.

McCain, Kennedy, and Bush supported some sort of legislation on immigration reform and it didn't stand a chance.

Of course though, given the chance to go back and re-vote in 2004, alot would have voted for Bush to keep Kerry out. Hindsight's 20/20. I would go back and vote 3rd party. I voted against Shelby in 06. I don't really know what else I can do. I didn't vote for McCain or the Republican candidate in my congresional district. Heck, I didn't even vote at all because there wasn't anyone I could support enough to go and vote for them.

Heck, Compassionate Conservatism still got labeled as being cheap, mean, and dissing the middle and lower class.

[AUloggerhead 2,267]

My link

Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

But as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn’t materialized:

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn’t the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they’re actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer’s big government. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce ®, a Tea Party backer.

"Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance ... ..."

If you believe that immigrants are due "rights" in the same manner as citizens, then I'm not surprised at the utter cluelessness of this website. Say Slink, didn't you study the Constitution?

[arnaldoabru 11]

My link

Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

But as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn’t materialized:

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn’t the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they’re actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer’s big government. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce ®, a Tea Party backer.

"Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance ... ..."

If you believe that immigrants are due "rights" in the same manner as citizens, then I'm not surprised at the utter cluelessness of this website. Say Slink, didn't you study the Constitution?

What about the rights of hispanic americans in Arizona?

[Tigermike 3,076]

My link

Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they’re not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they’re just patriots who want to stop a “socialist” government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the “broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations,” giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making “the failure to carry immigration documents a crime.” Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

But as the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn’t materialized:

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn’t the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they’re actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer’s big government. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce ®, a Tea Party backer.

"Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance ... ..."

If you believe that immigrants are due "rights" in the same manner as citizens, then I'm not surprised at the utter cluelessness of this website. Say Slink, didn't you study the Constitution?

What about the rights of hispanic americans in Arizona?

What about them? They would have no problem they are Americans.

[tgr4lfe 220]

My link

Tea Party activists go out of their way to insist that they're not partisan, racist, or filled with hate; they're just patriots who want to stop a "socialist" government machine from controlling their daily lives.

The new immigration law in Arizona should be ripe for the Tea Parties to take up. SB-1070 is the "broadest and strictest immigration measure in generations," giving police unprecedented power to detain anyone they suspect of being an undocumented immigrant and making "the failure to carry immigration documents a crime." Even traditionally far-right figures like former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee have worried that the law might lead to racial profiling abuses by the government.

But as the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson notes, this Tea Party support hasn't materialized:

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance — held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. But where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim — and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state — would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Not only are Tea Partiers not speaking out against SB-1070, they're actively supporting it. The Arizona Tea Party Network called on its members to support Brewer's big government. In fact, the sponsor of SB-1070 is state Sen. Russell Pearce ®, a Tea Party backer.

"Activists for Latino and immigrant rights — and supporters of sane governance ... ..."

If you believe that immigrants are due "rights" in the same manner as citizens, then I'm not surprised at the utter cluelessness of this website. Say Slink, didn't you study the Constitution?

What about the rights of hispanic americans in Arizona?

What about them? They would have no problem they are Americans.

And they should have all of their documentation to say "I am an American citizen."

[arnaldoabru 11]

What documention do you carry with you?

[OldNewby 27]

If AUN has any members that live in Arizona, I would like to hear their opinion.

[Tigermike 3,076]

What documention do you carry with you?

Everything I am legally required to have.

[arnaldoabru 11]

What documention do you carry with you?

Everything I am legally required to have.

Then maybe you won't get pulled over on the way to Dairy Queen.

[Tigermike 3,076]

What documention do you carry with you?

Everything I am legally required to have.

Then maybe you won't get pulled over on the way to Dairy Queen.

Why does it bother you leftist that ID would be asked for?

Why are you guys so dead set against a voter ID? Never mind the answer to that is obvious.

[AUJarhead 70]

What documention do you carry with you?

Everything I am legally required to have.

Then maybe you won't get pulled over on the way to Dairy Queen.

He will if he's breaking the law.

[aumd03 2]

Really SLink? And people pay you to represent them and their interests? I expected more from you. Some of you people are completely out of control and completely mindless in your attempts to justify what you see as a wrong. Please argue on merit rather than red herrings or what you may see as a inconsistentcy. You obviously have missed the boat about what the tea party is about. Its not no govt, its asking the govt to do as the constitution states.

Illegal immigrants disproportionally are a burden on the welfare programs in this nation. As long as we continue to be a welfare state, we cannot have open borders. If you elect to do away with welfare programs, I'll gladly accept open borders. Until then, these people are not CITIZENS and lack rights that citizens possess. And unreasonable requirements of our own citizens? Carrying identification hardly seems unreasonable with paying 30+% of your income to the government or now being required under financial penalty to have health insurance. Yet thats not "misguided" as President Obama states.

How about someone look at the immigration policies of mexico? They require Americans in their country to carry a passport. And we cannot own property either that is near the coast or border. But yet it is the US that is the evil and oppressive one in this matter. Again, the law specifically prohibits selection based on race so no civil rights would be violated. Please point out to me where this law is any way unconstitutional, which is the standard we should be basing laws upon, not feel goodism. We have tough problems, which sometimes require tough and less than ideal solutions.

I've read where 70% of the voters in Arizona support this bill. Maybe we should take a hint from those on the ground what unregulated and unenforced immigration is doing to their state.

[AUloggerhead 2,267]

Really SLink? And people pay you to represent them and their interests? I expected more from you. Some of you people are completely out of control and completely mindless in your attempts to justify what you see as a wrong. Please argue on merit rather than red herrings or what you may see as a inconsistentcy. You obviously have missed the boat about what the tea party is about. Its not no govt, its asking the govt to do as the constitution states.

Illegal immigrants disproportionally are a burden on the welfare programs in this nation. As long as we continue to be a welfare state, we cannot have open borders. If you elect to do away with welfare programs, I'll gladly accept open borders. Until then, these people are not CITIZENS and lack rights that citizens possess. And unreasonable requirements of our own citizens? Carrying identification hardly seems unreasonable with paying 30+% of your income to the government or now being required under financial penalty to have health insurance. Yet thats not "misguided" as President Obama states.

How about someone look at the immigration policies of mexico? They require Americans in their country to carry a passport. And we cannot own property either that is near the coast or border. But yet it is the US that is the evil and oppressive one in this matter. Again, the law specifically prohibits selection based on race so no civil rights would be violated. Please point out to me where this law is any way unconstitutional, which is the standard we should be basing laws upon, not feel goodism. We have tough problems, which sometimes require tough and less than ideal solutions.

I've read where 70% of the voters in Arizona support this bill. Maybe we should take a hint from those on the ground what unregulated and unenforced immigration is doing to their state.

Also, a sizable majority of AZ residents are in favor of of an immigration policy that WELCOMES legal immigrants: Link

The poll also finds that 57% of Arizona voters favor an immigration policy that welcomes all immigrants except "national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system," according to the poll. Seventy-six percent say it's more important to gain control of the border than to legalize the status of undocumented workers.

Nazis. Every single one of them.

[Grumps 3,705]

I am asked to show a picture I.D. quite frequently. I did not know until now that I was being racially profiled and that my rights were being violated. Does anyone have the ACLU's phone #?

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Really SLink? And people pay you to represent them and their interests? I expected more from you. Some of you people are completely out of control and completely mindless in your attempts to justify what you see as a wrong. Please argue on merit rather than red herrings or what you may see as a inconsistentcy. You obviously have missed the boat about what the tea party is about. Its not no govt, its asking the govt to do as the constitution states.

Illegal immigrants disproportionally are a burden on the welfare programs in this nation. As long as we continue to be a welfare state, we cannot have open borders. If you elect to do away with welfare programs, I'll gladly accept open borders. Until then, these people are not CITIZENS and lack rights that citizens possess. And unreasonable requirements of our own citizens? Carrying identification hardly seems unreasonable with paying 30+% of your income to the government or now being required under financial penalty to have health insurance. Yet thats not "misguided" as President Obama states.

How about someone look at the immigration policies of mexico? They require Americans in their country to carry a passport. And we cannot own property either that is near the coast or border. But yet it is the US that is the evil and oppressive one in this matter. Again, the law specifically prohibits selection based on race so no civil rights would be violated. Please point out to me where this law is any way unconstitutional, which is the standard we should be basing laws upon, not feel goodism. We have tough problems, which sometimes require tough and less than ideal solutions.

I've read where 70% of the voters in Arizona support this bill. Maybe we should take a hint from those on the ground what unregulated and unenforced immigration is doing to their state.

Also, a sizable majority of AZ residents are in favor of of an immigration policy that WELCOMES legal immigrants: Link

The poll also finds that 57% of Arizona voters favor an immigration policy that welcomes all immigrants except "national security threats, criminals and those who would come here to live off our welfare system," according to the poll. Seventy-six percent say it's more important to gain control of the border than to legalize the status of undocumented workers.

Nazis. Every single one of them.

That's only 500 "voters" out of a population of 6 million plus. 55% of them also support the police being able to stop anyone they suspect of being illegal....and that is where your racial profiling will come in. Which is what I am against.

An overwhelmingly white and conservative electorate will continue to dominate immigration politics over Latinos, who constitute just 11.7% of registered voters and are themselves divided over how to treat illegal migrants.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/16/local/la-me-arizona17-2010apr17

Whites hold the vote majority in Arizona. Remember these are the same guys that voted against MLK day lol and spawnd the classic controversial Public Enemy video where they assassinated the Governor of Arizona in the early 90's.

Been around and seen plenty of illegals and what they do growing up in Texas. Still disagree with what they are doing in Arizona. Also if you know any legal hispanics you know they really do dislike illegals cause of the stereotypes and insults they get at their expense. Why I really feel for them with laws that will allow you to just target someone on the suspect of their color (which is what will happen in Arizona).

Just for fun though, the largest population of European origin in Arizona according to the 2000 census, is German. Have to have a chuckle at that.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

I am asked to show a picture I.D. quite frequently. I did not know until now that I was being racially profiled and that my rights were being violated. Does anyone have the ACLU's phone #?

212-549-2500

You can tell them how you want your biometric national ID card or how you should be chipped like a dog cause that would actually be cheaper than the cards lol.

Only time I ever show my ID is a)entering a place with or purchasing something with a age restriction. b)writing a check (which is rare now). c)when I got busted doing 60 in a 45. d) requesting information that is personal.

[AURaptor 1,128]

Just for fun though, the largest population of European origin in Arizona according to the 2000 census, is German. Have to have a chuckle at that.

Sounds like you're doing a bit of profiling yourself on that part. Not all Germans were NAZIS, and not all Mexicans are kidnappers or smuggling drugs. "Funny" how you'll decry the stereotype of one, while chuckling at the other.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Just for fun though, the largest population of European origin in Arizona according to the 2000 census, is German. Have to have a chuckle at that.

Sounds like you're doing a bit of profiling yourself on that part. Not all Germans were NAZIS, and not all Mexicans are kidnappers or smuggling drugs. "Funny" how you'll decry the stereotype of one, while chuckling at the other.

Wow, learn to have a laugh at the stupidity and hypocrisy of the world. Guess the just for fun and chuckle were not a big enough clue of kidding around at the coincidence. Quite aware not all Germans were NAZI's and that most, especially the common German soldier had a strong dislike for them.

And I havn't decried anyone. Cause if Arizona pass's some law that lets them just search any random white guy cause he might be a neo Nazi I'll defend their rights to not be profiled also by the police. Dislike them and what they stand for... sure. They still have the right to walk down the street and mind their own business without being stopped and asked if they are legal or illegal. Same with African-Americans or Asians etc etc.

You will also find that I take shots at my own European roots on these boards also in our hypocrisy of claiming anyone is legal or illegal or invading given the circumstances to which we came to and settled this country.

You will also see that I blame American citizens and corporations as much as I do the illegals cause we are the ones that recruit, smuggle, and give them jobs. They just don't all come over by themselves.

But sheriff Arpaio and John Kavanaugh do have ties/friends in the neo Nazi parties through and including JT Ready and those two are being quoted on the subject. So they earned their profiling just like the idiots who hang out with guys wearing white sheets and hoods.

And really, I have the word Texas in my screen name, how dare you accuse me of not taking any shots or stereotyping the country that has to be the biggest failures in Summer Olympic history.... what with all the running, swimming, jumping and vaulting they train in to get here in the first place.