I hate to put up a “me too” post of “Arizona’s Papers Pleez Law is Bad mmkay,” so I prefer to consider this a roundup post of things others have said. I’ll start by reminding you that just last week I said “By the way, ‘reasonable suspicion’ means the cop doesn’t like you and/or you’re brown. I don’t think most people appreciate that most people don’t carry proof of citizenship in their pockets….”
So I can’t express any real shock that before the Arizona bill even hit the Governor’s desk, an Arizona trucker was asked to present proof of citizenship at a routine weight stop. Hell, I predicted such things would happen, I just didn’t think it would be a matter of days.
So frankly, it seems obvious for conventions to want to meet someplace other than Arizona, particularly if they have a lot of “brown” people who are planning to attend. After all, the last thing you want is for your attendees or speakers to be detained and possibly deported to unknown places for the “crime” of not slipping a birth certificate in their luggage! Boycotts are already underway, and an interesting array of figures have come out against the bill. Even Mexico is warning its citizens against travel to Arizona, despite the fact that surely Mexican tourists would come armed with legitimate passports.
Arizona authorities even have the unmitigated audacity to ask Federal officials for help training cops to harass Americans suspected of being non-Americans. But then again, this is the land of Bully-in-Chief and perennial civil rights defendant Sheriff Arpaio.
Just the same, it shouldn’t come as any surprise that this whole exercise boils down to race. Specifically, they want to discourage “brown” people from showing up to vote in November. Notice that all this came down right after those Census forms went back? Arizona cronies want the Congressional seats and other goodies that come from having all those Hispanic votes with no risk that those Hispanics will show up and vote… Democratic.
In closing: I am embarrassed for my local paper that they printed this “proof” that women prefer Democrats not because of say, policies that support women’s rights and needs but rather because they are “fickle“; speaking of local issues with national implications, don’t lose track of this lawsuit!; more local-is-national news, Harry Reid gets real; Japanfilter comes to you from the continuing controversy of American troops at Okinawa; loopholes in the health insurance reform bill; Haven’t I been telling you for 7 years that we never really had a recovery from the 2001 recession?; after all these years, rubella is a serious but preventable disease; stricter financial reform now; don’t let political adversaries define the problem you are trying to solve!; 30 years of sticky-notes; PowerPoint has its place, just not on the battlefield; I’m not sure I agree with the idea of a top tax bracket at 90% (which it was pre-Reagan), but it’s an interesting argument; and 6 important things humanity forgot.
Shortwoman says, “I’m not sure I agree with the idea of a top tax bracket at 90% (which it was pre-Reagan)…”
Not exactly right. As you can see from this table (via Nate Silver), the upper marginal tax rate came down in 1964 (due to the Kennedy reforms) and again in 1970.
America’s best days were achieved under a 90% upper marginal rate. I don’t think it’s necessary to have such a rate, and I believe in having the lowest taxes consistent with a just society and a balanced budget. The economics literature suggests that the optimal upper rate for raising revenue is about 70%. But there’s nothing inherently bad about a 90% upper marginal rate. After all, the 90% upper rate at the end of the 1950s started at $400K– the equivalent of $3M today. It’s not like these people would starve.
Thank you for the correction. I was taught the whole 90% tax bracket in grade school in the 70s, and honestly it should have occurred to me that the teacher who told us this was an idiot.
That such a huge percentage of Arizonans support this legislation suggests that there are some legitimate ‘beefs’ needing to be aired.
It seems as though meaningful action is only undertaken once opinions have swayed to the extreme.
I am just as interested in the the pending legislation to require presidential candidates, wishing to be on the AZ ballot, to prove their country of birth and eligibility for office.
And keeping up with the Washington follies is no small chore either.
Especially keeping the seating order straight at the Goldman Sachs hearings.
With folks coming and going between GS and Obama government offices (Craig Greg, the latest?) the Pages can’t be sure which side of the conference table the participants should occupy.
Sure looks like the Fox is guarding the hen house…
You’re most gracious, B.
Arizona lawmakers have approved changes to the state’s controversial law cracking down on illegal immigrants. The changes were designed to answer charges made by protesters that it will lead to racial profiling by police. The original law stated police can conduct an immigration status check during any quote “lawful contact,” if they have reasonable suspicion a person is an illegal immigrant. It replaces “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest,” clarifying police may not stop people without cause. The revised law also removes the word “solely” from the phrase “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.” Read the new Arizona Immigration Law