They said “this man” was going to unite the Country, ‘The Great Uniter”, has tuned out to be just another race baiting divider, ready and willing to say or do anything, to divide and destroy, as long as it provides the smallest political advantage to his person.
Race baiting is the use of racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical, and often harmful to their personal or group interests. Race baiting can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race-based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term “race” in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_baiting
Anyone who has read the Arizona Immigration Law now knows, the law specifically and repeatedly states that racial profiling is prohibited under the law. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/hb2162c.htm
The law also identifies 11 pieces of identification, that if produced, create a “presumption of legal residency”. The 11 types of ID are:
1. An Arizona driver license issued after 1996 or an Arizona nonoperating identification license.
2. A birth certificate or delayed birth certificate issued in any state, territory or possession of the United States.
3. A United States certificate of birth abroad.
4. A United States passport.
5. A foreign passport with a United States visa.
6. An I-94 form with a photograph.
7. A United States citizenship and immigration services employment authorization document or refugee travel document.
8. A United States certificate of naturalization.
9. A United States certificate of citizenship.
10. A tribal certificate of Indian blood.
11. A tribal or bureau of Indian affairs affidavit of birth.
Is it possible that the law could be abused? Of course, any law can be abused, just as the Race Baiter in Chief is abusing the position of power that the people of the United States entrusted to him, a position he is betraying while he tries to divide this Nation for his personal political advantage.
You might recall that the far left media has repeatedly told us how amazingly smart this Harvard educated lawyer is.
How then, is it, that this Harvard educated lawyer doesn’t know the diference between “misfeasance” and “unconstitutional”. As most 1st year law students can distinguish between the two, how is it that a Harvard Educated Constitutional Law professor, his Attorney General and his Secretary of Homeland Security can’t comprehend the distinction between “misfeasance” and “unconstitutional”?
Misfeasance is defined as: 1). a wrong, actual or alleged, arising from or consisting of affirmative action. 2). the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act; the wrongful and injurious exercise of lawful authority. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misfeasance
Unconstitutional is defined as: unauthorized by or inconsistent with the constitution. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unconstitutional
If the President, Attorney General and Secretary of Home Land Security don’t understand the difference, they are not competent to hold office.
The truth is that the 3 of them know, full well, that their claims that the Arizona Law is unconstitutional are false.
Example 1: The speed limit in front of my home is 25 miles per hour. There is nothing “unconstitutional” about that law. If a law enforcement officer pulls over a black driver, because they are black and not because they were speeding, that officer has committed an act of malfeasance which is punishable in both the criminal and civil courts, however, the speed limit law is constitutional and there is no question that the speed limit law is constitutional. None!
Example 2: The United States passed a Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act in 1964. The Laws were Amended in 1965. These Civil Rights laws were passed despite strong opposition from southern Democrats. The 1965 Voting rights Act called for Federal oversight of elections. http://www.conservapedia.com/Voting_Rights_Act , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
If I, as individual, happen to be working as an election official during an election, and I intentionally act to exclude any individual’s vote, based on that persons race, does my action make the “Civil Rights Act & The Voting Rights Act” of 1965 unconstitutional? Of course not – those laws are Constitutional – it is my individual act of “misfeasance” that is unlawful. The Civil Rights Act is Constitutional, my act would be “unlawful”.
A race baiter and hater, not an individual committed to uniting.
The Arizona Law permits law enforcement officials to ask for ID and if the “suspect” can’t produce one of the 11 IDs listed above, the officer may question the suspect about his or her immigration status. What is unconstitutional about asking a “criminal suspect” to identify themselves? Nothing is the answer and the Supreme Court of the United States has said so on many occassions.
THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION’S SOLUTION
The National ID Card
The complaint against the Arizona law has been clearly articulated by the Obama Administration; asking for ID leads to racial profiling and that must not stand.
The proposed solution – Open Borders, No Immigration Quotas, No Immigrant screening – Eliminate the current “excludeable” catergories that bar immigrants from entry into the United States (such as past criminal conduct, rape, murder, sex & drug trafficking, etc) and the implementation of a National ID Card.
A National ID Card?
Just what will this National ID Card be used for? Identification?
Just how stupid do they think we are?
For the National ID Card to be of any use, you will need to allow individuals to actually ask to see the card, won’t you? To actually ask suspects to show the ID?
After all, what good is a National ID Card, if you can’t ask to see it?
Once you ask to see the National ID Card we are back where we started, correct, asking for someone, who is under Police investigation, to identify themselves? Exactly what difference does it make – Law Enforcement Officers don’t care what type of ID you produce – just produce some ID? A National ID card or one of the 11 IDs already listed in the Arizona Law – you need to produce IDs. Exactly what do you think will happen when the individual can’t produce a National ID Card? How does that differ from not producing one of the 11 IDs listed in the Arizona Law?
The real issue is not asking for ID, obviously. The real issue is that Obama wants open borders and no immigration limits.
To get to where he wants to go, Obama is willing to race bait!
Endangering the Citizens of Arizona
The Race Baiter In Chief has instructed the head of ICE to threaten the State of Arizona and the citizens of Arizona with the suspension of ICE activities in Arizona.
ICE stands for Immigration Control & Enforcement.
ICE is responsible for fighting organized criminal activity involving drugs, gangs and sexual trafficking. For a summary of the law enforcement activities the President has threatened to withhold from the citizens of Arizona see: https://mcauleysworld.wordpress.com/2010/05/22/obama-administration-threatens-to-abandon-law-enforcement-in-arizona/
Isn’t the President responsible for securing our borders and protecting the citizens of Arizona? Mr. President, if you don’t want to do the job you promised to do when you took your oath of office – resign – and we, the people, will be glad to replace you.
Filed under: Arizona Immigration Law, Barack Obama, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Immigration Quotas, Politics | Tagged: Arizona Immigration Law, Misfeasance, Race Baiting, Unconstitutional |