A Tale of Two Protests
The Tea Party Protesters are ritualistically labeled as “angry,” “racist,” “hateful,” or “violent.” Here is some video of these “dangerous” tea partiers being interviewed by a liberal blogger. Not only does the blogger have no problem navigating his way through the conservative crowd, he is treated respectfully and without rancor.
In this video, we see a SWAT team has been called in to preserve order in the face of a tea part protest. Note the reaction from the protesters–peaceful compliance.
On the other hand, here is video of protest against the new, strict immigration law recently signed by the governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer. Note the man being escorted away by police. He is a counter-protester whose life was threatened. Note the violence being enacted against the police for protecting the man’s right to life, which these protesters refuse to recognize.
In this second video, we see how liberals, progressives, and socialists treat conservatives. Why the great difference? Because liberals, progressives, and socialists don’t believe in equal rights. They believe only in their own “rights,” which includes the right to take the property of others by violence, as demonstrated by the two losers that stole a backpack from one of the tea party protesters.
Update: my favorite part of the above video is where the communists and liberals are shouting at the conservatives to “get educated,” while holding up a very large sign with word the “immigrant” misspelled (no, people, it’s not spelled “immagrant”). HA! Too much.
Here is another example of the major differences between these two movements (this one was in LA). I guess the Left wouldn’t be the Left if they weren’t looking for excuses to destroy things.
The article mentions that anarchist infiltrators may have been responsible for the damage. Ok…but the Tea Parties also had infiltrators, who were quickly sent packing. The immigration protesters didn’t stop the damage when they could and should have.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Conservative Front. Conservative Front said: A Tale of Two Protests – http://tinyurl.com/2dj5lum #IC #politics #tcot #conservative [...]
I’m not going to excuse violent behavior, but it’s worth noting that the Tea Partyers have nothing to be angry about. They are for the most part very prosperous people enjoying historically low tax rates. Nobody is taking away their civil rights.
What civil rights are being taken away, Richard? And from whom are they being taken?
And I would strongly disagree with your assessment of the tea partiers.
If you don’t recognize the Arizona law as an outrageous breach of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution, then what can I say?
According to a national survey of Tea Party supporters, they tend to be wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, Republican, white, male, and married, and their strong opposition to the Obama administration is more rooted in politics than anxiety about their personal economic well-being.
I find it ironic that people who claim a strong ideological commitment to the U.S. Constitution are supporting Arizona’s unconstitutional law.
You failed to answer my question, Richard. What “civil rights” are being taken away, and from whom?
Please be specific.
The NY Times poll is only partly correct, because it speaks a half-truth (color me “not-surprised”). They are not so much concerned with their own fortunes as much as they are concerned about the future for their children and grand-children. The common refrain is that we are enslaving our children and our children’s children to this massive debt.
And as regards the Arizona law, it is not only Constitutional but it has massive multi-partisan support. A new study from the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press shows that the provisions of the law are strongly supported by Republicans, Democrats and Independents (http://people-press.org/report/613/arizona-immigration-law).
From the study: “…majorities of Democrats approve of two of the law’s principal provisions: requiring people to produce documents verifying legal status (65%) and allowing police to detain anyone unable to verify their legal status (55%).”
This is not the only poll showing overwhelming support for the Arizona law across party lines. Rasmussen has a poll here: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/nationally_60_favor_letting_local_police_stop_and_verify_immigration_status?popup=false
But, please, tell us what rights are being taken away, and from whom.
So wait, are we liberals communists or socialists? It’s philosophically impossible to be both, but in your desperation here you throw out each declaration in two separate paragraphs.
If you teabbagers don’t start making more sense, people will just stop listening. Pick a hyperbolic and reactionary overstatement, for the love of…
As for the Arizona law… what’s that cliche about “they came for my neighbor, and I said nothing…”? I think that’s the best way to sum up you the hypocrisy of you supposed “defenders of the Constitution” is that you’ll pit it full of holes the minute your xenophobia, or paranoia justifies doing so.
Any person who can read the AZ immigration law and not come away feeling this is road America should never travel down (admittedly, I said the same thing about the Patriot Act, and the FISA revamp) is by no means a defender of the Constitution. Just a small minded fool
The new Arizona law is so unconstitutional that I predict it can never take effect. The DOJ ought to get a court injunction. I wish people were more informed about constitutional law. Sometimes it seems the folks who yell the most about our Constitution have never read it.
States have no power to pass immigration laws because it’s an attribute of foreign affairs. Just as states can’t have their own foreign policies or enter into treaties, they can’t have their own immigration laws either.
What about civil rights? The Arizona law criminalizes not only undocumented immigrants but anybody who helps them or who fails to carry paperwork proving legal status at all times. It would be impossible for the police to carry out the mandate to check anybody who they have a reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally, without engaging in profiling or violating our basic civil rights.
States have no power? Not so, my ill-informed friends.
Pres. U. S. Grant: “[R]esponsibility over immigration can only belong with the States since this is where the Constitution kept the power.”
Pres. Andrew Jackson: The “Constitution, which was established for the benefit of our own, not of a foreign people: if in the latter, then, like other citizens or people resident within the limits of the States, they are subject to their jurisdiction and control.”
Pres. Thomas Jefferson: “[A]lien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens;”
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney: “The first inquiry is, whether, under the Constitution of the United States, the federal government has the power to compel the several States to receive, and suffer to remain in association with its citizens, every person or class of persons whom it may be the policy or pleasure of the United States to admit. In my judgment, this question lies at the foundation of the controversy in this case. I do not mean to say that the general government have, by treaty or act of Congress, required the State of Massachusetts to permit the aliens in question to land. I think there is no treaty or act of Congress which can justly be so construed. But it is not necessary to examine that question until we have first inquired whether Congress can lawfully exercise such a power, and whether the States are bound to submit to it.
For if the people of the several States of this Union reserved to themselves the power of expelling from their borders any person, or class of persons, whom it might deem dangerous to its peace, or likely to produce a physical or moral evil among its citizens, then any treaty or law of Congress invading this right, and authorizing the introduction of any person or description of persons against the consent of the State, would be an usurpation of power which this court could neither recognize or enforce.
I had supposed this question not now open to dispute. It was distinctly decided in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet 540; Groves v. Slaughter, 15 Pet 449, and in Prigg v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Pet 539. These cases decide that the States have the power to expel and exclude. There can be no concurrent power respecting such a subject matter.”
Article IX of the Constitution of the State of Texas (1869, and approved by Congress prior to re-admittance into the Union): “SECTION I. There shall be a Bureau, known as the ‘Bureau of Immigration,’ which shall have supervision and control of all matters connected with immigration. The head of this Bureau shall be styled the ‘Superintendent of Immigration.’ He shall be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He shall hold his office for four years, and until otherwise fixed by law, shall receive an annual compensation of two thousand dollars. He shall have such further powers and duties, connected with immigration, as may be given by law.”
H/T The Federalist Blog
Jasonthe,
Nice red herring.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said during a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that he believes the Arizona law is unconstitutional. Why?
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power….To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Article VI, Clause 2 (the Supremacy Clause):
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Arizona immigration law is brazenly unconstitutional. Without a doubt. Yet the Tea Partyers are embracing it. Why?
If this law is allowed to take effect, people with brown skin – regardless of whether they are U.S. citizens or legal residents – will be forced to prove their legal status to law enforcement officers time and again. One-third of Arizona’s population – those who are Latino – will be designated as second-class citizens.
I’m getting a good chuckle from observing the supposedly vehemently pro-Constitution Tea Party supporters finding themselves at odds with the Constitution on so many issues.
So, Richard, you’re just going to ignore all the very plain evidence I have posted to the contrary, and quote Lindsay Grahamnesty on an issue that neither one of you really comprehends. Here’s where you and the Senator have completely missed the obvious: Naturalization and Immigration are two different issues, handled by two different levels of the government.
Yes, Congress has the authority to enact “an uniform rule of Naturalization…throughout the United States.” But why on earth would that rule need to be “uniform” if the federal government controlled Immigration as well? There would be no need for uniformity “throughout the United States.”
In simpler terms, if there is only one authority controlling both Immigration and Naturalization, uniformity is the de facto status. There would have been no need to use that term, unless there were multiple sources for control of Immigration, which fact I have already proven.
That leaves the Supremacy clause moot on this issue, since the Supremacy clause only pertains to those enumerated powers that are explicitly delegated to the federal government. It does not give the federal government supremacy over the States on those powers which naturally belong to the States. Sen. Graham doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
But go ahead…just keep chuckling at us tea partiers. We’re only at odds with your fantasy version of the Constitution. We not only read the Constitution, we understand it. That’s something you’ll never accomplish, because it’s impossible to understand something that changes every day and has no original meaning.
Sorry, states can’t enact their own foreign policy. That’s why we have a Constitution for the UNITED STATES.
Go ahead, Richard, keep ignoring all the evidence that says otherwise. Don’t ever admit you’re wrong on this.
oh, but…I’m sorry…did you want me to stop responding so you can make-believe you’re right?
oh, very well…
Don’t believe me? Believe the case law.
The state of Arizona simply has no jurisdiction over immigration policy with regard to naturalization or anything else. The principle of exclusive federal jurisdiction has been upheld by the courts, for example (emphasis added):