Tancredo Thinks the Arizona Immigration Bill Goes Too Far?

I couldn’t believe it, either. I was watching Morning Joe, and they had a clip of Tancredo speaking against the immigration bill. I’ve been kind of wobbling on the bill, myself- having watched and read a bit about it over the last week or so, I certainly can understand why it’s controversial. I think, though, it comes down to these few points:

1. It’s mostly a wake-up call by Arizona to the federal government to protect its citizens and enforce existing law (one Arizona state senator defended the bill while saying that enforcement of the 1986 immigration reform law would suffice in this country).

2. While not quite a violation of civil rights, by the letter of the parts of the law I’ve read, and seen analyzed, I think the ramifications regarding civil rights would be highly questionable. Certainly, abuse would happen, as the law gives what I think is too much flexibility to law enforcement officials. This is the issue Tancredo has with it, as well.

3. Why is it controversial, as Stewart would have you believe at the first link above, to have immigrants carrying ID around? While some of the points he highlights are legitimate- suing police for not enforcing the law enough? Give me a break- illegal immigration is a huge issue in this country. He compares it to making free blacks carry IDs in the 1860s, but free black people were legal residents of the country. Illegal immigrants are, well, illegal.

As I said, I think the bill is mostly a wake-up call. Hopefully the more ridiculous, offensive and unethical portions get overturned in the courts, and the federal government passes a strong, effective and humane immigration bill soon. Perhaps with Tancredo’s support, the anti-bill lawsuits will pass quickly.

AllahPundit has a link to the bill here.

Update: AllahPundit has an updated post, which notes that a “reasonable suspicion” lawful act- i.e. someone is speeding and a police officer pulls the person over- must take place before the second, illegal residency “reasonable suspicion” portion kicks in. There are more protections here than meets the eye. It doesn’t mean it’s a great law, or even a Constitutional one…but it’s not as bad as it looks at first glance, and certainly better than liberals are saying it is. Again, here’s hoping that section gets clarified more sharply, and the federal government sees this action as a kick in the pants to have good immigration reform.