No matter how educated a person is there are times when people still manage to throw out over-worn 'aunt Nellieisms' like they were reasoned facts.
Now usually I like Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, legal analyst over at Foxnews , but his
op-ed on Foxnews.com really bothered me. It seems the only time people consider race is when the name differs from the nationality. Consider the outcry at the phrase "rag-head," then compare it to "cheese eating surrender-monkey." He disregards the fact that the overwhelming majority of our enemies are Arabs. We didn't choose for it to be that way, they did.
You have been kicked off an airplane flight because the local police are allowing some passengers to vote to exclude others on the basis of race.
Well heck, this kind of thing happens to caucasians all the time today. It's not Arabs who are being thoroughly searched at airports. I just came back from Denver and I spent one hell of a lot of time at airports and I watched who was being pulled aside for checks. I got checked, but then even my 'purty deck shoes' have steel-toes in them. I was concerned about bomb-sniffing dogs, simply because these are also the same shoes (electro-static discharge soles) that I used to use for blasting, so they probably have some trace of RDX on them. I saw people who looked Arab/Persian/etc, and I don't recall seeing a single one checked. I saw blacks, Chinese, Mexicans and a hell of a lot of caucasians checked. Granted there are more caucasians in the pool of eligible searchees, but I'm still not convinced that people who look like they belong on the Swedish Bikini Team are a tangible threat.
You must avoid talking to the federal police at all costs because one unacceptable or refused answer and you can be deported without charges, without trial, without judicial review, without ever seeing your family again, and without settling your business.
See now, I fail to see how deporting people who are guests in our country is a violation of their rights. When you invite or allow someone into your house, it is you who have a say in how long they stay (or if they get adopted) not them, and certainly not the next door neighbor who loves that you are feeding his kids for him. Also, no where in The Constitution does it say that anyone has the right to a trial or judicial review before being deported. That's not a right, it's a matter of legislature. In certain cases we have laws respecting such instances, but it is NOT a constitutionally gauranteed right. Judge Napolitano should know this. Hell, I'm a welder (well a millwright now) and I know the constitution better than that.
The laws were supposed to be fair and liberty guaranteed, but some politically powerful people want your liberty to be sacrificed for their safety. It wasn't supposed to be this way.
Well here he is entirely correct. The Constitution specifically mentions "ourselves and our posterity" as being "ensured the blessings of liberty." It does not say "guests who are here as students or tourists, or who break our laws by sneaking into our country without permission." Again, Judge Napolitano is a Judge but he's probably never watched school-house rock and so seems unfamilliar with The Constitution of the United States of America.
When Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," he could not have even contemplated the pain and fear facing many innocent people here today.
Excellent point, and in his editorial, Judge Napolitano actually uses Mr. Franklin's quote in context (unlike a number of other people). The problem is that Mr. Franklin was not speaking about how we treat our enemies, or citizens of their countries. He was talking about Americans giving up their own rights, not recinding privelages we afford guests and invaders.
Until 1776, our government didn't recognize personal liberties; but the Declaration of Independence, from which the violence of 1776 sprang, did.
Oh boy, here we go again. Ummmm, the British did recognize some personal liberties, but for the most part not as we know them, and not to the extent that we know them. He also seems to be unaware that those concepts of liberty sprang from Brits and British organizations and thought. They didn't just materialize out of thin air.
Thus, the theory of the Declaration has been that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are natural, that is, they belong to all persons by virtue of our humanity.
Totally true. However, yet again, Judge Napolitano ignores The Constitution which is quite clear that it protects those rights for Americans. The Constitution does not say that foreigners have no rights, only that it ensures them for Americans. Frankly it is the duty of other countries to ensure those rights for their citizens; it is not our duty to do it for them. It is the duty of those foreign citizens to create a government that gaurantees those rights. So unless they want to secede and petition for statehood with the US, they have their own responsibilities.
The Constitution requires probable cause - specific reasons to persuade a judge that a specific person more likely than not committed a specific crime - before the government can arrest anyone.
Yup. But guess what, being in the US illegally is a crime.
Whom will it incarcerate or deport? Mexican busboys who look like Arabs, Middle Eastern chemical engineering students who don't wear American flags, political radicals who hate all wars?
How about foreign guests and illegals who advocate the overthrow of the United States, or who call for violence and the death of our own citizens? How about those who support our enemies (or those of our allies), or who give aid and comfort to those enemies? What about those who raise money for terrorists and America's enemies? Man, it's not rocket science. If a "Mexican busboy" is here illegally, and is yelling Mecha slogans, deport him. If "Middle Eastern chemical engineering students" are raising money for Hammas, or associating with known Al-Qaeda members, deport them. Sheez.
What freedoms are we defending if, in the name if freedom, the government can take them away because of a person's appearance or nationality?
Gotta love this idiotic statement. According to Judge Napolitano, we should not take away the freedoms of an Arab terrorist supporter simply because he happens to be an Arab.
The feeling I get (could be wrong, I'm just an average Joe) is that Judge Napolitano also has a problem denying entry to people just because they are members of enemy nations, or belong to a race with a proven track record of putting out more anti-American terrorists than any other in the history of the planet. Certainly not all Arabs are terrorists, only a miniscule proportion are; but the overwhelming majority of terrorists are Arab, and almost every single anti-American terrorist is Muslim. Should we ignore them simply because of the color of their skin? There are two kinds of racism; singling out a person (or group of people) because of the color of their skin and not singling out a person (or group of people) because of the color of their skin. In this case racism is a danger to the lives of our citizens, and on the scale of importance the Constitution give higher precedence to life than to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. It's pretty clear about that, and even if it weren't we have a bunch of moldy founding fathers who wrote all kinds of letters and treatise to make it clear for us; too bad lawyers and judiciarys ignore them.