It’s always funny to read a news article on a news site and then jump to the comment section. It is usually in the comment section where the misinformation of news, politics, and events play out. For instance, I just read an article about people protesting outside of Wrigley Field. I was hopeful the article was going to be about a group of concerned North Siders, worried about the safety of the old stadium, and passionately expressing their desire to tear it down. To the relief of some, this ireport was actually about protestors protesting the controversial Arizona Immigration Bill. (In case you are curious here’s the article)
Tangent: It’s amazing how CNN has transformed itself from the most relevant news source to the news’ version of Wikipedia with the very creation of ireports. They lost a bunch of credibility. End Tangent.
Basically the issue with the Arizona Bill centers around law enforcement being able to stop anybody they feel is suspicious and ask for ID. The protesters feel this will lead to racial profiling and discrimination. The defenders of the bill feel this will help them curb illegal immigration, which is a major issue in Arizona.
“Drivers license, Registration, Insurance, Social Security and even my Draft card I had to carry for many years. I’ve been stopped many, many times and I consider myself normal in that I didn’t feel that my rights were violated and that awful, awful fear of having to open up my billfold to retreve all those documents to prove who I was and that I had the proper paperwork to be driving didn’t…” – idiggreport
Clearly, idiggreport is a defender of this bill. He claims that he proudly shows ID on all occasions when asked. He seems like a good law abiding citizen, except on a few occasions as a driver of a motor vehicle, where it seems he’s been pulled over many times. Yet one thing is certain, he was driving and in violation of the law when he was stopped and asked for ID. Therefore there was just cause to see the ID.
Also, I can assume our commenter had to show proof of residency or citizenship to take advantage of the rights and privileges of citizenship, like voting, driving, or cashing in on Social Security (and I use ‘cashing in’ lightly). All of these are actions that are not forced upon a citizen, meaning there is just cause for the government official to verify citizenship or even residency.
Let’s say my mom is taking one of her granddaughters to the local park in a stroller. She left from the house and when at the park, the cops are reasonably suspicious there have been illegal immigrants in the park. So in an effort to not to racial profile the cops ask everyone for an ID. Only my mother didn’t bring her Drivers License because she was only taking a walk.
What happens then? Either the cops let it slide and give her a warning. Or they take her in because they are concerned about not profiling. She could be Canadian after all. So now my mom is taken to jail, with her granddaughter, until my Cubs fan dad comes into the station to show proof she is a citizen. This is the ultimate issue I have with this law.
Really, this law asks a larger question, should American citizens be required to have and carry an ID at all times? Those that say yes to this question are typically from the right wing. The same right wing that just tried to block “Obamacare” because it was forcing all American citizens to have health insurance. This is a contradiction, or at least an inconsistency, in conservative political thought. Because if the Federal government requires all citizens to carry ID, then seemingly they can require you to do other things, like purchase healthcare.
Conservatives can’t have it both ways. Right now, I don’t have to have a driver’s license, I don’t have to have Social Security, I don’t have to have a Passport. I don’t have to have a draft card when the government doesn’t want to draft, and women would be exempt from this anyway. Point being, I don’t need to carry any form of identification if I don’t care to drive, drink, smoke, fight, go to school, leave the country, or take a walk to the park (which are privileges, not rights).
Another conservative contradiction occurred when Republican President G.W. Bush ordered the Federal mandate on education, known as No Child Left Behind. Whether you are for this program or not, its easy to see a Federal mandate on Education goes against the traditional Conservative values of individual states setting their own educational standards, which was argued by Republican’s when Clinton tried to push education reform through Congress in the 90’s.
To sum it up, when one argues in contradictions it weakens one’s argument. When one’s left hand says one thing and one’s right another, they are taken less seriously.
NOTE: Okay, so I picked on the Conservatives a bit in this post. I just want you to know that in no way do I think the left wing is free of contradictions and inconsistencies. I will try to point them out when they come to my consciousness. What is on my consciousness is if I ever get the pleasure of enjoying Arizona’s dry heat, I’m going to have my Passport on my person at all times. You just never know.