A ‘South Park’ parody; much debate on Arizona’s immigration law; Meg Whitman running for governor
‘South Park’ shuts up
Re “ ‘South Park’ threat no joke,” April 23
Apparently “South Park’s” parodies of the Catholic Church, Jews, blacks, Asians and homosexuals are perfectly acceptable, but it draws the line at Muslims.
The moment the “practitioner” of this “peaceful religion” makes a bully threat, everyone folds.
Is the message that the media are so cowardly that they will only pick on the people or entities that do not respond with violence? Is that the message the media really want to give?
Perhaps it is time to rid the library of books by Upton Sinclair and Frank Norris too. After all, they created quite a story in their time.
Are we ushering in a new era of book burning and censorship? Isn’t that exactly what these bullies were hoping for?
Arizona’s law and immigration
Re “Immigration law may spur a showdown,” April 24
I understand and sympathize with both sides in Arizona’s attempt to stop the influx of illegal immigrants.
What I do not understand is why present and previous administrations have allowed this problem to fester by not securing our borders.
Only after our borders are secured is it wise to discuss what to do about the illegal immigrants already here. To speak of amnesty and other possibilities before that only encourages a greater influx.
It’s ironic that President Obama called Arizona’s immigration law “irresponsible.” For decades the federal government has failed to secure the border and failed to follow up on expired visas.
And, irresponsibly, the federal government has not reimbursed Arizona, Texas, California and New Mexico for the costs of educating the children of illegal immigrants, incarcerating illegal immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and providing emergency medical services for those here illegally.
These costs should be shared fairly by every state, not disproportionally foisted on the border states. I hope we get immigration reform soon, but until we do, the federal government should treat the border states fairly.
Great job Arizona! The recently signed immigration bill marks a proud day for justice and the American way. Finally, someone had the guts to give law enforcement the tools to do something about illegal immigrants.
I hope and pray that our California legislators have the courage to pass the same type of law.
According to this story, “anyone who falls under suspicion and cannot provide an Arizona driver’s license, tribal identification, passport or green card could be subject to arrest and detention.”
Why do we even need to carry all of these IDs? Why don’t we just tattoo numbers or a bar code on our arms?
Why should I carry my passport just because I’m driving through Arizona? I’ll do it only if the officer who asks me for mine is also carrying his. Or if he has a bar code on his arm proving that he too is an American.
We live in a land of equality. When a law is created, it is created for all.
I don’t get it. There isn’t anyone in this country who can prove he is a citizen to any suspicious agent or private citizen unless they happen to be carrying their passport.
Even after months of coverage, there are still pinheads out there who don’t accept the president’s legitimacy. Clearly, carrying your birth certificate with you is also insufficient.
So how does Arizona plan to avoid harassing or detaining its own citizens?
How in the world does the governor of Arizona think that this idiotic bill will ever withstand legal challenge? Does she really believe that illegal immigrants other than those with brown skin will be subject to random stops by the police?
No matter how the people of Arizona try to explain their motivations for passing this bill into law, they cannot explain away its blatant racism.
Joanne Polvy Cohen
It’s not the days of Jim Crow
Re “Look, it’s an illegal, right?,” Opinion, April 26
Gregory Rodriguez’s piece does nothing to encourage a reasonable debate on immigration.
By comparing the current Arizona law’s requirement of “reasonable suspicion” to the issue of race onboard a train in the 19th century, he incorrectly compares an issue of law enforcement to one of historic moral imperative — one over which the U.S. paid heavily during the Civil War.
Today no person is relegated to the back of the bus. The U.S. has every right to enforce its immigration laws. It is certain that Arizona’s law will be challenged in the courts, and it is also likely that at least some of its provisions will be overturned, since the Constitution vests immigration jurisdiction with the federal government.
What Arizona’s lawmakers are likely to accomplish is the beginning of a debate in Congress, which hopefully will act to resolve an issue that places an unfair burden on Arizona and other border states.
Some folks in Arizona will now get a taste of what “driving while black” is all about — the difference being that the ancestors of those driving while black were dragged to the U.S. kicking and screaming, while some of those “driving while brown” purposefully crossed a desert or hid in a car to get here. It’s an important distinction.
There is a profound difference between the Arizona issue and the history of discrimination against blacks in this nation. If Arizona puts signs up about the water fountains and the bathrooms, then you have something to liken to the train in the South cited in Rodriguez’s column.
I was a young child in Texas under Jim Crow, and the two situations are not analogous.
Ready, set — run for governor
Re “When was Whitman in?” April 24
Two thoughts come to mind immediately upon reading this article: First, Meg Whitman is an expert at doublespeak. Second, she couldn’t pay me to vote for her, regardless of my political orientation.
I sincerely hope that her expenditures will be in vain. We don’t need a governor who won’t speak the truth, won’t disclose, won’t debate and seems to use her money to intimidate anybody who cares to challenge her decisions.
Certainly not my choice for running this state.
C’mon, ‘fess up and come clean! We’re both educated and intelligent fellow alumni (you, Princeton Class of ’77; me, Class of ’62).
When you seriously went after such internet domain names as “megwhitmanforgovernor.com” and “meg2010.com” you were, for all intents and purposes, in the race for governor.
Princeton’s informal motto is “Princeton in the nation’s service.” Your leadership of EBay is admirable. Your generous $30-million gift for the Whitman residential college at Princeton is very much appreciated. But prevaricating about your gubernatorial intentions is in no one’s service but your own and lowers you to the level of “just another politician.” Princeton didn’t teach you that.