Glenn Beck reads Arizona bill as public service

Today Glenn Beck read the Arizona illegal immigration bill on the air since no one in the government feels the need to read it before criticizing it. Instead of giving you the lengthy reading in its entirety, I’ve edited it down to just the highlights for your amusement.

Enjoy!

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • I have to admit that I absolutely laughed my arse off-

    However, I can never trust the police to do anything legitimately. I have seen way too many injustices from them, and they need a house-cleaning, like our politicians do.

    I can not trust they will do the right thing when so many are corrupt, and the system is set up to protect them. That is the 1 thing, I will agree with liberals on. The only thing!

    Once they clean up their house of the union protected thugs- then I will concede that such a law is just. Until they do, I believe that it allows too much ambiguity. Alleged, probable cause is all it took to pull over myself and a friend of mine in his Chrysler 300 and search us and his car. Not until the officer was told that we worked for a law firm did he drop the attitude. In the end they said we were speeding and to keep it down (there was no speeding, illegal lane changes, exhibition of speed), it was just a profiled car and they did their number on us.

    I believe in truth over ideology so I will dissent from the typical conservative viewpoint and say that allowing police the discernment of “probable cause” in an issue that may ultimately come down to ethnicity, can lead down a very bad path.

    Lets drop the defenses policemen have against the average citizen and treat them as we would any person, and then we can have a rational discussion about this law.

    I am not anti-police, but I feel that they have too much power over us- I am against power, be it government officials, or anyone else. We, as people, need to have adequate protections against intrusion.

    If you are guilty of a crime, then I agree (if you are illegally here) you go back- but if “probable cause” is all the police need to get that information, then I disagree.

  • Tyler

    Think about what you're saying though. The corrupt cops are going to do what they want until they get caught whether this law is in effect or not. You even said it yourself…the corrupt cops will profile and determine “probable cause” and keeping the good cops from doing their part isn't going to reduce these incidents either. To me, the whole searching one's vehicle thing is just like the Miranda warning. They don't want you to know that you have the right to remain silent and they don't want you to know that you don't have to let them search your vehicle…but you still have those rights despite their attitudes.

  • It was mentioned while they were searching- No consent was given and there was an attempt to stop the search by voicing that consent wasn't given- The response by the police was, “we aren't violating your civil rights”. BS because as soon as the law firm thing came up they stopped and let us go.

    I would rather make an error in judgement on the side of the people. The people come first, regardless of political affiliation. While you may be right that corrupt police will violate a person's rights if they want, we do not, and should not, facilitate the act. A person's individual rights are more important. I did mention that if found guilty of a crime, and the person is illegal, they should be deported, but to leave it solely at the discretion of the officer's probable cause is choosing naivete at the expense of the individual.

    The federal law, as it is, should be enforced, but the Arizona law enters in the personal discretion of an officer. That is the wild card that I have an issue with because of the lack of defense an individual has against the “word” of an officer.

    The court system (as far as traffic violations, which are justifiable cause for enforcement of this law) are intentionally one-sided (as revenue generators as well as just cause is concerned).

    I don't believe that the law will be used in that manner, but I do believe that allowing government that discretion is an error that can affect our rights as Americans.

    We do not want to allow more rights to government, if anything, we should restrain it. If a person is found guilty of a crime through the legal process, then go for it, but do not rely on the discretion of 1 individual.

  • Tyler

    That's what the ability to challenge wrongful searches and arrests is for. I'm a Libertarian and I'm there with you completely that we need to shrink the size and power of all levels of government, but I just don't believe for one second that the law will be abused.

  • Here's the law broken down if you don't want to read it.

  • williamm

    California Penal Code Section 834b

    (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
    cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
    Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
    suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
    federal immigration laws.
    (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
    of being present in the United States in violation of federal
    immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
    following:
    (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
    of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
    resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
    or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
    immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
    be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
    place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
    documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
    (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
    who is present in the United States in violation of federal
    immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
    justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
    leave the United States.
    (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
    States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
    status and provide any additional information that may be requested
    by any other public entity.
    (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
    county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
    jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
    or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
    prohibited.

    This part: ” if he or she is
    suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
    federal immigration laws.” How is that different from Arizona law? Ozzie said ” The federal law, as it is, should be enforced, but the Arizona law enters in the personal discretion of an officer.” In both cases whether it be if someone is suspected or at the discretion of a police officer means the same thing.

  • point taken-

    I heard the remainder of the law on GB insider last night and there are a lot of things I like about it. It seems to have a large focus on employers of illegals. Can do a lot of good, but there is disparity between the average person's word and the word of an officer as far as traffic violations go. That is where my issue is at. I believe the law also states that if the officer believes a felony has been committed or has seen one committed- that part I can agree with because the threshold for a felony is much higher than say, making a turn or lane change without a signal which require only the officer's word.

    I also do not believe it is likely to be applied in such a manner that would be discriminatory, but I don't feel comfortable with the traffic part of it. Too much wiggle room for the bad ones.

  • Tyler

    That's what the ability to challenge wrongful searches and arrests is for. I'm a Libertarian and I'm there with you completely that we need to shrink the size and power of all levels of government, but I just don't believe for one second that the law will be abused.

  • Here's the law broken down if you don't want to read it.

  • williamm

    California Penal Code Section 834b

    (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
    cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
    Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
    suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
    federal immigration laws.
    (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
    of being present in the United States in violation of federal
    immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
    following:
    (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
    of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
    resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
    or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
    immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
    be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
    place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
    documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
    (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
    who is present in the United States in violation of federal
    immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
    justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
    leave the United States.
    (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
    States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
    status and provide any additional information that may be requested
    by any other public entity.
    (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
    county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
    jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
    or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
    prohibited.

    This part: ” if he or she is
    suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
    federal immigration laws.” How is that different from Arizona law? Ozzie said ” The federal law, as it is, should be enforced, but the Arizona law enters in the personal discretion of an officer.” In both cases whether it be if someone is suspected or at the discretion of a police officer means the same thing.

  • point taken-

    I heard the remainder of the law on GB insider last night and there are a lot of things I like about it. It seems to have a large focus on employers of illegals. Can do a lot of good, but there is disparity between the average person's word and the word of an officer as far as traffic violations go. That is where my issue is at. I believe the law also states that if the officer believes a felony has been committed or has seen one committed- that part I can agree with because the threshold for a felony is much higher than say, making a turn or lane change without a signal which require only the officer's word.

    I also do not believe it is likely to be applied in such a manner that would be discriminatory, but I don't feel comfortable with the traffic part of it. Too much wiggle room for the bad ones.

    Edit: Just heard Megyn Kelly's comments on the Federal Law- The Federal Law is much much more hard on immigrants- So I don't see the problem with the Arizona law causing over-enforcement vs the Federal Law. It's just the the Federal government just doesn't want any form of it enforced.

  • Tyler

    Welcome to the world of sense…and yes. I do still agree with you on the wiggle room idea. Personally, I think focusing on it economically is the best way to approach it because the fact that they are able to work crappy jobs for way less than American workers would do it for and the fact that the so-called “War on Drugs” and “War on Prostitution” allows for the filthy criminal murderous scumbags to come into our country and do their thing in the black market is the REAL ISSUE here. I don't believe for one second that if there weren't victimless crimes and underpaid employment going on…these illegals would have ANY REASON to be here in America anymore.

  • Pingback: Barbaric Thoughts » Glenn Beck Reads the Arizona Bill and Mark Levin()