Jan Brewer: The Envy of 49 States

My favorite female politician — aside from Sarah Palin — has always historically been Margaret Thatcher. 

Thatcher faced criticism from hysterical liberal men in the 1980’s for making shrewd decisions that bettered Britain.  As a result, she was scorned many times by members of the left-wing press and liberal politicians.

What Jan Brewer did last week reminded me of many things Thatcher did and received scrutiny for.

When Thatcher tossed thug-like trade union bosses out on their necks, suddenly the ordinary decent trade union worker could work without facing a force to come out on strike and businesses could operate without the threat of being closed down under a socialist labour government. 

When Thatcher; along with the British Government, extended the exclusion lines of the Falklands to further protect the British military in a time of war, the following statement was released making this policy well-known to all:

In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty’s Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty’s Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly. 
In the true hot-headed fashion of the Argentine, they defied the orders and crossed the lines anyway.  As promised, Thatcher immediately gave orders to sink the Belgrano.  Thatcher did so to protect the military which she was responsible of.  The Argentine knew the rules, they broke them, they paid for it.
Of course Thatcher faced scathing dissent from the British left — proving once again — that when liberals go into hysterics, something happened for the betterment of their own nation’s security.
Similarly, Jan Brewer enforced national immigration law that has existed for decades.  She took the first step towards dealing with illegal immigrants, preventing them from committing crimes on our soil, from using up our infrastructure and resources, and avoid them from costing taxpayers more money with incarcerations.
Of course, liberals all over the country are threatening boycotts.  Pop star Shakira is flying to Arizona to protest and is requesting a meeting with the governor.  I wonder if her personal residence or neighborhood in Hollywood is gated to keep ordinary folks out?
This of course is evident of Margaret Thatcher’s most famous quote:  “If you want something said, ask a man.  If you want something done, ask a woman.”  THIS is how leaders are supposed to behave.  THIS is what inspires Americans and gives us a sense of unity as we all work to better our own lives.  THIS is the kind of government we deserve!
If a few high-profile Hispanics like Shakira start with threatening boycotts in their mission to mis-characterize what this legislation is all about, then all Americans — including legalized Hispanics who are continuously placed into the same category as illegal criminals for the sake of political correctness — can hit back.  Boycott Hispanics who contribute to the mischaracterization of immigration law.  Don’t listen to their music, don’t go to their concerts, don’t eat at their restaurants, don’t watch their shows. 
WE have the power.  The majority of this country supports this serious action taken by Brewer.  If the opponents of this refuse to conform to common sense, we can organize even better than they can.
Talk to your friends and pay attention.  Do your part.
God Bless Jan Brewer!  I will be visiting Arizona in June and because of her, I will be a lot safer.

12 thoughts on “Jan Brewer: The Envy of 49 States

  1. I do not know which California cities have decided to boycott the state of Arizona. But, there are cities talking about it. So if Los Angeles decides to boycott the state of Arizona, then does that mean the Dodgers won’t play the Diamondbacks?

  2. I was politically active in California when Governor Pete Wilson promoted the ballot initiative, Prop. 187, on the ballot in 1994. It was heralded under the banner of “Save Our State.” Wilson, never known as much of a conservative, used the initiative as a cornerstone of his re-election campaign. It worked, but it was pure “wedge politics.”

    Wilson and Co. decided that it would secure a majority vote and re-election victory. They were right.

    Prior to this election, Republicans were making serious inroads into the Latino voting block. Why? Because Latins are in general very industrious, hard-working, Catholic, pro-family and pro-life. There is a huge population in the southwest of first, second, and third generation Mexicans who came here seeking a better life, and worked to achieve. They were invited by our industries and government, who made it easy for them to come, work, and return year after year.

    As part of the natural process, some married and settled. And over the generations they became US citizens, and raised families who were of course, citizens. These are the Mexicans we say “we have no problem with….”

    The problem with Prop 187 was that these Mexicans we had no problem with also had other family members… some were in CA legally, some were “illegal,” but because of the way the system worked, came and worked for 6 months, then returned home. The rhetoric of Prop 187 engendered a feeling of “them vs. us” because we were attacking them in a very personal way.

    The internet and other sources were ablaze with examples of “illegals” attending schools, crowding hospital emergency rooms, and filling jail cells. It was an attempt to make us believe that all our financial and social ills were the result of these intruders. The problem was that the majority of these stories were hoaxes, and that they pointed a finger at any hispanic surname… anyone with brown skin.

    Prop 187 passed; Wilson was re-elected; Prop 187 was unconstitutional and did not “save our state” at all. We alienated an entire segment of the population on purpose. And for no good reason.

    The Arizona law will be hailed by the vigilante/militia types, and ultimately declared unconstitutional. I can already hear the wails and bemoaning about “the courts” overturning the will of the people… similar to how the courts protect gays against the “will of the people.” We will go through this exercise primarily because Governor Jan Brewer is running for re-election and needs a boost in the polls… a boost she has received in the last few days. Wedge politics will win again. We will further the decline in our popularity with those “we don’t have a problem with” because to them, it is personal. Those “we don’t have a problem with” have families and friends… and they know illegals. They may agree with us philosophically… but they will rally to support “family” just as we do when someone attacks us simply for being gay. It gets personal quickly.

    Arizona law (and the laws of all states) allow the police to ask whatever questions to determine if a crime has been committed. Some cities have instructed their municipal police to not pursue this for their own reasons. Sheriff Joe of Mariposa County, AZ, has been doing what this law purports to give him permission to do; he’s been doing it for years.

    But Jan needed some votes just like Pete did, and now the good people of Arizona will experience the glare of misguided publicity, and in the process appear to racist and xenophobic. It is wrong of course… wrong and unnecessary. In the end, it will accomplish nothing except create rancor and an entire voting bloc further in the clutches of the Democrat Party.

    Within a few years hispanics will be the majority population in California and Arizona. They will stand with their friends and those who did not attack their “family.” We will stand on a principal built on sand… for nothing. We are losing the argument and missing the point.

    This all fits in with the left’s narration of all conservatives… tea party members… being an angry white mob. We give them the red meat right at a time when we should be discussing the economy, jobs, health care, Afganistan, finance reform, and the malfeasance of Reid and Pelosi.

    Have cliff, will run over.

    Cops can stand on every corner and demand identification (“Papers please, comrade!”) and it will not solve illegal immigration or border security in any way. Those who are in hiding will continue to hide! It is all so pointless.

    The “majority” who support this will organize with righteous indignity, win a primary only to lose the general election, and in the end we still won’t have any better control on illegal immigration than before. This will only move Obama to forward his version of “immigration reform” and consolidate the Latin vote. It also moves big government forward because this will certainly bring the federal “big foot” to bear on Arizona.

    One step forward (little picture), two steps backward (big picture).

  3. Ken:

    I was in CA when Prop. 187 was in the mix. I knew it was unconstitutional on its face. The CA Republican party has yet to recover all of those lost votes.

    “The problem with Prop 187 was that these Mexicans we had no problem with also had other family members… some were in CA legally, some were “illegal,” but because of the way the system worked, came and worked for 6 months, then returned home. ”

    Yep! Where I grew up, that is how it worked too. It was not a perfect system. It was a de facto guest worker program. But, it was far better than what we have now.

    My father had a patient named Mr. Santos. Every year Mr. Santos came to America for six months. He worked the crops harvest in the valley, sent his money home, and he ALWAYS paid my father in full for the medical services my father provided.

    Mr. Santos had no intention of living here. He had a house and family back in Mexico. America was an alien culture. Why bring his family to live here and experience that?

    Would U.S. citizens harvest those crops? Well they would if standing in the heat of the sun paid $30 to $40 an hour. But for the $8 to $12 hour wage the jobs paid, no way. That $8 to $12 hour wage was in 1980’s dollars. Mr. Santos did quite well.

    Oh the good old days. They were not perfect but they were far better than what we have now.

  4. John,

    We never encouraged the Mexican workers to assimilate, even though some of them did. We both were quite content to have them part-time, and it was a good arrangement for both parties.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracero_Program

    This is quite different from the immigrants from Ireland, Italy, or eastern Europe. However they got here, they were going to stay because of the distances involved. Now they get here from all over the world on student visas or work visas which they over-stay or create a “special class.”

    In all honesty, I don’t know how many of them end up committing crimes or receive benefits. When I was in Sacramento after the fall of the Soviet Union there was a massive influx of Ukranians and other former Soviet bloc citizens. The “Russian Gangs” as we called them were dangerous and violent. They took advantage of every angle they could.

    It’s unfortunate. I wish someone had a magic wand so we could only keep the good ones and get rid of the bad ones. Kind of like “catch and release.” But we can’t.

    I’m sure we agree there is a problem, and it begs for an answer. Laws like the one in AZ just isn’t the answer in my book. I’m not going for any boycotts because I don’t think there is any ill-intent. Neither will work, and both are misguided.

  5. “I wish someone had a magic wand so we could only keep the good ones and get rid of the bad ones. Kind of like “catch and release.” But we can’t.”

    I think we can get rid of the bad ones. I don’t think a green card cements you 100 percent in the U.S. If you commit a crime (usually a felony) then deportation can be part of the punishment. It would help if that was consistently applied to put a proper “scare” into people. Word spreads fast when everyone in the Ukrainian community learns Igor and Ivan were sent back for dealing drugs. That scares people. That sort of fear is a good thing.

  6. Ken…it’s Maricopa County, and I live here. I see what goes on both as a citizen and as a public safety worker. The State Legislature has churned out a few incredibly stupid bills lately (which I will blog about later), but this isn’t one of them.

    You apparently haven’t read the bill. I have. I had to read it a couple of times and set it against different laws at both state and federal level, but there is not one portion of this bill that gives law enforcement the power to “stand on every street corner and demand identification.” It specifically says immigration status can only be inquired about during LEGAL CONTACT. That means that they at least have to be pulled over for a traffic violation in order to be questioned about anything, much less their immigrant status.

    Personally, I think the bill should have required that officers ask ALL people they have legal contact with about their status in order to avoid this bitchfest, but that’s currently beside the point. I can’t really argue against anything in the bill because it does not provide a single loophole that so-called racist cops can exploit. Some of the language in the bill mirrors the Civil Rights Act word-for-word.

  7. A great site and definitely a source of inspiration, hope we conservatives can tear down the walls of intolerance and prejudices built by the left, keep on going guys!!

  8. “Personally, I think the bill should have required that officers ask ALL people they have legal contact with about their status in order to avoid this bitchfest,…”

    Here in CA you can’t get a drivers license or state I.D. card unless you are legal. So, when the police have legal contact with you, then you will get asked for I.D. and tip off your immigration status.

    If the same I.D. laws prevail in AZ, then everyone who has legal contact with the police will tip off the police.

    I’ve never had contact with the police without being asked to provide I.D.

  9. Republicans worry Arizona law could hurt party
    By KASIE HUNT | 5/3/10 | The Politico

    Republicans are bracing for a voter backlash after Arizona passed a controversial immigration law.

    Arizona’s immigration law has been an immediate hit with the Republican base, but some of the party’s top strategists and rising stars worry that the harsh crackdown may do long-term damage to the GOP in the eyes of America’s Hispanic population.

    From Marco Rubio to Jeb Bush to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Republicans who represent heavily Hispanic states have been vocal in their criticism of the Arizona law, saying it overreaches. Even Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, a conservative hero for his win last fall, has questioned the law.

    And the party’s long-term thinkers worry that the Arizona law is merely a quick political fix which may create a permanent rift with the fastest growing segment of the U.S. electorate.

    “It’s like a virus that you get and you don’t feel like you’re unhealthy for the first few days, but after that you have a fever and you’re really sick,” says Matthew Dowd, former President George W. Bush’s chief strategist in 2004. “You can’t win a national election and you can’t win certain states without the Latino vote. And Republicans already had a problem.”

    “I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill,” top Bush strategist Karl Rove said during a stop on his book tour. “I wished they hadn’t passed it, in a way.”

    “I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas,” Perry said earlier this week.

    Jeb Bush was also blunt: “I don’t think this is the proper approach.”

    The already burning issue will escalate this weekend with protests around the country, including one in Los Angeles where police are preparing for a crowd of 100,000.

    Yet polls show Arizona’s law is popular, even with independents, and it’s given Republican Gov. Jan Brewer a boost in the polls. In September she trailed her likely Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, by 3 points with white voters. Now she leads him by 8 points with whites. But Goddard has increased his lead with Hispanics from 20 points to 46.

    Arizona has far more white voters than it does Hispanic voters—for now – so the immigration law may not have an immediate impact on the election. But the long term demographic outlook for Republicans and the Hispanic vote is troubling for the GOP.

    Ninety percent of Hispanics under 18 in Arizona are U.S. citizens, and the explosive growth of the Hispanic population this decade has been driven by U.S. births. That’s a switch from the 1990s, when most of the Hispanic population’s increase was due to non-citizen immigration.

    “This law and potential copy cat laws have the ability to seal the fate of the Republican Party with Hispanics in the exact same way that the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act did with African Americans,” said Matt Barreto, a pollster for Latino Decisions and an associate political science professor at the University of Washington.

    In Florida, Senate candidate Rubio’s extremely calibrated response showed the fine line Republicans have to walk on this issue. Rubio is young, bilingual, Cuban-born and running to the right of Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist. And according to a new SurveyUSA poll, 82 percent of Florida Republicans who have heard about Arizona’s law agree with it—and 81 percent think Florida should pass a similar measure.

    So Rubio has his sound bite ready on amnesty—“I hope Congress…will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation,” he said.

    But he is terribly uncomfortable with the racial profiling he sees in the Arizona bill. “I do have concerns about this legislation,” Rubio said, pointing out that the law could “unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens.”

    Rubio’s logic recognizes Florida’s changing demographics—and acknowledges that Obama tilted the state in Democrats’ favor in 2008 largely because of the non-Cuban Hispanic vote.

    It’s a lesson California learned in the 1990s when state legislators passed and then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed Proposition 187, a law that required police officers to verify and report the immigration status of anyone who was arrested and denied a litany of basic services to anyone in the country illegally.

    While most Republicans dismiss claims that it hurt the party, chalking Democratic gains up to demographic changes, the issue is still radioactive in California. Democrats are calling on Republican Meg Whitman to dismiss Wilson, who is now chairing her campaign for governor.

    Whitman is also carefully parsing her words on the Arizona issue, saying she wouldn’t sign a similar bill.
    “I understand Arizona’s frustration with the federal government’s failure to solve the country’s illegal immigration problem. However, should such legislation be proposed in California, I would oppose it because I believe there are far more effective and suitable ways to fight illegal immigration.”

    Even Sal Russo, the longtime California Republican political operative who helps fund the Tea Party Express, acknowledges that the Arizona law creates problems for the party.

    “I think Republicans do a poor job of communicating to non-traditional republican voters,” Russo said. “We’ve done a poor job in reaching out beyond the Republican base, and I think that’s been part of the problem.

    California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina didn’t seem to take the Arizona law head-on when asked about it Friday in an interview with POLITICO.

    “The Democrats want to use immigration as a wedge issue for the Hispanic community – Barbara Boxer, in particular, has taken the Hispanic constituency for granted for many, many years. We are blessed in this nation by immigration, and we are blessed in particular with a vibrant Hispanic culture,” Fiorina said.

    Some Republicans in states with fast growing Hispanic populations aren’t being as calibrated. Colorado Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis has said he’d sign a version of Arizona’s law.

    But he and others also run the risk of misinterpreting the law’s popularity. The numbers, pollsters say, likely represent an overall frustration with Washington and support for Arizona’s willingness to do something, anything—not an anti-immigrant reaction.

    “In the face of a complete abdication by Washington, I think people feel like they have to do something,” Russo said.

  10. “Arizona has far more white voters than it does Hispanic voters—”

    This assumes every Hispanic is against this new law. That’s not true and never will be.

    I would guess immigrants who came here legally and went through the immigration process would feel righteously indignant towards those who cut in line.

    The Republican party because of its rigid platform has had a hard time winning favor in CA. Prop. 187 was no help. But it is not the reason the state GOP struggles.

    Finally, if you don’t vote there your opinion is worthless. Polling data should reflect peopel who do vote, not those who are likely to vote. What matters are the opinions of those who vote.

  11. What is “Non-citizen immigration?” Is that doublespeak for “illegal immigration?” I can not take a person seriously who cannot admit that it is ILLEGAL immigration that is a problem. I don’t care if it is Canadians illegally immigrating or Dutch. Drives me nuts (short drive).
    John you are right about the opinion of people who don’t vote. If I go to AZ to protest the bill it isn’t going to help any politicans since I live and vote in NH. I guess it’s more of a party to travel somewhere else to protest than to protest in your own backyard for issues that affect you personally. Plus no one local wants the protest in their backyard because it will just snarl traffic, crime, lawns being trampled;-)
    AndyB, NH.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s