Jeanfromfillmore
05-17-2010, 04:47 AM
Neal Boortz: Illegal immigrants see L.A. differently
The moronic protests over the new Arizona immigration law continue apace. Time to pick apart these protesters and the “activists” who egg them on. Neal Boortz, always at your service. This week the city of Los Angeles decided it was going to boycott Arizona. Well, that’s understandable, since a good many people in Los Angeles think that they’re living in Mexico anyway.
Take, for instance, the billboard erected by Los Angeles TV station Noticias 62. There’s the smiling anchor team with the slogan “Tu Ciudad. Tu Equipo.” (Your city. Your team.) The words across the top of the billboard read “Los Angeles, CA. The “CA” is “X”ed out. In its place we see the word “Mexico.”
There you go: “Your city. Your team. Los Angeles, Mexico.” Are you getting the message? If not, maybe a Los Angeles government-school teacher by the name of Ron Gochez might help you along. This past week he was addressing a rally protesting the Arizona law. This teacher — paid by taxpayers — told the rally that California was “occupied territory.” That would be occupied Mexican territory, in case you don’t understand. Mexican territory occupied by a group he referred to as “frail, racist white people.” Yup ... he still has his job. You’re still paying him.
Why bring up Gochez and the Noticias 62 billboard? You need to understand that many of the illegal aliens swarming into the southwestern United States have a completely different view of this situation than you might. To you they’re illegal immigrants. To them? Well, they may well think that this is their territory anyway and they don’t need anyone’s permission to be here. Truth be told, the way California is going we might be more than willing to cede that mess to Mexico in the near future anyway — but only if Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn and Danny Glover go with it and become Mexican citizens.
Before we move on, let’s address the two pertinent questions about the Arizona immigration law. I’ve been asking for someone to answer one or both of these questions for two weeks now. Thus far nobody has stepped forward. Are you ready to tackle them? OK, here you go:
1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official — a sheriff, sheriff’s deputy, police officer — any Arizona law enforcement official do that a federal immigration officer cannot already do under existing federal law?
2. What identification or paperwork requirement does the new Arizona law place on any noncitizen living or traveling in Arizona that current federal law does not already place on a noncitizen living or traveling anywhere in the United States?
Now if there is no meaningful difference between the two, what in the wide, wide world of liberal activism are we so agitated about here? Well ... I’ll tell you what. There actually is a big difference between the federal law and the Arizona law. That difference is this: The federal government has no intention whatsoever of enforcing its immigration laws. Arizona does.
There’s the rub. Illegal immigrants and their advocates know they really don’t have all that much to worry about from the federal government, especially when the party in power is pandering for Hispanic votes. Those determined law enforcement officers in Arizona are another matter.
Now ... before you turn the page, a word about the evil of profiling. That’s the objection to the Arizona immigration law — profiling, right? Now this hypothetical isn’t original with me; I read it in a column and I regret that I cannot remember who wrote it. Here you go: What if two fat Asian women rob a bank wearing traditional Japanese clothing? How should police broadcast the alert to the cops on the street — how would they do that WITHOUT profiling? Answer? “Be on the lookout for two people who just robbed a bank.” Yeah ... that works.
Listen to Neal Boortz live from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. weekdays on AM750 WSB Radio.
The moronic protests over the new Arizona immigration law continue apace. Time to pick apart these protesters and the “activists” who egg them on. Neal Boortz, always at your service. This week the city of Los Angeles decided it was going to boycott Arizona. Well, that’s understandable, since a good many people in Los Angeles think that they’re living in Mexico anyway.
Take, for instance, the billboard erected by Los Angeles TV station Noticias 62. There’s the smiling anchor team with the slogan “Tu Ciudad. Tu Equipo.” (Your city. Your team.) The words across the top of the billboard read “Los Angeles, CA. The “CA” is “X”ed out. In its place we see the word “Mexico.”
There you go: “Your city. Your team. Los Angeles, Mexico.” Are you getting the message? If not, maybe a Los Angeles government-school teacher by the name of Ron Gochez might help you along. This past week he was addressing a rally protesting the Arizona law. This teacher — paid by taxpayers — told the rally that California was “occupied territory.” That would be occupied Mexican territory, in case you don’t understand. Mexican territory occupied by a group he referred to as “frail, racist white people.” Yup ... he still has his job. You’re still paying him.
Why bring up Gochez and the Noticias 62 billboard? You need to understand that many of the illegal aliens swarming into the southwestern United States have a completely different view of this situation than you might. To you they’re illegal immigrants. To them? Well, they may well think that this is their territory anyway and they don’t need anyone’s permission to be here. Truth be told, the way California is going we might be more than willing to cede that mess to Mexico in the near future anyway — but only if Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn and Danny Glover go with it and become Mexican citizens.
Before we move on, let’s address the two pertinent questions about the Arizona immigration law. I’ve been asking for someone to answer one or both of these questions for two weeks now. Thus far nobody has stepped forward. Are you ready to tackle them? OK, here you go:
1. What can any Arizona law enforcement official — a sheriff, sheriff’s deputy, police officer — any Arizona law enforcement official do that a federal immigration officer cannot already do under existing federal law?
2. What identification or paperwork requirement does the new Arizona law place on any noncitizen living or traveling in Arizona that current federal law does not already place on a noncitizen living or traveling anywhere in the United States?
Now if there is no meaningful difference between the two, what in the wide, wide world of liberal activism are we so agitated about here? Well ... I’ll tell you what. There actually is a big difference between the federal law and the Arizona law. That difference is this: The federal government has no intention whatsoever of enforcing its immigration laws. Arizona does.
There’s the rub. Illegal immigrants and their advocates know they really don’t have all that much to worry about from the federal government, especially when the party in power is pandering for Hispanic votes. Those determined law enforcement officers in Arizona are another matter.
Now ... before you turn the page, a word about the evil of profiling. That’s the objection to the Arizona immigration law — profiling, right? Now this hypothetical isn’t original with me; I read it in a column and I regret that I cannot remember who wrote it. Here you go: What if two fat Asian women rob a bank wearing traditional Japanese clothing? How should police broadcast the alert to the cops on the street — how would they do that WITHOUT profiling? Answer? “Be on the lookout for two people who just robbed a bank.” Yeah ... that works.
Listen to Neal Boortz live from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. weekdays on AM750 WSB Radio.