The New immigration bill which is by far the toughest in the nation has created controversy. Many of its critics say that the bill amounts to racial profiling and even compared it to Nazi Germany. There are Constitutional concerns that the bill violates the 4th Amendment's right against unlawful search and seizures, because it gives law enforcement the authority to detain those suspected of being in the country illegally.
While it is understandable that the left and civil libertarians would oppose such a bill some of the staunchest criticism of the bill is coming from the same neocons who supported the Patriot Act and other measures to crack down on civil liberties. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard and Fox News pundit called the bill "draconian" and says "it goes way too far." George Bush's former political strategist Karl Rove denounced the bill saying "I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill...."I wished they hadn't passed it, in a way."
While he makes legitimate points about the bill he has no credibility considering the fact that George Bush violated the constitution on many occasions such as the Patriot which also violates the 4th Amendment, enacted an unconstitutional war, and even said that "The Constitution is just a G_D piece of paper."
Besides prominent Neocons many hawkish Pro Israel organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee, and Simon Wiesenthal Center have also condemned the Bill. The ADL stated it "seduces the people of Arizona with the false promise of improving safety and security in our state, but fails to do either," said Bill Straus, Arizona Regional Director. "In actuality, this bill drives a wedge between local law enforcement and the communities they are sworn to serve and protect. Members of our state's significant Latino and immigrant populations - citizens and non-citizens alike - will hesitate to come forward to report crimes or serve as witnesses. Instead, they will reside in the shadows and law enforcement will lose some of its best partners in the fight to keep our communities safe."
Assaf Oron points out in an article on the blog Mondoweiss titled "Israel has been ‘Arizona' all along" that "In Israel, laws like the Arizona one - and worse - have been in effect ever since independence. No, I'm not talking about the Occupation, but inside Israel proper. Any resident sixteen years of age or older must at all times carry an Identity card, and present it upon demand to a senior police officer, head of Municipal or Regional Authority, or a policeman or member of the Armed forces on duty. And guess against which ethnic group this requirement is enforced."
I guess if its good enough for Israel why not Arizona? But much like Karl Rove and Fred Barnes the ADL endorsed the Patriot Act, lobbied for thought crime laws, and was discovered to have a role in the Missouri State Police's targeting of those in the Patriot Movement. It is clear that these individuals and organizations do not care about individual liberties, so what is there incentive for opposing the bill.
In his article titled "MidEast Policy-Immigration Policy: Is The Other Boot About To Drop?" CSULB Prof. Kevin MacDonald points out that "the two issues of Israel and immigration relaxation (in the U.S.) have in common a deep and straightforward Jewish commitment to particular policies. My contention is that both policies have been construed by Jewish leaders as being helpful to the security and political influence of their community."
MacDonald adds "in the case of Israel, this is self-evident. In the case of immigration policy, there ample documentation of a consistent interest by the Jewish community, both in America and in Europe, in ending the hegemony of the host community amongst whom they live. The measures taken to enforce their chosen objectives suggest there is indeed an element of truth in what Foxman dismisses as "the old canard and conspiracy theory of Jewish control of the media, Congress, and the U.S. government".
Besides ethnic motivation among these special interest groups there are other motivations such as corporate and financial interest backers who rely on the cheap labor. However it not just proves their phoniness in concern for civil liberties about the bill but shows their insincerity in fighting the war on terror.
Former Constitution Party candidate for president Chuck Baldwin in an article titled "Open Border Prove War On Terror is Superficial" stated that "that for some seven years since the 9/11 attacks, our nation's borders and ports are as open and porous as ever. These open borders make the argument that "we are fighting them over there, so we won't have to fight them over here" look absolutely disingenuous--even laughable."
Baldwin adds "If the Bush administration was serious about fighting a war on terror, it would absolutely, resolutely, and immediately seal our borders and ports. It is nothing short of lunacy to send our National Guard forces to Iraq for the purpose of protecting that country's borders, while leaving America's borders wide open!"
There is legitimate concern about the bill leading to the arrest of American citizens but we are already in a police state with random searches and warentless wiretaps. The Same individuals who are the biggest supporters of the police state are now outraged that it is targeting illegal immigrants. This is because they are globalist who have a vested interest in keeping our borders open.