Guilty until proven Innocent (Arizona)

Last week, the state of Arizona passed the most... for lack of a better word... Fascistic... anti illegal immigration law in the history of the United States, allowing police officers to ask for "proof of citizenship" of anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. And if that person can not produce such identification (ie: a birth certificate) right there and then, they can be hauled off to jail.

Think about all the American principles this violates. First, the standard for searching a person is "probable cause" not "suspicion". You can't just require a person to "produce evidence" based upon "the shoes they wear". And more dramatically, arresting someone because they can't produce their "papers, please", deems EVERY person "guilty until PROVEN innocent" by producing proof of citizenship.

Incredibly, during the Fox "news" Sunday roundtable discussion last Sunday, Bret Hume said TWO amazing things. First, he called the Arizona law "draconian and likely unconstitutional", and then in his next breath, called it "reasonable" for Arizona to have passed it because of the size of the problem they are having. You get that folks... under the right circumstances, "draconian and unconstitutional" is completely acceptable to Right-wingers.

During that same roundtable, co-lead-wingnut Bill Kristol... after calling himself "a Liberal when it comes to Civil Rights" (OMG)... defends the Arizona law, saying, "I don't think it will violate anyone's civil rights". First, Bill, if you were really a "liberal when it comes to civil rights", you'd know the standard isn't whether you THINK a law MAY violate someones rights, the standard is whether it CAN. Only Conservatives are quick to sell out their principles and everything they claim to stand for when it becomes convenient to do so (eg: "deficits don't matter" and "no nation building".)

<...>