Stewart comes to Colbert's defense and shows the "serious" side of Congress that Colbert degraded

Stephen Colbert testifies before Congress on immigration

Huff Post

Comedy Central host Stephen Colbert testified before Congress today about immigration during a hearing called "Protecting America's Harvest."

Colbert appeared with United Farm Workers (UFW) President Arturo S. Rodriguez before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law. In August, the comedian spent a day working at a corn and vegetable farm in New York state after Rodriguez appeared on his show to discuss UFW's "Take Our Jobs" campaign.

The effort is intended to debunk the theory that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens and highlight the fact the nation's food supply is dependent on these farm workers.

Watch Colbert's opening testimony today:

Watch his testimony:


In the most powerful part of the segment Colbert was asked why, of all the issues he could talk about, or bring attention to, he decided to get involved in this issue. Colbert, for the first time today, drops out of character.

"I like talking about people who don't have any power...I feel the need to speak for those who can't speak for themselves....We ask them to come and work, and then we ask them to leave again. They suffer, and have no rights."

He also quotes Matthew 25:40: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"



Of course, this last segment likely won't get much air time as the media rushes to demonize his testimony with headlines like Stupid Stunt and Jokester Colbert.

Wow! Fox lets this guy on? Napolitano SLAMS AZ immigration law on Constitutional grounds

AZ Gov. Jan Brewer: clueless, stupid or racist?

MSNBC

Gov. Jan Brewer said Friday that most illegal immigrants entering Arizona are being used to transport drugs across the border, an assertion that critics slammed as exaggerated and racist.

"I believe today, under the circumstances that we're facing, that the majority of the illegal trespassers that are coming into the state of Arizona are under the direction and control of organized drug cartels and they are bringing drugs in," Brewer said.

T.J. Bonner, president of the union that represents border agents, said some illegal border-crossers carry drugs but most don't. People with drugs face much stiffer penalties for entering the U.S. illegally, and very few immigrants looking for work want to risk the consequences, Bonner said.

"The majority of people continue to come across in search of work, not to smuggle drugs," he said. "Most of the drug smuggling is done by people who intend to do that. That's their livelihood."

I'd like to know what sources Brewer has, considering that Border Patrol doesn't have figures on it.

Besides the obvious problems, it's frightening that the governor, in charge of law and order in her state, has little clue about the real issues surrounding illegal immigration.

"Lawful contact" and the Arizona law

Cesca

Byron York and other Republicans have been insisting that the "lawful contact" language in the Arizona law only permits authorities to ask for "papers" if the suspect is stopped for a different offense -- pulled over for speeding, etc.

I went around and around with a commenter the other day on the Huffington Post about this language, and I argued that "lawful contact" could mean just about anything, from saying "hello" on a street corner to a police officer responding to a bicycle crash. Turns out, I was on the right track. Media Matters asked the Republican House majority's Homeland Security research analyst, Rene Guillen, about the "lawful contact" language and this is how she explained it:

...lawful contact is essentially any interaction a police officer may have with an individual through the normal legal, lawful course of the performance of their duties. So it wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer where through the course of that contact they are able to build reasonable suspicion and therefore inquire.

So the initial contact could be anything. From there, it's all up to the totally subjective view of the police officer as to whether the person is an illegal immigrant. And for the record, illegal immigrants don't wear special hats or t-shirts indicating their illegal status.

Media Matters also compiled an array of other views of the "lawful contact" language.

Where is the Tea Party when you need them?

Where is the Tea Party on immigration? Where is the Tea Party on bank regulation?

The group that prides itself on stopping government overreach, and the party that claims to be about restoring balance in favor of average citizens is nowhere to be seen on these two issues.

Why aren't they out there? Aren't these two issues right in their wheelhouse? If they want to prove that they're an independent group - as opposed to the militant wing of the Republican party - then they need to get in front of this. Republicans voted as a bloc to stop debate on reforming the bak practices that led to the collapse of 2008. And Arizona's Republican governor signed legislation that requires American citizens to show their papers when stopped by police.

If this isn't an example of exactly what the Tea Party purports to be against, then I don't know what is.

Eugene Robinson/Washington Post
Where was the Tea Party crowd? Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish?

Even Joe Scarborough is against the Arizona law.

"...It does offend me when one out of every three citizens in the state of Arizona are Hispanics, and you have now put a target on the back of one out of three citizens, who, if they're walking their dog around a neighborhood, if they're walking their child to school, and they're an American citizen, or a legal, legal immigrant -- to now put a target on their back, and make them think that every time they walk out of their door they may have to prove something. I will tell you, that is un-American. It is unacceptable and it is un-American.

- Joe Scarborough via Benen

Of course, maybe the Tea Party are hypocritical racists.

The AZ immigration law in action: why it's a horrible, un-American law

The problem with the Arizona law is that it sets up probable cause as being based solely on skin color. What other means would an officer have for determining that someone has committed the crime of illegal immigration? What other probable cause is there for detaining someone? It's solely skin color and an assumption that there is "an American look" as opposed to an "illegal immigrant look". Do any of my caucasian friends think they'll be stopping us and asking for proof of residency? What does a real American look like?

Skin color ALONE is not probable cause.

I've had several debates with people who are frustrated by the problem of illegals, and I'm entirely sympathetic. If we as a society are going to make promises to our citizens of universal health care, schooling and such (as i believe we should), then it cannot be a global offer.

I think we're overdue on real immigration reform. My objection to the AZ law is that its a knee-jerk, half-assed attempt that hurts the Constitution. That document is too important to be trifled with.

The problem reaches farther than immigration. What if a future President decides to single out white guys with short hair because they look like terrorist Tim McVeigh? Or they single out gun owners? Or teenagers that wear a lot of black? In America, there has to be real proof that a crime has been committed in order for law enforcement to intervene in your life. They can't do it based on how you look.

Now, this law ought to be DOA in the courts anyway. The Constitution explicitly states that immigration is a federal power, not a state one. A state has no power to enforce immigration law. So on that, and that alone, the law is unconstitutional.

Fresh off the heels of the new law, a US citizen stopping to get his truck checked at a weigh station in AZ was arrested when he wasn't able to produce a birth certificate. He had a valid driver's license and Social Security card, but because he didn't carry a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, he was hauled off in cuffs.

AZ Family

A Valley man says he was pulled over Wednesday morning and questioned when he arrived at a weigh station for his commercial vehicle along Val Vista and the 202 freeway.

Abdon, who did not want to use his last name, says he provided several key pieces of information but what he provided apparently was not what was needed.

He tells 3TV, “I don't think it's correct, if I have to take my birth certificate with me all the time.”

3TV caught up with Abdon after he was released from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in central Phoenix. He and his wife, Jackie, are still upset about what happened to him.

Jackie tells 3TV, “It's still something awful to be targeted. I can't even imagine what he felt, people watching like he was some type of criminal.”

Abdon was told he did not have enough paperwork on him when he pulled into a weigh station to have his commercial truck checked. He provided his commercial driver’s license and a social security number but ended up handcuffed.

Both were born in the United States and say they are now both infuriated that keeping important documents safely at home is no longer an option.

This is not OK. You shouldn't be arrested for not carrying a birth certificate. Do any of my white friends on here carry theirs?