Immigration bills rile farmers

From Cameron McWhirter and Jennifer Levitz of The Wall Street Journal on March 25:

ROBERTA, Ga.—Arizona-style immigration bills are under attack in several states, with some of the strongest opposition to the proposals coming from agricultural interests like the cotton and peach farmers here in central Georgia.

Farmers in states from Florida to Indiana are pressuring — and in some cases persuading — state politicians to rethink proposed legislation that would authorize crackdowns on illegal immigration. They argue that the legislation will drive Mexican workers out of their states, and that there aren't enough American workers willing to pick crops. They want legislation at the federal level, which wouldn't favor one state over another.

At least 25 states are weighing proposals to crack down on illegal immigration and employers who hire them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Arizona law allows police to check the immigration status of people they stop, and establishes stiff penalties for businesses or individuals who hire illegal immigrants.

"Nobody wants illegal immigrants, but when you get down to the reality of the situation, farmers have to have workers to do the job," said Al Pearson, a peach and pecan farmer in Roberta. He said he hires only federally approved guest laborers to work his 3,600-acre farm, paying them $9.11 an hour plus benefits.

But the current federal system, involving approvals from multiple agencies, is slow and can't process enough legal workers for the state's large agricultural industry, he said. A bureaucratic glitch held up approvals for 100 Mexican workers for two weeks in February, setting back his tree pruning and other preparations for peach-picking season. "It frightened me because I didn't have a plan B. I don't have domestic workers," he said.

"There is no farm in this county that could continue without Mexican labor," said Robert Ray, a Crawford County farmer who for years led the agriculture committee in the Georgia House.

Read more.

Exclusive: Over a million immigrants land U.S. jobs in 2008-10

From Ed Stoddard of Reuters on Jan. 20:

Over the past two years, as U.S. unemployment remained near double-digit levels and the economy shed jobs in the wake of the financial crisis, over a million foreign-born arrivals to America found work, many illegally.

Those are among the findings of a review of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census Bureau data conducted exclusively for Reuters by researchers at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston.

Often young and unskilled or semi-skilled, immigrants have taken jobs Americans could do in areas like construction, willing to work for less wages. Others land jobs that unemployed Americans turn up their noses at or lack the skills to do.

With a national unemployment rate of 9.4 percent, domestic job creation is at the top of President Barack Obama's agenda and such findings could add to calls to tighten up on illegal immigration. But much of it is Hispanic and the growing Latino vote is a key base for Obama's Democratic Party.

Many of the new arrivals, according to employers, brought with them skills required of the building trade and found work in sectors such as construction, where jobless rates are high.

"Employers have chosen to use new immigrants over native-born workers and have continued to displace large numbers of blue-collar workers and young adults without college degrees," said Andrew Sum, the director of the Center for Labor Market Studies.

"One of the advantages of hiring, particularly young, undocumented immigrants, is the fact that employers do not have to pay health benefits or basic payroll taxes," said Sum.

Read more.

Immigration bills fight for life in Florida

From Kenric Ward of Sunshine State News on Jan. 18:

Attacked by Hispanics and ridiculed by the mainstream media, Arizona-style immigration legislation appears to be dead on arrival in Tallahassee this year.

Meanwhile, a different approach that would give skittish Republicans political cover has emerged. The only question is: Will GOP leaders let it pass?

The Florida Citizens Employment Protection Act would mandate that all employers use the federal E-Verify program to screen prospective employees' legal status to work in this country. It also would suspend the business licenses of companies that refuse to sign an affidavit declaring they have no illegal aliens working for them.

Supporters say the Citizens Employment Protection Act avoids the legal and logistical pitfalls of racial profiling and turning local police into immigration agents. By targeting employers, the bill would effectively block illegals from the job market.

Gov. Rick Scott has already signed an executive order implementing E-Verify at all state agencies. Now, lawmakers are maneuvering to extend E-Verify to the private sector.

The E-Verify initiative is not new. Last year, the Florida House passed an E-Verify bill authored by then-Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Oviedo. HB 219 cleared the House 112-0, but was bottled up in the Senate, where committee Chairman Jeremy Ring refused to let it come up for a hearing.

Adams has moved on to Congress, but Ring, a Democrat from Margate, is back as committee chair this year, and supporters of E-Verify are bracing for battle.

"It's not a complicated issue. We cut off the jobs, and [illegal immigrants] won't come. And those who are here will leave," says Jack Oliver, head of Floridians for Immigration Enforcement (FLIMEN).

But in addition to Ring, immigration-control advocates face pushback from the Hispanic Caucus, including some Republicans, who say enforcement efforts jeopardize the GOP's electoral chances with Latinos.

Read more.

New paradox t-shirt

You can order one here.

Chief sponsor of immigration bill says measure isn't likely to pass Legislature

From Marc Caputo of The Miami Herald on Jan. 10:

TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Rick Scott's campaign pledge to bring an Arizona-style immigration law to Florida faces an uncertain future in the Legislature, with the bill's chief Senate sponsor expressing doubts about the controversial measure.

"There probably will not be an Arizona-immigration style bill that passes the Florida Senate,'' said Sen. Mike Bennett, a Bradenton Republican.

Bennett said he's deeply concerned with the part of the bill that's most identified with Arizona's law: The requirement that local police officers with "reasonable suspicion'' attempt to determine a person's immigration status during a routine traffic stop or arrest.

Echoing civil libertarians and Hispanic lawmakers, Bennett said the measure could lead to racial or ethnic profiling. Though the bill explicitly bans discrimination, he said it might not be enough.

"I might not even vote for it myself,'' said Bennett, adding that he copied much of the Arizona law "to start the conversation'' about immigration reform.

Bennett and most other lawmakers, however, say they support a requirement that the state, and perhaps all private employers, check the immigration status of any prospective employee by using the federal government's E-Verify system.

But E-Verify's not perfect.

Only federal contractors can use E-Verify to check existing employees, said Francine Hill, a Homeland Security Department expert who warned that the system shouldn't be used for pre-screening prospective employees. She said it doesn't clearly identify illegal immigrants, but instead spots ``mismatches'' in immigration and employment data.

Read more.

Illegal immigration flow may be reversing

From Lee Davidson of The Salt Lake Tribune on Dec. 29:

“Vickie” says she’s tired of living in fear: the fear of immigration officials, Utah politicians targeting people like her and the bad economy here.

So after 18 years in Utah, working without documents, she says her family will probably return to Mexico.

She bursts into tears as she says it, burying her face in her hands. “My 16-year-old daughter [a U.S. citizen] doesn’t want to go. She was born here, and this is all she knows. She has never been to Mexico. But how could I leave her here alone? She’s too young.”

Another older daughter, “Lizzie,” who has a visa to be here legally, says she may also need to return if her parents go. She is facing a divorce and has two young children. Her extended family provides a home, child care and emotional support, which would disappear. And if she stays without them, she says, “It would tear our family apart.”

Vickie and Lizzie (whom The Salt Lake Tribune agreed not to identify by their real names because they feared repercussions) are examples — and explanations — of a recent trend shown by some studies: More undocumented immigrants may now be going home than are coming to Utah. It is happening at the same time some of the state’s politicians are pushing tougher laws claiming that a record flood of illegal immigration has reached crisis proportions and must be stopped.

An annual study this year by the Pew Hispanic Center, using U.S. census data, estimated that the number of immigrants in Utah illegally dropped by 10,000 between 2008 and 2009 — from 120,000 overall to 110,000. But study authors caution those numbers are within statistical margins of error, so it is possible that no decrease occurred — but numbers suggest illegal immigration is at least slowing to a trickle.

Read more.

Action Alert: Give your input about immigration proposal

Rep. William Snyder, R-Fla., who represents District 82, will hold a town hall meeting to solicit input for his proposed immigration legislation. Three minutes will be allotted per speaker.

What: Public town hall meeting about immigration legislation.

When: Jan. 7, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Where: Cummings Library, 2551 S.W. Matheson Ave., Palm City.

For more information: Call (772) 221-4904 or e-mail kimberly.brown@myfloridahouse.gov by Jan. 5.

DREAM Act would cost taxpayers $6.2 billion per year, group says

From Stephen Clark of Fox News on Dec. 2:

A group advocating for tighter immigration laws estimates that a hotly debated bill that would give tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who attend college or join the military a path to legal status would cost taxpayers $6.2 billion a year and "crowd out" U.S. students in the classroom.

A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies says the so-called DREAM Act, which would give more than 2 million young immigrants brought to the United States before the age of 16 a chance to become legal residents, could erode the educational opportunities available to U.S. citizens.

The report, "Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act," comes as Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, seeks an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office of the legislation's cost before there's a vote. King, who issued a letter Wednesday afternoon to CBO, claims Senate Democrats are hiding an analysis that shows the legislation will cost upwards of $20 billion.

But Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano said Thursday the CBO scored the current version of the bill in the House as neutral.

"The cost argument really doesn't hold water anymore," she said during a conference call.

The CIS says its $6.2 billion estimate is conservative and does not include the "modest" number of illegal immigrants expected to attend private institutions. The report assumes that most illegal immigrants would attend state universities and community colleges schools where both funds and slots are limited.

Read more.

Action Alert: Tell LeMieux to vote against DREAM Act

Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., will begin debate this week on the DREAM Act as a standalone bill. Congressional Democrats knows the lame-duck session will be crucial to get an amnesty of any kind through Congress, because more pro-immigration enforcement Representatives take control in both Chambers for the 112th Congress.

For Floridians, our weakness link in this battle is Republican Sen. George LeMieux He has voted against the bill but has shown signs of recent support. We must politely tell him to continue to vote against it.

The decision by Reid and Pelosi to continue to push this unpopular bill shows a lack of leadership and complete disregard for unemployed Americans struggling to find jobs. Please don't delay. Send this critical message to LeMieux, urging him to stand against Pelosi and Reid's pro-amnesty agenda. Other Tea Party members have already paid for this fax, so there is no cost to you.

What: Send a fax to Sen. George LeMieux, R-Fla., urging him not to support the DREAM Act.

When: Now.

Where: Click here.

For more information: Click here.

States urge court to uphold Ariz. immigration law

From David A. Lieb of The Associated Press on Nov. 4:

A coalition of 13 states has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold an Arizona law penalizing businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court is to hear arguments next month on the 2007 Arizona law, which allows business licenses to be revoked or suspended when employers are found to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants. Similar laws are in place in several states.

Businesses and civil rights groups have challenged the Arizona law by contending it infringes on federal immigration powers — an argument rejected by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2008.

A coalition led by Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster released court documents Thursday arguing that states have long had the authority to license and regulate businesses. The states contend Congress specifically exempted state licensing laws in a 1986 federal law that prevents states from imposing civil or criminal penalties on businesses for illegal hirings.

"Those state laws complement, rather than replace, federal enforcement" of immigration laws, Koster wrote in the document filed Oct. 28 with the Supreme Court. "Indeed, absent this complementary approach between federal and state law, a significant deterrent to employing `unauthorized aliens' would be missing."

Read more.

Judge questions Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona immigration law

From Jerry Markon of The Washington Post on Nov. 1:

A federal appellate judge expressed deep skepticism Monday about a Justice Department lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law, leaving uncertain the Obama administration's chances of stopping the law from taking effect.

Judge John T. Noonan Jr. grilled administration lawyers at a hearing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. He took aim at the core of the Justice Department's argument: that the Arizona statute is "preempted" by federal law and is especially troublesome because it requires mandatory immigration status checks in certain circumstances.

"I've read your brief, I've read the District Court opinion, I've heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don't understand your argument," Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. "We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. ... You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That's not a matter of preemption. ... I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don't have an argument."

"With respect, I do believe we have an argument," said Kneedler, who asserts that the Arizona law is unconstitutional and threatens civil liberties by subjecting lawful immigrants to "interrogation and police surveillance.''

The exchange came at a hearing on efforts by the Justice Department to overturn the Arizona law, which empowers police to question people they suspect are in the country illegally and has triggered a fierce national debate. A federal judge in Phoenix issued a July injunction blocking the law's most contested provisions from taking effect. Arizona appealed, leading to the Monday hearing.

With Noonan, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, so bluntly stating his views, legal experts said the government's chances of having the injunction upheld may rest with the other two judges on Monday's panel: Carlos T. Bea and Richard A. Paez.

Read more.

Whitman scandal: 'Smoking gun' or dirty politics?

I love Greta van Susteren -- one smart cookie. Here she goes telling off attorney Gloria Allred, pointing out that Allred got her client, Nicky Diaz Santillan -- the apparently illegal immigrant who worked as a housekeeper for Republican Meg Whitman, candidate for California governor -- deported because she admitted she is here illegally.

"Gloria, this is delusional!"

This raises an interesting question: What rights do illegal immigrants have as far as lawsuits and reparations?

Oikophobia: why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting

From James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal on Aug. 27:

If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.

What accounts for this madness? Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:

Promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

-- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

-- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

-- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

-- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Krauthammer portrays this as a cynical game: "Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. . . . What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument."

But this has its limits as a political strategy. Krauthammer writes that "the Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November," and no one will credit him for boldness in that prediction. Some may disagree with his reckoning as to the reason for that likely loss: that "a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them."

But can anyone argue that a show of contempt is a winning political strategy? The question answers itself and implies that the contempt is genuine.

Read more.

Minnesota on its way to becoming America's first Somali-Muslim state

"There is such a thing as carrying politeness too far. "

Florida AG proposes tougher illegal immigrant curbs

From Barbara Liston of Reuters on Aug. 11:

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum on Wednesday proposed tougher curbs against illegal migrants in his melting-pot state which he said would go "one step further" than a similar contested Arizona law.

The proposal by McCollum, who is lagging in a race to become the Republican candidate for governor, was certain to thrust Florida into the heated immigration debate that is a major issue ahead of November 2 midterm Congressional elections.

"This legislation will provide new enforcement tools for protecting our citizens and will help our state fight the ongoing problem created by illegal immigration," McCollum said, presenting the proposed measures at an event in Orlando.

"Florida will not be a sanctuary state for illegal aliens," added McCollum, accompanied by Representative Will Snyder.

The legislation will require Florida law enforcement officials to check a suspected illegal immigrant's status in the course of a stop, or a violation of another law. This goes beyond the existing situation in the state where officers are allowed to check immigration status, but not required to.

Florida, especially its southern portion, is a major U.S. migration destination for nationals from the Caribbean and Latin America, making it a cultural and racial melting-pot.

Many migrants work in the Sunshine State's $9 billion citrus sector, or in other farm industries and tourism.

In the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, Democrats hold majorities. But public opinion polls show Republicans gaining ground with an agenda that includes calls for cracking down on illegal immigration.

McCollum's office said the proposed Florida legislation goes "one step further" than a similar law introduced in Arizona, which has triggered protests and a constitutional challenge from President Barack Obama's administration.

"I think Arizona is going to want this law," McCollum said.

Earlier this year, the Arizona legislature passed a law to try to drive illegal immigrants out of the state and stem the flow of human and drug smugglers over the border from Mexico.

A federal judge has since blocked the Arizona law's most controversial provisions, handing a victory to the Obama administration, which argued the measure was unconstitutional.

Read more.

Justice Brennan's footnote gave us anchor babies

From Ann Coulter on Human Events on Aug. 4:

Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.

In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.

The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.

The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)

Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.

But they did.

Read more.

No lame duck

From Newt Gingrich on Human Events on Aug. 4:

In the election of 1800, the country thoroughly repudiated the Federalist Party. President John Adams was defeated in his reelection campaign by Thomas Jefferson and the Democrat-Republicans gained majorities in the House and Senate.

The Federalists had clearly lost the support of the people. Yet, in a “lame duck” congressional session, which is when the outgoing Congress returns to Washington before the newly elected Congress takes over in, the Federalists enacted the Judiciary Act of 1801. The Act nearly doubled the number of federal judgeships, which President Adams filled with his Federalist allies. These appointments were an explicit, and ultimately futile, action to hamstring the newly elected President and Congress (the Jeffersonians simply repealed the Act with the Judiciary Act of 1802).

With this action, the Federalists made the ultimate mistake in a governmental system that derives its authority from the consent of the governed. Instead of heeding the will of the people, John Adams and the Federalists decided to thwart it. In the process, they set their party on a course toward extinction. The Federalists never regained power, eventually disappearing by the 1820s.

Are the Democrats about to make the same mistake the Federalists made?

Democratic leaders today have been sending clear signals that they are willing to use the lame duck session of Congress to pass the most unpopular and destructive parts of their agenda. Like the Federalists’ actions in 1801, any attempt by the outgoing Congress to pass legislation they were unwilling to defend in an election would be an attempt to thwart the will of the people.

As destructive as the Democratic Congress and President Obama have been in the past 18 months, it is worth remembering that things could have been a lot worse if not for the vocal and consistent activism of the American people opposing the Democrats’ radical agenda.

The Orwellian named Employee Free Choice Act, which would strip workers of the right to a secret ballot when deciding when to join a union, is not yet law.

The job killing energy tax – or cap and trade – passed the House but remains hung up in the Senate.

The Democrats have also not been able to pass an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants.

And let’s not forget that President Obama’s ‘Deficit Commission’ is expected to recommend tax increases, possibly in the form of a value added tax (VAT), that could raise the cost of everything Americans buy. Conveniently, the Commission will not report its findings until after the November 2nd elections, just in time for a lame duck Congressional session.

Read more.

Florida attorney general candidates match wits in TV debate

From Steve Bousquet of The St. Petersburg Times on Aug. 1:

TALLAHASSEE — In their first joint TV appearance Saturday, all three Republican candidates for attorney general matched wits and contrasted their qualifications to be the state's next chief legal officer.

The three GOP hopefuls hit their strong points, but former Hillsborough prosecutor Pam Bondi seemed more confident than Holly Benson or Jeff Kottkamp. With her terse answers, Bondi excelled in a sound bite-driven format in which candidates were limited to answers of one minute or less.

Bondi also deftly used the chance to question her opponents, calling both "key members of the Crist-Kottkamp administration."

Benson served as a two-time agency head appointee under Gov. Charlie Crist, but when she described her experience, she said: "I worked with Gov. Jeb Bush."

Kottkamp is the lieutenant governor under Crist, an unpopular figure in Republican circles after he bolted from the party three months ago and drifted leftward to appeal to independents and Democrats as a U.S. Senate candidate.

Kottkamp said he and Crist have not spoken since April 29, the day Crist became an independent Senate candidate.

"I've never been a politician," Bondi said, seeking to tap the same anti-incumbent sentiment that Rick Scott has exploited in the governor's race. "I've not spent my career behind a desk in Tallahassee, but on the front lines."

All three candidates said they opposed Crist's proposed referendum to permanently ban oil drilling in Florida's Constitution.

All three also repeatedly used the word "Obamacare" in promising to carry on with Attorney General Bill McCollum's lawsuit seeking to block the new federal health care mandates.

"Draw a line in the sand and say, 'Enough is enough,' " Kottkamp said.

One of the rare areas of disagreement concerned immigration. Benson, a former state House member from Pensacola, emphasized her support for less regulation of business and said she supports deportation of all undocumented immigrants in Florida.

"The illegal ones need to be shipped back," Benson said.

Read more.

Senate Republican Whip backs anchor baby hearing

From Connie Hair of Human Events on Aug. 2:

On CBS’ "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) backed the notion of a hearing to examine the constitutionality of granting citizenship to children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.

Kyl was asked by the host if he backed the "movement afoot" to "rescind the law that makes anyone born in the United States a U.S. citizen specifically aimed at the children of illegal immigrants."

"There is a constitutional provision in the Fourteenth Amendment that has been interpreted to provide that, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen no matter what," Kyl said. "Now, there are limitations on that, for example, for the children of diplomats and so on. And so the question is, if both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behavior?"

Crafted in 1866 and ratified July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was aimed at settling citizenship issues of slaves born on U.S. soil that had been recently freed by the Civil War.

Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Aliens in the United States legally or illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of their own country.

Read more.

Arizona governor responds to coach's criticism of immigration law

The following statement was e-mailed to me. I tried to find a well-known news source to confirm the statement, but the only media reporting about this seem to be conservative bloggers ...

So here's one more.

The owner of the Phoenix Suns, Robert Sarver, opposes Arizona's new immigration laws.

Gov. Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., released the following statement in response to Sarver's criticism of the new law:

"What if the owners of the Suns discovered that hordes of people were sneaking into games without paying?

"What if they had a good idea who the gate-crashers are, but the ushers and security personnel were not allowed to ask these folks to produce their ticket stubs, thus non-paying attendees couldn't be ejected?

"Furthermore, what if Suns' ownership was expected to provide those who sneaked in with complimentary eats and drink?

"And what if, on those days when a gate-crasher became ill or injured, the Suns had to provide free medical care and shelter?"