See All Topics

Home / Section: Legal

Seth MacFarlane: Arizona law is like Nazi Germany

Caught by Comics Riff:

MacFarlane, speaking in a Reuters Television interview, said the Arizona law was more shocking than his own irreverent, hot-button shows. His animated comedies “Family Guy,” “American Dad” and “The Cleveland Show” all air on Fox.

“It’s too much. It’s kind of a slap in the face, it’s not the way to handle it. …” the animator said to Reuters. “Nobody but the Nazis ever asked anybody for their papers.”

Community Comments

#1 Tony Piro
May/3/2010
@ 10:42 am

The worst part is that Dora the Explorer got arrested for
crossing Arizona. What is this world coming to!

http://www.freakingnews.com/pictures/65500/DORA-THE-EXPLORER–65944.jpg

#2 Larry Cathey
May/3/2010
@ 11:31 am

Truly disappointed that so many are spouting off such inflamatory rhetoric without knowing all the facts, possibly listening to the left spin of what the Arizona law states.

a)The new state law is only a reinforcement of the existing Federal law that has been in place for 58 years, and was upheald by the 9th District court of Appeals (all alien citizens over the age of 17 must keep on their person identification proving citizenship or intended citizenship [in process])

No officer of the law can stop and detain a person based on suspected citizenship due to skin color or otherwise. The officer must have first made a lawful contact or detainment (ie: stoped for other crimes, before the issue of citizenship, legal or otherwise, can be approached.

#3 Pat Bagley
May/3/2010
@ 11:31 am

A moratorium on anybody ever comparing anything to Nazism or Hitler.

#4 shane davis
May/3/2010
@ 12:42 pm

November elections are looming and it looks bleak for the Dems, the media misreporting facts to try to save a few seats for their fellow travelers in D.C. should surprise no one.

#5 Garey Mckee
May/3/2010
@ 5:03 pm

Let’s all go back in time ten years ago to when Seth Macfarlane’s shows were funny,

#6 John Lotshaw
May/3/2010
@ 6:34 pm

Ten years? Are you sure? I don’t ever remember his shows being funny.

#7 Paul Fell
May/3/2010
@ 7:51 pm

November elections are looming and it looks bleak for the Dems, the media misreporting facts to try to save a few seats for their fellow travelers in D.C. should surprise no one.

Ah, Shane…

I think we could be surprised by the voter reaction to the GOP’s strategy of doing NOTHING and resisting EVERYTHING, no matter how rational.

I really don’t think the electorate is as dumb as the GOP believes them to be, but time will tell, for sure. Guess we’ll all have to stay tuned.

I think it was P.T. Barnum who famously said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people”. However, just when you think they are at their dumbest, they WILL come to their senses and exhibit some degree of common sense. Sometimes.

#8 Ted Rall
May/3/2010
@ 8:04 pm

@Larry: “No officer of the law can stop and detain a person based on suspected citizenship due to skin color or otherwise. The officer must have first made a lawful contact or detainment (ie: stoped for other crimes, before the issue of citizenship, legal or otherwise, can be approached.”

Actually, this is not true.

“Contact” under the meaning of Arizona law means that the cop sees you.

#9 Les Taylor
May/3/2010
@ 8:59 pm

I don’t know much about the Arizona law, but I know for sure that I don’t care what Seth MacFarlane has to say about it.

#10 Jim Lavery
May/3/2010
@ 9:05 pm

Pat Bagley: “A moratorium on anybody ever comparing anything to Nazism or Hitler.”

that sounds exactly like something HITLER would say!

#11 Shane Davis
May/3/2010
@ 9:37 pm

Paul,
You right about gullibility…look what America did in 2008.

Ted,
I’ll have to check that out about AZ law. I know in Texas, no officer can typically make contact with an eye to any kind of investigation or enforcement without probably cause (PC).

Some lawyers whine and call that a ‘pretext’ stop, but the Supreme Court has consistently ruled there is no such thing as ‘pretext’ – if an officer see something that his training and/or experience would lead him (or any other reasonable person with his training and/or experience) to believe a person has committed, is committing or is about to be commit a crime, he can approach said person and begin investigating by questioning.

I imagine AZ law isn’t too different from TX law, as the Federal Courts have been the ones over the years to craft the limits of what law enforcement can do.

As I read the AZ law, I as an officer could NOT stop or detain a person simply because they are brown or speak Spanish. That is racial profiling.

But if I stop a speeding car or a shop lifting suspect and they cannot speak English, have no State issued ID (we ask everyone for those), is in a car they don’t own or in a rental, cannot provide a solid address where they live and work as a day laborer, then any reasonable person would wonder if they are here legally.

Remember, a policeman’s job is to locate crime and he isn’t stupid. If all factors lead him (and any other reasonable person) to suspect that individual is here illegally, then being it is his job to look for criminal offenses, he is obligated to ask ‘Are you a citizen of the country or are you here illegally?’

This would be asked of any race, Mexican, Honduran, Cuban, Filipino, Thai, Vietnamese (a ton of those here in Texas) or even Russian.

Arizona is swamped by one particular nationality, true, but the only alternative to say “Ok, we have a law on the books that says you can’t be here illegally, but since we have so many Mexicans, let’s make them immune.’

Now, what does that do the equal protection provision in the Constitution? We either enforce the laws, or ignore them and let every person in the Western Hemisphere rush in pell mell.

Don’t blame Arizona, blame D.C.

And maybe Hitler.

#12 Carl Moore
May/3/2010
@ 10:52 pm

Let’s see… According to the mainstream media, those opposed to Obamacare were uncaring knuckle-dragging boobs; those opposed to global-warming were uncaring, knuckle-dragging boobs, and those in favor of Arizona’s attempt to deal with the federal government’s abdication of responsibility on border control, are also uncaring, knuckle-dragging boobs… oh, and racists to boot.

It is this kind of biased, inflammatory reporting that has so many people in fly-over country ticked off. Obama and the Dems are going to pay the price in November. Hopefully, it will mean a Republican takeover of the House, and, though a long shot, the Senate too.

#13 Dave Stephens
May/4/2010
@ 1:02 am

Nothing worse than either side taking over both houses, IMO.

The pendulum is swinging quickly the other way now, away from the Dems, away from cap and trade, away from the horror-show of Obama-care, and especially away from the pungent scent of Democrats splashing and feeding from the money-trough they so carefully crafted from one ill-thought bill after another – mark my words, it was arrogance that brought down the Republicans as they spent money like crazed bandicoots and now that the Democrats are doing the same darn thing, it’s only a matter of time…

#14 Mike Peterson
May/4/2010
@ 5:08 am

“It is this kind of biased, inflammatory reporting that has so many people in fly-over country ticked off.”

Thank god we have Fox News to tell the unbiased, nonflammatory truth for all the rubes in fly-over country so they won’t be fooled by those city slickers.

Fox News, the friends of the common people whose intelligence you can’t go broke by underestimating! Though the Mencken quote they seem to go by is not that one but this: “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.”

#15 Larry Cathey
May/4/2010
@ 10:53 am

@Mike – “Thank god we have Fox News to tell the unbiased, nonflammatory truth for all the rubes in fly-over country so they won?t be fooled by those city slickers.”

Welcome to Snarky McSnarkville. Are you the Mayor?

It’s this same attitude that reinforces the distrust of the “coasties” by the “fly-overs”. You insinuate that they can be fooled more easily and fearfully cling to FOX as their last resort. the thing is, look to the other mainstream outlets…how many of those make an effort to approach a story in an unbiased, much less conservative, viewpoint? That is why conservative flock to FOX and talk radio as they are the few that give the other sides to the stories.

#16 Larry Cathey
May/4/2010
@ 11:00 am

@Ted – The new Arizona law allows state officials to inquire into the immigration status of any person based upon “reasonable suspicion”:

-For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.-

If you can point out where the statute describes “lawful contact” = “seeing you” (on the street, in your car, “going to get ice cream”,etc.) then I would be glad to agree with you. However…if the intent is to infuse fear by insinuating something that isn’t there, then I gladly disagree.

#17 Ted Rall
May/4/2010
@ 3:02 pm

I’m not insinuating anything. It has been widely reported by legal analysts for mainstream news outlets that “lawful contact” includes a police officer happening to see you.

One of the many things I hate about the Internet is the expectation of people who are uninformed demanding links to prove what is known by all informed people. Do your homework. I do.

(By the way, I am for building a giant wall and keeping out all illegal immigrants, just because it would be fun to watch all the big corporations who depend upon cheap labor caused by illegal immigration scream like wounded banshees. Republicans *love* open borders because they’re good for business and Democrats love them because the new voters that result tend to vote Democratic.)

#18 Dave Stephens
May/4/2010
@ 7:01 pm

Yeah, well neither party “loves” to answer the simple question, “Ok, they are here, they are working illegally – Now what?”

#19 race card
May/4/2010
@ 8:15 pm

Seth MacFarlen is a Nazi!

Ha! there i win this argument automatically because i called you a ‘Nazi’ — I’m so funny I should write scripts for the Family Guy

#20 peter murphey
May/5/2010
@ 7:49 am

“One of the many things I hate about the Internet is the expectation of people who are uninformed demanding links to prove what is known by all informed people.”

H-m-m-m, I like your method of determining who the informed are. Just proclaim it, no need to make arguments or show empirical evidence.

#21 Shane Davis
May/5/2010
@ 8:09 am

Ted,
That is true, lawful contact can be defined as a policeman being where he is legally entitled to be (not only as a policeman but as a citizen) – let’s say he’s walking down the street and sees you and says “Whassup?” – that is legal contact.

However, just because he has legal contact does not mean he is legally entitled to began questioning whether you are a citizen or not. Just like any other pursuit of criminal inquiry, there must be at least preferably probably cause before the officer can go any further than ‘Whassup?’. Reasonable suspicion might let him ask a few questions like “How are you, new in town? Are you from here?” and stuff like that, but suspicion alone is not enough to detain, handcuff, run criminal records or search of proof of citizenship.

Courts require more and I promise you if a policeman stops a latino just because he’s latino and immediately starts in with ‘Are you an American?’ then whatever larger crimes he might find afterwards are going to get tossed because he screwed up the initial phase of the investigation. Nothing worse for a policeman than to see a true scumbag go free or a DWI manslaughter killer walk because the initial duties right were jacked up.

Try telling the mother of a dead teenager the drunk driver is doing no time because you failed to follow the right steps – trust me, good police folk WANT to do it right because they DON’T want to be in that position.

The Arizona law, as I understand it, does not allow an officer to pursue any questioning or investigation based soley upon suspicion of a person being illegal. All the law says is that if an officer has prbable cause to initiate investigating or questioning for a criminal offense that he can articulate may have happened or is happening or likely to happen. After that, during the course of that investigation he may then attempt to determine whether that person in a legal citizen or not. Illegality is not sufficient to provide probably cause alone to detain, arrest and interrogate.

I worked on a Fraud Unit for awhile and I ran into many, many illegals not because I was looking for them, but because in the course of investigating the fraudulent use of drivers license information, credit card account numbers, social security claims and the abuse of others credit info and so forth I ran into them. It just so happened that a vast majority of those cases I got were committed by illegals. During the course of the investigation it often became naturally obvious they were illegal because of the totality of the circumstances, for example:
12 people living in one rent house
5 or 6 brand new Ford, Chevy or Dodge extended cab pickups parked outside.
The house is in a very economically depressed area and looked like a shotgun shack (not a match for brand new vehicles)
Brand new stereo systems, big screen TV’s, video games systems or other high end goods inside.
Individuals inside having more than one license, some using the same name twice or more.
The people were family but had different last names on their ID cards
Few could speak and English at all

I could go on, but to a reasonable person and any policeman, it is clear these folk are likely illegal. Was I supposed to ignore that, just to not offend them?

The truth is, this Arizona law won’t change very much at all for experienced police officers. They already figure out pretty quick who is illegal and when an officer determines that they usually call ICE and have them detained and presumably deported. All this new law does really is let local officers skip the step in calling ICE and just detain the illegals themselves. Not much will change.

I suspect the real goal of the law is to create a chilling effect aimed at the illegal culture. If they’re spooked and don’t want to deal with the possiblity of getting arrested, losing a vehicle, having funds frozen, etc., then they’ll just go to another state.

Arizona probably doesn’t really believe local law enforcement is going to arrest a lot of illegals, but I’m sure they do think a lot of illegals are just going hoof it elsewhere to make their money.

It really isn’t that big of a deal, frankly. If what Arizona is doing is racist or fascist, then what the Border Patrol has been doing for 200+ years is as well.

#22 Ted Rall
May/5/2010
@ 9:19 am

A number of highly respected legal experts in Arizona do say that the new law essentially allows policemen to question people simply because they “look” like they might be illegal–even if they didn’t stop them for speeding or some other legitimate reason. Having read the relevant statutes, I think they’re right.

More to the point, though, this is just another example of blaming the victim while failing to address the real problem.

If I were a rancher on the border, I’d be annoyed, scared and angry about the stream of illegals crossing my property. But the solution isn’t to harass Latinos–most of whom are legal residents and US citizens. Even if you throw every Mexican-American into concentration camps, the border is still open. On purpose.

It is easy, and possible, to build border fortifications that cannot be penetrated by Mexican nationals. If I were anti-illegal immigration, I would focus on that solution rather than feel-good crap that reminds me of the US response to 9/11: attacking countries that had nothing to do with it.

#23 Tony Piro
May/5/2010
@ 9:31 am

Wow, Arizona is on a roll

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/arizona-ethnic-studies-cl_n_558731.html

#24 Shane Davis
May/5/2010
@ 9:50 am

Ted,
I actually agree that the first issue is and always was the open border. Until that is fixed, everything else is whistling past the burrito stand.

If you arrest them all, more will come in.
If you give them amnesty, more will come in.

Bottom line, more will come in. We have a better economy, better heathcare (presumably FREE now, too), better jobs, better schools than most any other country from Mexico on south to the Falkland Islands. Why wouldn’t they want to come here?

The problem with amnesty is all those illegals working below market wage won’t do that anymore after they get amnesty. They’ll go native and ‘Hey, I want $10 an hour like the white guy, not $4!” Why shouldn’t they if they’re now citizens?

So Hilton Hotels, all the fruit orchards, all the textile manufacturers, all the construction folks will ignore the ‘new’ Americans and go get a fresh batch of illegals so they can continure to pay below market wages. And the unemployment will rise because the ‘new’ illegals are taking the jobs the ‘old’ illegals used to have and Americans had before that.

It’s a sick cycle that can only be broken if the border is secured first. Anything else is just chin music.

#25 andres
May/9/2010
@ 11:34 pm

Seth macfarlane is a good man, it’s not the same asking a person for their papers than arrest a person by the color of their skin.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.