The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment IV, Constitution of the United States
The Legislature of the State of Arizona did something recently which reflects poorly on both the United States and the people of that state. The legislature passed and Governor Jan Brewer signed a sweeping bill which criminalizes being in the state of Arizona without legal status. SB 1070, which will go into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, makes it a criminal offense to be in the state without being either a US Citizen or to have legal permission to be in the United States. The bill makes it very clear that it is attempting to enforce federal law relating to immigration control and control of the borders.
This law contains some troubling constitutional provisions. The first, most troubling section is quoted below:
"B. 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. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)." (capitalization from original)
The troubling phrase here is "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States". This is a violation of the right of persons to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The US Supreme Court has determined that where a police officer stops a person and demands identification, that such as stop constitutes "a seizure" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. "It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 (1968). What then, constitutes reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States? The statute is silent on what constitutes a reasonable suspicion, but it does not take much to extrapolate from there: anyone who is Hispanic will surely face suspicion, anyone with an accent, (especially Hispanic) will be subject to stop and a demand for their papers. The law essentially means that anyone who can be potentially stopped should carry their papers on them at all times. That US citizens will be stopped and accosted, and thus, have their civil liberties violated is an absolute certainty.
An associate of the author's is a specialist in immigration law. His views on this statute, after reading it were that the bill's author had little if any grasp of federal immigration law and how the three federal agencies who enforce and regulate immigration, Citizenship and Immigration Service, Customs and Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (CIS, CBP, ICE) operate. Further the definition used for a trespassing alien is linked to 8 USC 1304 (3) and 1306 (a). 8 USC 1304(3) deals with a requirement for an alien to carry their green card, when it has been issued legally. There are a multitude of reasons for someone who is a lawful permanent resident but not have a green card, including renewals, lost or stolen cards, spouses or children of lawful permanent resident, etc. 8 USC 1306(a) deals with aliens being required to register with immigration authorities when required to do so by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not all immigrants are required to do so, mostly those from countries who are defined as sponsors of terrorism, etc.
The Constitution of the United States grants to Congress the right to determine standards for entry into the United States. (Article II, Section 8) During the early part of US history, immigration control was the furthest from the minds of both the public and Congress. However, in the 1880's, ugly bouts of racism and bigotry took place, resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. A series of acts over the years now restrict who can enter the United States and qualify for residency and the right to work in the US. Throughout all this period of time, however, it has been Congress which has passed and dealt with immigration and nationalization matters. The Supreme Court made this perfectly clear in Ping vs U.S. 130 US 581 (1889) where Justice Field wrote, "That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence." 130 US at 603. The logic used by the Court was that control over its borders is a part of sovereignty, and that it is a nation which has control over its borders, not individual provinces or subdivisions within that nation.
It is widely agreed that our immigration system is broken. However, what isn't widely known is that there are already laws on the books to discourage unauthorized entry into the United States. People come to the United States to obtain jobs and to try and support their families in their native lands. They take jobs that not many people want, because these jobs often pay minimum wage or even less. They usually do not have any form of benefits or heath insurance. However, if there are no jobs for these people, the incentive to come and stay in the US becomes less. Certainly, the draw of family and a wealthier lifestyle is important. During fiscal year 2008, slightly over criminal 1,100 arrests were made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.). Of these, only 135 were of owners, managers and human resources officers charged with knowingly harboring or employing aliens. The remainder were undocumented aliens who were further charged with identity theft and social security fraud. It was not until 2009 that Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano issued guidelines that indicated that more effort is going to be placed on worksite enforcement. This is long overdue.
Immigration reform is something that is needed in the United States, although perhaps not with the addition of new and onerous requirements on employers. Rather, enforcing existing law, requiring all employers to verify the eligibility of all potential employees and requiring that any name/social security number mismatch be fully investigated would resolve many of the immigration problems through reduced work opportunity for those without legal authorization to work and catching those with false papers earlier. As technology gets better, as the databases and fingerprint systems get better, it is already becoming more difficult for those without valid permission to work in the US to be here.
The Mexican government has issued a travel advisory to its citizens who are living or traveling in Arizona, urging them to make sure they have their papers on them at all times and to report harassment by law enforcement to any of the five consulate offices in Arizona. However, the action by Arizona has not helped Arizona's reputation, and if there is anything that would discourage tourism, this is a good example.
This law has already resulted in a number of conventions and other planned events which were planned for Arizona to consider other locations. Both the Republican and Democratic Conventions had been considering Arizona, and both parties have expressed concern about this law. The Arizona Hotel and Convention industry has been pleading with the rest of the country and world not to blame them, but, in honestly, why not? Its the voters of Arizona, including their members, who put the racist and bigoted lawmakers who approved this bill in office. They can and must speak loudly to their legislature to either rescind this bill, or the voters will, at the ballot box, rescind the members who voted for it. Hispanic voters are a voting block which increased clout. The Arizona politicians and their supporters may find themselves in trouble at the polls come November.
Amendment IV, Constitution of the United States
The Legislature of the State of Arizona did something recently which reflects poorly on both the United States and the people of that state. The legislature passed and Governor Jan Brewer signed a sweeping bill which criminalizes being in the state of Arizona without legal status. SB 1070, which will go into effect 90 days after the end of the legislative session, makes it a criminal offense to be in the state without being either a US Citizen or to have legal permission to be in the United States. The bill makes it very clear that it is attempting to enforce federal law relating to immigration control and control of the borders.
This law contains some troubling constitutional provisions. The first, most troubling section is quoted below:
"B. 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. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)." (capitalization from original)
The troubling phrase here is "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States". This is a violation of the right of persons to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The US Supreme Court has determined that where a police officer stops a person and demands identification, that such as stop constitutes "a seizure" within the meaning of the 4th amendment. "It must be recognized that, whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized' that person." Terry v. Ohio 392 US 1 (1968). What then, constitutes reasonable suspicion that a person is an alien who is unlawfully in the United States? The statute is silent on what constitutes a reasonable suspicion, but it does not take much to extrapolate from there: anyone who is Hispanic will surely face suspicion, anyone with an accent, (especially Hispanic) will be subject to stop and a demand for their papers. The law essentially means that anyone who can be potentially stopped should carry their papers on them at all times. That US citizens will be stopped and accosted, and thus, have their civil liberties violated is an absolute certainty.
An associate of the author's is a specialist in immigration law. His views on this statute, after reading it were that the bill's author had little if any grasp of federal immigration law and how the three federal agencies who enforce and regulate immigration, Citizenship and Immigration Service, Customs and Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (CIS, CBP, ICE) operate. Further the definition used for a trespassing alien is linked to 8 USC 1304 (3) and 1306 (a). 8 USC 1304(3) deals with a requirement for an alien to carry their green card, when it has been issued legally. There are a multitude of reasons for someone who is a lawful permanent resident but not have a green card, including renewals, lost or stolen cards, spouses or children of lawful permanent resident, etc. 8 USC 1306(a) deals with aliens being required to register with immigration authorities when required to do so by the Secretary of Homeland Security. Not all immigrants are required to do so, mostly those from countries who are defined as sponsors of terrorism, etc.
The Constitution of the United States grants to Congress the right to determine standards for entry into the United States. (Article II, Section 8) During the early part of US history, immigration control was the furthest from the minds of both the public and Congress. However, in the 1880's, ugly bouts of racism and bigotry took place, resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. A series of acts over the years now restrict who can enter the United States and qualify for residency and the right to work in the US. Throughout all this period of time, however, it has been Congress which has passed and dealt with immigration and nationalization matters. The Supreme Court made this perfectly clear in Ping vs U.S. 130 US 581 (1889) where Justice Field wrote, "That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence." 130 US at 603. The logic used by the Court was that control over its borders is a part of sovereignty, and that it is a nation which has control over its borders, not individual provinces or subdivisions within that nation.
It is widely agreed that our immigration system is broken. However, what isn't widely known is that there are already laws on the books to discourage unauthorized entry into the United States. People come to the United States to obtain jobs and to try and support their families in their native lands. They take jobs that not many people want, because these jobs often pay minimum wage or even less. They usually do not have any form of benefits or heath insurance. However, if there are no jobs for these people, the incentive to come and stay in the US becomes less. Certainly, the draw of family and a wealthier lifestyle is important. During fiscal year 2008, slightly over criminal 1,100 arrests were made by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.). Of these, only 135 were of owners, managers and human resources officers charged with knowingly harboring or employing aliens. The remainder were undocumented aliens who were further charged with identity theft and social security fraud. It was not until 2009 that Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano issued guidelines that indicated that more effort is going to be placed on worksite enforcement. This is long overdue.
Immigration reform is something that is needed in the United States, although perhaps not with the addition of new and onerous requirements on employers. Rather, enforcing existing law, requiring all employers to verify the eligibility of all potential employees and requiring that any name/social security number mismatch be fully investigated would resolve many of the immigration problems through reduced work opportunity for those without legal authorization to work and catching those with false papers earlier. As technology gets better, as the databases and fingerprint systems get better, it is already becoming more difficult for those without valid permission to work in the US to be here.
The Mexican government has issued a travel advisory to its citizens who are living or traveling in Arizona, urging them to make sure they have their papers on them at all times and to report harassment by law enforcement to any of the five consulate offices in Arizona. However, the action by Arizona has not helped Arizona's reputation, and if there is anything that would discourage tourism, this is a good example.
This law has already resulted in a number of conventions and other planned events which were planned for Arizona to consider other locations. Both the Republican and Democratic Conventions had been considering Arizona, and both parties have expressed concern about this law. The Arizona Hotel and Convention industry has been pleading with the rest of the country and world not to blame them, but, in honestly, why not? Its the voters of Arizona, including their members, who put the racist and bigoted lawmakers who approved this bill in office. They can and must speak loudly to their legislature to either rescind this bill, or the voters will, at the ballot box, rescind the members who voted for it. Hispanic voters are a voting block which increased clout. The Arizona politicians and their supporters may find themselves in trouble at the polls come November.
I heard on the evening national news that the wording was changed today for lawful contact, and that at least three other changes are being contemplated.
ReplyDeleteHow many more changes will be made before this patchwork mess is simply chucked on the legal equivalent of a garbage heap, and how many more events will change their location, costing Arizona business income and losing the state revenue, before this bigotry becomes too costly to sustain.
I sympathize with the problems of a porous border with which Arizona lawful residents have to struggle, and the burden of the expense related to illegal immigration.
Rather than an unenforceable and embarrassing disaster like this law, I hope that our federal government, who should exercise the responsibility for immigration, will do more, and do it better than this.
Arizona is trying to control its border because the federal government for at least the current president and the one before him have refused to do so. Right now Phoenix is climbing to the top of American cities for violent crime. Phoenix is also number 2 in the world for kidnappings behind only Mexico City. The law is also not as bad as it sounds. The very first part "lawful contact with the police" under Arizona law means the police must have good reason to stop you. Further down in the law it is stated that race and ethniticity cannot be used as probable cause. Also a large part of the 90 day until enactment was to give time to put all the police officers through a 2 hr (I think it was 2) course on what was allowed and what was not. The legislature did everything they could to try and prevent the law from being used to harass legal hispanics but like one legislator said, if 99% of the illegals are hispanic people will say we are discriminating no matter what we do. Everyone I have read from the Arizona government stated that if the federal government would just send the border patrol (referring I think to the additional agents authorized but never hired about 7-8 yrs ago) to do the job they are suppossed to do the law would never have even come up. The tipping point was the rancher that was murdered a couple weeks ago. His ranch was on the border. He would call the border patrol when he saw drug dealers crossing, said he gave up calling for illegals because the border patrol never showed. He also left water tanks and sandwiches out certain nights when he knew the trucks of illegals would get dumped on his land. He wanted them to go home, not die of heatstroke. He was killed by an illegal, probably a drug smuggler, and that was kinda the last straw for Arizona. As far the the outrageousness of asking for id that is the first thing a cop does when he pulls someone over, and if the passenger looks like they might have been drinking and under 21 he will ask them also, so why the big deal with asking hispanics for id.
ReplyDeleteOh and as far as paying at the ballot box, the Arizona governors approval rating jumped 17% when she signed this.
The law is based on bigotry and racism. The Governor of Arizona has shown her colors, and she should be removed from office by the voters at the next election. They have essentially allowed the the modern equivalent of the KKK to take over their state, in the form of the Arizona legislature and governor.
ReplyDeleteLawful contact with police means that if a person of "suspicion" (whatever that means) contacts a police officer to report a crime, they are subject to demand for their papers and possible arrest. They may or may not be subject to deportation, since before anything else happens, they're now subject to a criminal proceeding in Arizona.
The fact is, whether its liked by the right or not, this law is fundamentally constitutionally flawed. It ignores the federal supremacy doctrine, it violates 4th amendment rights against seizure, and it violates equal protection rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment.
TTuck, I forwarded this to ToE earlier, but I would recommend you read the fact checking on the immigration law provided by politifact.com, although literally the law is changing from day to day.
ReplyDeletepolitifact.com/subjects/immigration
ToE is correct, this is a bad, hateful law.
I think you may want to add the partisan politics tag to this post, after all - all of the votes for the legislation were Republicans (only one Republican did not vote in favor of the legislation) & all
Democrats voted against the law.
I have to add it was my idea to add an accompanying illustration which might be in less than impeccable taste - a picture of the cartoon character Speedy Gonzales superimposed over the Arizona flag -- for those older citizens of the state who are certain they know what illegal immigrants from Mexico look like.
Speedy Gonzales is an old Warner Bros. cartoon, "the fastest mouse in all Mexico". We could alternate audio files - "Andale! Andale! Arriba! Arriba!" with ToE's preference, "Deutschland Uber Alles", to reflect the Nazi paper demanding atmosphere.
We could make it an audio visual extravaganza......if not exactly a celebration of good taste.
Just a footnote - I suggested Speedy Gonzales as an image. The old Warner Brothers cartoons are no longer shown in the United States because of the negative stereotypes they portray, with the exception of a few collections and exhibitions of rare cartoons as collectors items rather than entertainment.
ReplyDeleteThe irony - they are popular in Mexico and other hispanic markets.
Which I imagine must be one of those inexplicable cases of contrary popularity, much like when Hogan's Heroes being popular in Germany.
For the record, although I did toy with the idea of a musical accompaniment to the tune of "Deutschland Uber Alles", and also toyed with the speedy Gonzales idea, I chose not to cheapen what I think is a serious debate with those images. There is enough stereotyping and hateful bigotry going on in this debate, and I think its best to leave it where it properly belongs.. in the dregs of history.
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, ToE,your decision was the wise, serious one, prudent and in good taste. And you were absolutely correct in your decision.
ReplyDeleteI do think my idea had a bit more fun to it - and that might be helpful, in the odd way that Hogan's Heroes in Germany perhaps not only healed some old wounds a little with laughter, but also in the sense that sometimes one of the best weapons against bigotry and stereotypes is humor's capacity to embarrass through laughter.
I would never seriously wish to offend or hurt.
If you should ever change your mind ....? LOL, maybe I shouldn't let my 'inner child' out quite so often to wreak havoc and mischief.
I would still like to hear from ToE how this is bigotry? If we are having problems with our southern border 99% of the problems will be with hispanics so is anything we try to do bigoted because 99% of the people it affects are hispanic? Also you do realize that the whole part about being able to ask someone you suspect of being an illegal for papers is something the border patrol and ice already have the power to do so is it racist if the Arizona police do it but not if ICE does it? You might have a point about the law stepping into federal jurisdiction,although parts of it that target businesses that hire illegals probably do not, but all the yelling about racism and bigotry is just bs meant to cover up the real issue of the federal government not doing their job well enough in Arizona.
ReplyDeleteIt is bigotry and racism when the law clearly targets hispanics. It is true that the federal government has not done a good enough job of enforcing immigration laws, and there are some things that could be done to close some loopholes that allow businesses to profit from hiring illegals. However, this law, in order to work, will require racial profiling.
ReplyDeleteThere is no way for an officer to develop a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is in the country illegally other than by looking at them. This means the officer is using his racial bias or prejudice to develop that suspicion.
T-Tuck, while an overwhelming majority of the problems with the border may very well involve hispanics, there are also very large numbers of those individuals within our population that are legally here, and who do not contribute to those border problems.
ReplyDeleteTo follow your reasoning, because, oh, say the majority of Goldman Sachs alleged defrauders, or very nearly 100% of those who are finding themselves in court for ponzi schemes and affinity scams are caucasion, we should pass a law making it legal to pull over and challenge anyone who fits that description - they are criminals after all, and some of them are fugitives from subpoenas or arrest warrants, like Bob Chapman of the International Forecaster notoriety.
You are proposing to put a lot of people on the spot over those who are a border problem. That is as bigoted as police stopping far more men behind the wheel of nice cars who are black on the presumption they must be drug dealers - rather than bankers, or lawyers, or doctors.
You see the reason for not targeting anyone other than someone who has actually demonstrably done something wrong?
As distinct from someone who may or may not have done somethign wrong, where it is NOT evident from looking at them or hearing them speak.
The only justification for profiling any hispanic is if EVERY hispanic had done something wrong - or was illegal.
Did I get that right, ToE?
Nowhere in the law does it say the word hispanic. In a quick read last night I saw one spot it forbids profiling and another saying officers must follow established civil rights laws which also forbid profiling. Also the change they made yesterday changes the first part of the law from lawful contact with an officer to lawful stop by an officer. This means the officer must have already stopped you on suspicion of doing something other than just being here illegally. I also read a piece by one of the attorneys that worked on the law that said an officer must presume that anyone with an Arizona drivers license is here legally since Arizona only issues licenses to legal residents. So basically now the main part of the law allows officers to check the status of someone they stop for suspicion of something,speeding, dui, whatever, that does not have an Arizona license, and gives them cause to believe they are illegal. Still my whole point about the racism thing is that as long as our entire southern border has Mexico on the other side anything we do to tighten the border will target Mexicans. Just like anything we do to tighten the northern border will target Canadians, there is nothing racist about that, it is just a fact of geography.
ReplyDeleteNo Tuck, I didn't say the law identified hispanics - I made the reference in response to your comment.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, we don't worry about Canadians along our northern border, because they aren't anything like as economically depressed in Canada as they are in Mexico, nor do they have the other problems to a similar extent, like the drug wars.
What we worry about along the northern border of the US is non-Canadians using the porous borders of Wisconsin, Minnesota, or North Dakota to come into the US. I'd guess the same is true of the other places I've crossed into Canada from the US, in NY, Michigan, and so on.
We have people going across the border often, filling their pharmaceutical prescriptions more cheaply in Canada - there are bus tours organized for it. We have people coming across from Canada often, to the US, for other kinds of shopping.
It was a bit of a nuisance when we had to carry our passports instead of simply presenting a US driver's license or birth certificate.
We don't have a problem with illegal Canadians. We DO still have what some people consider a problem with hispanic agricultural workers in Minnesota and other northern states. There was an instance just recently where one of our MN GOP candidates was running a poll that was extremely bigoted / racist towards hispanics, that got some national attention.
So --- yes, Tuck, the correct word is bigotry, and racism, for what is taking place.
Proiling is a violation of federal civil rights laws and it also violates that particular Arizona statute. However, the problem is, the only way to DO that job is to profile. The law doesn't define what "reasonable suspicion" is, and without defining it, any traffic stop will automatically become a fishing expedition if the person oh.. say.. has an accent, looks to be of hispanic origin, etc. The fact is, the law also makes it illegal for someone to be without their I-551. As discussed earlier, there are a number of times when a person is in the country legally,and doesn't carry or have their I-551. An AZ police officer will have no way to know whether or not the person is truly in the country legally, whether they are a citizen or not, and thus, any arrest under this law will violate federal law relating to civil rights.
ReplyDeleteFederal law already requires aliens to carry their green card on them. Also the people that wrote the law say that several supreme court cases over the past 20 yrs or so have defined what is accepted as reasonable suspicion. My question to you and Doggone is this, Why is it bigotry for Arizona to enforce the law against illegals being here but not for the federal government to enforce it? Members of the border patrol, ICE, and Homeland Security would be making the same decisions as the Arizona police as far as who is suspicious and who is not. The further question is this, if 99% of the illegal aliens are hispanic, at least in the southwest part of the country, is there anything that can be done about it that does not involve profiling? Do we just give up guarding the border because 99% of the people we catch crossing illegally are hispanic so we are obviously targetting hispanics?
ReplyDeleteIf I may address the must carry green card issue, and mirroring federal law, this was covered admirably by my favorite fact check site:
ReplyDeletewww.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/april/28/george-will/will-says-arizona-law-merely-echoes-federal-immigr/
"However, while the underlying offenses are federal crimes, they are among the least prosecuted in the U.S. Code...For the relevant offense at issue here, failure of a non-citizen to register in violation of 8 U.S.C.1306 (a), there were 5 convictions across the U.S. in FY 2008"..... "what the Arizona law does is to make a state crime out of something that already is....a federal crime that the federal authorities have chosen not to enforce except in rare circumstances."
I don't know why our federal government does not prosecute this crime, but given what I have read on the issue so far indicates that arrests and deportations are up, it does not suggest the reason for the lack of prosecutions is lack of legal action by the feds.
I will leave it to ToE to address the background and credentials of the individuals who wrote the Arizona law, but they from my understanding not to reflect the mainstream of legal thought, and are in fact apparently pretty far right wing, if not extremists, pretty darn close.
It is not honest argument to claim a few SCOTUS decisions out of many, if those decisions are cherry picked, taken out of the larger context of immigration law SCOTUS decisions in a way which is not accurately representative of the majroity of pertinent immigration decisions - and this is what my reading of articles on the Arizona law, both pro and con, and fact check findings suggests about those claims that the law is supported by previous SCOTUS rulings.
Why Arizona should not be making their own immigration laws goes to the issue of foreign affairs, which includes immigration, as being specific to the federal government. Immigration enforcement is different than the kind of activity carried out by local and state police enforcement of everything from city ordinances to traffic law, to state law. It is a very different kind of expertise for a reason.
Nor does this new Arizona law appear to do much of anything to improve border security or reduce illegal immigrants coming over the border.
What it does appear to do, this new law, is make a foul hash of federal enforcement and attempt to criminalize and harrass more than is already the case those immigrants who are here now, in a way which other groups are not targeted.
I'm sorry you don't seem to understand the reasoning Tuck, that targeting anyone as a criminal on the basis of ethnicity rather than activity is racist and bigoted. I'm sorry you do not recognize or acknowledge that this law is about targeting people for who they are, not what they do...and we aren't supposed to do that in this country. It is profoundly un-American - and it does not surprise me in the slightest that those who claim to be the most patriotic are the most un-American, that those who claim to be the most strict Constitutionalists are the ones who ignore that very constitution.
In off-blog discussions with ToE, one of the solutions I suggested was that following the idea that is working with the Obama Fraud Enforcement Task Force, I would support some kind of coalition of local and state law enforcement with federal immigration enforcement, that would have the advantage of avoiding duplication, and of giving the feds more 'boots on the ground' and the advantages of local law enforcement who may know the individuals and other aspects of their situation more specifically in order to be effective.
ToE suggested that it would be possible for local law enforcement perhaps to be in some way deputized to act with the feds.
Tuck (et.al.),
ReplyDeleteThe Arizona law is an abomination, it is ugly, reprehensible, and immoral. The reaction of the people to challenge should not be the suspension of basic constitutional protections, but rather, it should be the careful consideration of what must be done to stem the tide of crime. It is hardly the case that allowing the police random searches will allow them to stem the flow of drugs or of violence. Those are tangential, and at best poorly reasoned justifications.
If the United States federal government has failed to prevent illegal immigration it has done soe because that is what business in the US prefers.
By the way, I hardly fault Obama, the man has been President all of 15 months, and when his party recently tried to introduce sweeping immigration reform, the Republicans filibustered it. They did so because they KNOW they don't want some sort of amnesty/path to citizenship bill which also strengthens border protection - for that would both molify the whites in America that immigration was being addressed and secure the votes of hispanics. It would as well place illegal aliens on a path to be able to ask for reasonable/fair pay. In short, it would probably kill off the free labor US companies are enjoying (relatively) - and that's not something Republicans will stand for.
Contrasting, NAFTA IS something which is the responsibility of Clinton AND Republicans, and is the abortion that caused both the drug issues in Mexico and the devestation of the Mexican economy. It is why the richest man in the world is a Mexican. It is why we face cheap labor pressure in the US and the Mexicans face a blighted economy everywhere but along the border with the US.
We must solve the issue of have/have nots in our hemisphere if we are to EVER solve the problem of inflation, but first, we must protect the US workers from unrestricted cheap labor pressures. Then we must demand and enforce fair labor standards in countries which we allow production to occur of products sold in the US. But all of that ALL OF THAT, is effectively insignificant next to this repulsive, repugnant and petulant law.
The fact that the police have to be engaging in "lawful contact" is so vague as to be meaningless. A police officer is engaging in lawful contact when he asks a witness to a traffic accident what occured, he is engaging in lawful contact when he orders a group of people to disperse, or asks people to move away from a crime scene. In short, this law allows for the kinds of abuses which we believe are wrong, it allows the police to RANDOMLY, based on RACE or APPEARANCE they associate with race, to demand proof of natural or legal citizenship or status. Failure is either accompanied by fine or arrest.
Regardless, it also represents the worst kind of violation of what we believe fundamentally to be true, namely, that the government has no more right to information about you (other than the census) as you travel, work, shop, etc.. than any other person. They are not allowed to demand proof of your identity, track your travel, vacation plans, etc.. quite simply because we believe allowing the government to do so is dangerous. It allows for abuse, it allows the those in government who might misuse it for their own purposes to misuse the date for their own purposes.
We, as a nation, should be OUTRAGED at this travesty. I do not believe it can possibly pass Constitutional muster as it violates at least three amendments (the 4th (random search), the 14th - lawful purpose - and the 15th, denial of right by race, and probably the 6th (due process)) - it is so shabby, so idioticially crafted that it is beyond my capability to grasp how any lawyer would have thought it was constitutional.
If AZ is hurting, and I am sure it is, then it's remedy is to seek support by supporting others with their needs. Perhaps McCain and the rest of the knee-jerks in AZ should have demanded border protection as a price for health care support, or support for financial reform - because THAT is how you get changes, not by stripping rights from Americans.
ReplyDeleteFinally, I would like the 51% of the nation which supports this vommitous filth of a law to consider what this further allows. It allows, should it stand, the government to pass other, similar laws. Laws demanding papers for crossing state borders (as a protection against drug trafficing), laws allowing police to demand identification on the street in high crime (and then perhaps low crime) areas to stop meth amphetimine sales, laws to track Muslims, or maybe Catholics, because they like to throw bombs, right?? It allows, in short, the United States to become a police state, to destroy the very beacon of Democracy and liberty which Lincoln eloquently espoused in the Gettysburgh address, it destroys the nation founded in liberty and turns it into one grounded in fear.
Dog, the reason "I don't get it" is that this law is no more racist than any other law. The law will only be as racist as the people enforcing it. ICE and the Border Patrol have to establish reasonable suspicion someone is an illegal also and yet no one says their enforcement is racist. I am not a lawyer so the constitutional question I will leave to others but I saw at least 3 places where the law forbid profiling either directly or indirectly by citing other civil rights laws. Granted I think 2 of those were added Friday but they are there. Aslo the lawful contact is a non-issue as that was changed on Friday to lawful stop or something that from what I read means the police must have stopped you for suspicion of another violation, this means they cannot ask for papers from witnesses or victims of a crime or accident only someone they have stopped for another reason. That said police use racial profiling, all police do, it is almost necessary to do their jobs. If a witness says a white male robbed a bank they pretty much only look at and question white males. If you have 11 million hispanics and 100 people from other ethnic groups crossing the border illegally you are going to look mostly at hispanics as that is where you have the best results for the time spent. This law as amended on Friday is no more racist than any other law, how it is enforced may be different but that will be up the officers on the street. There is always a fine line between racial profiling and good police work, this law may make it a little finer in Arizona but that does not mean it is racist.
ReplyDeleteTtuck, your own statements make it unavoidably clear that you see this is directed at hispanics.
ReplyDeleteThis is no different than writing a law aimed at black people, not others, and then rationalizing that since there are lots of black people in jail, it must mean they are as a group criminals.
Same reasoning. Black people understandably object to the presumption they are criminals on the basis of being black, for example, the presumption when they go shopping that they are going to shoplift.
No matter how much thet tweek the wording, you cannot persuade me that this law is not going to hispanics, and perhaps blacks who have ethnic ties to hispanic caribbean countries, but effectively no one else. You cannot persuade me that legal hispanic residents and citizens are not going to be required to prove their legal status in a way and with a frequency that you and I would not be required to do.
People will be treated differently, including legal people, and that is just wrong.
Further, if you doubt hatred and bigotry are behind this law, take a closer look at sponsors and the supposed drafter of the law. Take a look at the kind of "polls" Minnesota Republicans running for our state senate (district 42) post, and tell me there isn't a conservative, republican undercurrent of bigotry being expressed.
The wording in the original version of the poll:
President Obama called the new Arizona bill banning illegal immigration "misguided". Do you agree?
Si, senor! 22% No way, Jose'! 77%
That poll wording was subsequently changed to:
"Do you believe in enforcing our nation's immigration laws?"
___Yes. An orderly immigration policy is essential to maintaining a free society.
___Yes. And that is why I support our nation's immigration law.
Yeah, Tuck - no one is out to "get" hispanics and latinos... I believe that like I believe in the tooth fairy.
If gang violence, drug wars, kidnapping and other crime is such a problem, along with a too porous border - put state and local money towards those problems. This law doesn't do any of that. What it does do, it does badly, and without adequte additional funds - just like the Republicans didn't pay for their legislation under Bush, I might add.
But leave the determination of who is legal and illegal to the feds. It is their job, they know how to do it. If more pressure to do that job isneeded, eveyr citizen has a vote. What Arizona is doing is akin to vigilante-ism, they are trying to take into their state hands the authority they do not have.
In numerous instances there are already serious complaints about how laws are enfoced unevenly against hispanics in Arizona; this new law will only make it worse.
Dog, I never said I agreed with the law, I don't. I don't think it is necessary. Every police officer in the country has the right to arrest someone for smuggling drug, possessing drug, possessing illegal weapons, and smuggling people. Once arrested the police have the right to require you to identify yourself and if you can't they can take fingerprints and start finding out who you are. Chances are good by the time they finish checking all that and the car you were in they will find evidence you crossed illegally and can then call ICE. This is current law. The city of Irving TX does this all the time without any city ordinance or anything and they deported more people last yr than any city in TX except one (I think Houston but not sure). They never ask for id when someone reports a crime and they only check these things after an arrest has been made for some other offense. Irving has a large hispanic population that gets along well with police and a law like Arizona's unneccessarily hurts that relationship. My problem with the whole discussion is the cries of racism. The fact is Mexico occupies most of our southern border and is full of hispanics, all the carribean countries are full of hispanics as are the countries south of Mexico. Somewhere between 8 and 11 million hispanics cross illegally each yr and all other ethnic groups combined is way less than 1 million. Anything we do on the southern border will target hispanics. Your example about targetting blacks is backwards from what I am talking about. A better example would a law that targetted gangs, if you went and enforced it in Watts you would catch mostly blacks. Does that mean the law is racist? This law targets illegal aliens, in Arizona that is mostly Mexicans. Yelling racism at every law that catches a large number of one ethnic group does nothing to solve the problem. You need to find out why it catches more of one ethnic group than another and work to fix the cause of it.
ReplyDeleteTTuck, time for you to back up your claims, beginning with statistics.
ReplyDeleteBest estimates, according to sources verified by politifact.com, are that the total number of illegal immigrants in this country are around 11.6 million; NOT that 8 to 11 million enter the US illegally every year.
Also according to the immigration fact checking provided by poltiifact.org, fact checking Florida candidate Mark Rubio - born to Cuban parents - reveals that approximately HALF of the individuals in this country illegally ENTERED LEGALLY, but overstayed their visas or other permits.
Which kicks the premise of the Arizona law right in the "cojones". If the real intent is to remove illegal immigrants instead of just harrass people, it would be much easier to have Arizona team up with the feds to go after those people we know are here, that we know came here legally. Further, there is no funding that I could find in the bill that does ANYTHING to improve the porous nature of the AZ border problem.
So, if by your own admission this law is unnecessary - then a law with the potential for such abuse - abuse that is already happening without this law but which could become far worse under its provisions, is a bad law, a law which harrasses people, a law which singles out a minority for different treatment than other people ----- sorry Tuck, but that is a racist, bigoted law.
So much for the much touted conservative insistence that they want less intrusive government, or ONLY necessary government, when they pass duplicating law that tries to grab authority to which they are not entitled - AND don't pay for it, besides!
ToE, you might find another politifact check, on the subject of immigration, of interest. It relates to traffic accidents and English fluency, which is pertinent here, IF you stretch it badly, because the transportation provisions of the AZ law do NOT mirror any federal immigration or labor law:
ReplyDeletewww.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/29/tim-james/alabamas-tim-james-says-government-report-backs-hi/
DG,
ReplyDeleteI don't know that we get to "demand" facts, we can ask, but demand? Anyway, you are correct that the estimate is there currently is roughly 12-14M illegal aliens in the country, with a huge number having entered legally.
Tuck - I don't agree this law isn't overtly racist. It may not INTEND to be, and looked at neutrally, perhaps could not be, but any law which suggests the officer ask for documentation from anyone he/she suspects is an illegal alien HAS to be, and I'm one of the last people who would cry racism. The reason it HAS to be is simply the answer to this question - on what does the officer base his/her suspicion? Accent? Demeanor? Appearance? The answer is going to be overwhelmingly appearance. On that, the hispanics who claim this is about those with brown skin are not wrong. Further, even by your own comments you show that the concern is about Mexican immigrants. I suspect if we were to envision in our mind's eye what we think a Mexican typically look like, we'd suggest black hair and olive skin - this is not a coincidence, it's our experience, and it's also overtly discriminatory against those who appear to be Hispanic. The 15th Amendment prohibits violating rights based on race - and so this law will not sustain itself simply based on this requirement to ask for documentation based on a "suspicion." By leaving this vague wording, they created both the appearance and high probability of disciminatory action by the police.
Regardless, I am quite certain you DON'T mean to be, and therefore aren't being, racially motivated. Yet, by talking to many conservatives, I am equally certain the motivation for this law WAS in fact racially motivated. There are a LOT of people in this country who are resentful of the impacts of cheap illegal and/or foriegn labor, and the face the put on it is Hispanic. If harrassing Hispanics is a byproduct of this law, they don't much mind or care. They are oblivious to the fact that illegal immigrants contribute 10 times (roughly) the amount in sales tax receipts as they cost in benefits. They get bent out of shape about unfunded schooling and health care, and consider the immigrants stupid, predatory, and worse and the fact that this denies them liberties our founding fathers believe EVERYONE, not just citizens, ought to enjoy, means nothing to them. Quite frankly, they don't understand those liberties anyway.