« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Arizona Gets it Right on Illegal Immigration

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  April 27th, 2010 at 12:19 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

James Edwards has the top story at Human Events today on Arizona’s immigration law the left is hyperventilating about.

Exercising its sovereign right under the Constitution’s 10th Amendment, Arizona has enacted a law empowering its state and local police officers to use suspected illegal immigrant status as a crime-fighting tool.

The law, which GOP Gov. Jan Brewer signed April 23, uses state police authority to step up pressure on illegal aliens. This should help force many to leave the state—and the country—on their own or else face time behind bars.

This measure promotes attrition through enforcement, the most reasonable, rational strategy on the enforcement side of the immigration equation.

This law has been vilified in every conceivable way. Obama: “misguided.” Los Angeles Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony: “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques.” But the best description is “common sense.”

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • NeoKong

    Everything is opposite.
    Enforcing the law is now a crime and breaking the law is now a right.
    Illegal aliens are now practically citizens.
    Lying through your teeth for a whole year while you bribe and intimidate everyone possible is now the most ethical Congress ever.
    Creating enormous boondoggle govt. behemoths that will cost trillions is now saving money.
    Hiding the truth and vital reports from the public on what things will cost is called transparency.

  • johnt

    But if you live outside the state and are a liberal[?], it provides another opportunity for name calling.
    Liberal[?] vocabulary appears to have shrunken to one or two words, Nazi or racist. Makes life a lot easier.
    We may now get federal intervention, the kind that deprives Arizona from self protection and support of it’s legal residents.

  • RedBeard

    If you agree with the new law, let Arizona know.

    Governor’s contact: http://azgovernor.gov/contact.asp

    Phone number to the Arizona legislature. The menu allows you to contact either the Senate or the House: 800-352-8404

    Let’s support them.

  • mnewcomb

    Can they stop anyone and ask them for proof of citizenship? Or does that person have to commit some sort of crime first?

  • leftylurker

    The officer only needs to have a reasonable suspicion that the person is not a legal citizen.

  • http://www.neoavatara.com/blog neoavatara

    The law is pretty reasonable. I honestly don’t know if it will make a real difference, because I think most police would be reticent to stop people for this. That said, all you need is any federal or state ID (like a drivers license); you don’t have to carry a birth certificate or passport.

    http://neoavatara.com/blog/?p=10798

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    The illegals will still come, just to other states.

    I am not against strict illegal immigration law and enforcement, however this will produce an outcome that I can not agree with: Creating an environment where crimes against the illegal population will go unreported or punished.

  • leftylurker

    There is a private right to sue municipalities for systemic underenforecement. So it’s not in the hands of the police.

  • gekster

    I’m hanging my curtains on the outside tomorrow.
    Just to be politicaly correct.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    it’s now in the hands of the bureaucracy to write the procedures. Link

    According to my cop friends they can and will approach anyone they want for any reason “just to talk”. Remember, someone just standing there can be loitering, which is a legal violation and as such, under the law is an acceptable approach situation.

  • tngal

    Arizona is not mis-guided. Right now its just mis-erable. its miserable because its overrun with illegals. It’ll feel better once the problem’s solved.

  • The_Rebel

    Police need reasonable suspicion that the person is suspected of imminent illegal behavior or past criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement; it is commonly described as something more than a hunch but less than probable cause. Totality of circumstances refers to an assessment based on all the circumstances, which includes objective observations, information from police reports, and consideration of the modes of patterns of operation of certain kinds of lawbreakers.

  • Scope

    Sent a message of thanks to the AZ Governor and the AZ Legislature.

  • Scope

    and if you aren’t, then your “cop friends” won’t be employed as cops much longer. I believe the “full of it” is much closer to the truth.

  • streiff

    false. Totally false.

    Don’t do this again.

  • mnewcomb

    Did some more research and actually looked at the text…

  • streiff

    That kind of activity is going to get your “cop friends” fired.

    If you’ve been routinely demanding ID of “loiterers” in the past, you’re probably ok. If not, you’re going to be in a lot of trouble and your department isn’t going to help you out.

  • mnewcomb

    That was weird…

    Was going to ask what ‘imminent illegal behavior’ means?

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    And I interact with the police everyday at work.

  • pilgrim

    phxg did not accuse Phoenix cops of being dirty. I think he and perhaps Becker know Phoenix cops better than you.
    http://phxg.wordpress.com/about/

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So when are you going to get back to lurking?

  • Scope

    is manufactured to make it appear that anyone residing in AZ must have a birth certificate or passport on their person at all times. They are comparing it to Hitler’s nazi requirement that anyone without the “proper paperwork” was headed straight for the gulag. Any reasonable person would know that a Drivers License will suffice. Anyone driving in the US must have a Drivers License with them while driving. No matter what color or nationality you are, you are punished for not having that required license, along with a vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. I know that for certain, as long ago I suffered that “inconvenience.”

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    It about approaching. 1070 now opens up the opportunity to ask for ID.

    Of course very few cops I know even want to get involved with this; too much work. But a few I know are planning on going gang busters on finding illegals.

  • Scope

    n/t

  • conservos
  • The_Rebel

    n/t

  • The_Rebel

    n/t

  • Scope

    and do nothing else, would accomplish nothing more than forcing the illegals into another state, where employer laws are not enforced. They are still here, and can run to the next sanctuary city or state. Seems to me that the illegal problem will now explode in New Mexico, and we all know Richardson will not lift a finger against it.

  • streiff

    the opportunity to ask for ID has always been present. And It is a legal requirement everywhere that you provide ID to the police when asked. What the law does is allow the police to detain and check immigration status if the person they stop doesn’t have an ID.

    As long as they are following the law, I’m all for it.

  • streiff

    that because some illegals will come it is bad for any state to take action to deter it?

    And it is too bad if crimes against illegals are unreported, but, it is sort of like being sympathetic to a drug dealer whose drugs are stolen and he can’t report it to the police. Or a pimp who’s contract with his girl has been violated. It is one of the prices you pay for breaking the law and it is insane to insist that the legal residents of the country continue to pay the costs instead of the illegals.

  • streiff

    the voters of AZ have decided what they want. If the voters of NM, TX, and CA are happy with an influx of illegals that’s fine with me until the federal government gets around to doing something.

  • conservos

    dictates coming straight down the pipe to the local level.

    Take it up with Obama first before you attack Arizona.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    It’s the side effect of driving illegals into so much fear they will not report crimes against them. It happens now, but it will get worse.

    Since I see it first hand, I do have a bit more then average compassion for the people being terrorized by the lawlessness of the criminals within their circles.

    And believe me, the Hispanic criminals are few, but their crimes great and I don;t subscribe to the philosophy that the victims “got what they deserve” solely for being here illegally.

  • Scope

    “According to my cop friends they can and will approach anyone they want for any reason ‘just to talk.’

    That feeds right into the Left’s and anti-AZ Law detractors rhetoric. It feeds right into the view of police as nothing more than racial profilers and/or bullies. I personally have much more respect for the police, and don’t see them in this light.

    If “anyone” knows these “rogue, harmful, destructive” types of police, that give the good ones bad names, and harm the reputation of law enforcement, they should be reporting them rather than blogging about their cavelier attitudes.

    These are the ones that will destroy what AZ is trying to accomplish, and will be the cause of massive amounts of unnecessary lawsuits that the police will never win.

    Sorry pilgrim, I most definately don’t agree.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    I’m for stopping illegals, but this does not address the 2 underlying problems: A porous border and no (effective) penalties against businesses that hire illegals.

    Because the congress has failed, the States must step up, that I agree with. However, there is only 1 good answer to this problem and in my opinion it starts sealing the border.

  • Scope

    “Of course very few cops I know even want to get involved with this; too much work. But a few I know are planning on going gang busters on finding illegals.” posted below by phxg.

    Why do I get a feeling that if phxg “cop friends” knew he was here posting these statements a a website site, they would want to approach him “just to talk.”

  • conservos

    not just the police

    http://www.dhs.gov/files/reportincidents/counterterrorism.shtm

    this goes for americans, too.

    which means you.

    take it up with DHS.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    but the judicial system.

  • Richard Mullins

    It’s not been the case. What became law in AZ is sort of similar to a in The Texas House of Representatives, HB49. My State Representative(Debbie Riddle) in a tweet referred to her bill that didn’t go anywhere in the 81st Legislature and hopefully moves better in the 82nd. It doesn’t seem any worse than the AZ law and makes it a Class B misdemeanor. It seems that this is one of a few bills that didn’t make it in the 81st Legislature that need to be brought up in the 82 Ledge.

  • pilgrim

    When he wrote a cop can approach anyone, that is not a slam or a shot being taken at cops. They can approach is not inflammatory rhetoric. Sorry Scope.

  • Scope

    directly to Napolitano’s email that you can post for phxg.

  • blooch

    As far as addressing underlying problems–like, say, massive unemployment–this here is a good start:

    http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/azhundreds-seek-to-fill-vacant

  • conservos

    w/ illegal suspicious behavior, but not against watching for and reporting other suspicious behavior in our communities?

    Here’s the link for reporting suspicious behavior in your state:

    http://www.georgia.gov/00/article/0,2086,4802_4961_76268511,00.html

    And remember — there is no longer a “War on Terrorism.”

    Who the hell are they looking for? And who’s next? Who the left defines as political terrorists, maybe?

    http://splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/splc-report-return-of-the-militias

    http://splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/spring/rage-on-the-right

    Yeah, I’m bothered..

  • Scope

    against themselves, or others they know, if illegal immigration is enforced has been around since long before even the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill. Actually probably since long before that.

    Let’s see if those “cop friends” approach Al Sharpton “just to talk.” He already said he was going to march in AZ with no ID. That would be a given for any cop wanting to “go gangbusters” enforcing the new AZ law. They could bag a big one, and become famous.

  • Achance

    but that doesn’t mean you have to talk to him or that he can do anything more than maybe discuss the weather without something really close to probable cause or a reasonable apprehension of a threat to his safety. Every kid with a bag of dope in their pocket in the ’60s quickly learned to ask, “Am I under arrest, officer?” “No?” “Then am I free to go?” And if that cop doesn’t have probable cause, he has to let you walk away or face the potential wrongful arrest. Except in the places where they’d just say no and start beating on you figuring you didn’t have any money and the local judge would see that you got a fair trial before the hanging, but that had pretty much ended, even in The South by the mid-Seventies.

  • conservos

    though he doesn’t need an email – he just needs to speak, here at this site.

    no way we’re not being monitored.

    Redstate is high-profile, activist and influential in revealling the sham these shysters push on the American people.

  • aesthete

    but since we don’t, I don’t see how it’s AZ’s job to care what happens in New Mexico, any more than it would be Alabama’s job to care what happens to Michigan’s unemployment as a result of their more business friendly laws.

  • Scope

    The Governor and people of AZ have decided how they want to treat the illegal problem. I say good for them, and I hope it is very successful. And, if New Mexico chooses to provide sancturary cities or the whole state, that to a degree is also their choice. But, when your state’s budget has gone worse than bust, please don’t count on the federal government, my tax dollars, to bail you out. If you make your bed, you should be prepared to lie in it.

  • tngal

    Marco Rubio gve a statement to tampabay.com re: the arizona immigration law.

    here’s a couple of quick graphs..

    “I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don?t believe Arizona?s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ?reasonable suspicion,? are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. ”

    (snip)

    “I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states? requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now ? securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.”

    The other day I suggested we ask running candidates what they think of the bill. It gives us a heads up on what we can expect from them in the future.

    As to Rubio’s response, I am a little concerned about the phrase” reforming the visa and entry process’ . It would be nice if he elaborated more. What reforms did he have in mind.?

    Here’s the tampabay.com address where his complete statement is published.

    http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/04/marco-rubio-speaks-out-on-az-immigration-law.html

    (And no, I’m not for Crist…just asked for something a little less vague. Speaking of Crist, for those keeping tabs and haven’t heard he’s announcing Thursday his future plans.)

  • aesthete

    know enough about my objections to SB 1070 for me not to have to reiterate them, so I’ll just say this: please educate yourselves on what the bill does before supporting or opposing it. The fact that so many conservatives have voiced their opposition to some parts of the law, such as Tom Tancredo, Judge Napolitano, and others, should give you pause.

    I’ll also say this: whatever you think of the bill, Gov Brewer isn’t some political David standing up Obama’s Goliath. Truth is, we would have had some sort of immigration bill long before today if Gov Napolitano hadn’t vetoed reasonable attempts, and Gov Brewer only signed it to get support in a crowded Republican primary for Governor, where her only accomplishment thus far has been throwing her hands in the air and looking for ways not to solve AZ’s budget woes.

  • Swamp_Yankee

    http://blogs.tampabay.com/buzz/2010/04/marco-rubio-speaks-out-on-az-immigration-law.html

    My take.

    It seems AZ was left in a precarious position, so it did something out of urgency because it had to do something and that something was anything.

    I think that bill has tremendous flaws, and I hate ceding small government, pro liberty arguments to the liberals and libertarians. Some conservatives become too reactionary on law and order issues, but in order to claim the pro-freedom mantle we must protect against encroachments in all their forms.

    I guess something was better then nothing, but that something leaves a lot to be deisred.

  • conservos

    they’re camped out in rural areas, in colonias. Visualize shanties.

    And they are making the people down there sick.

    “The state of Tamaulipas [across the Texas border in Mexico] saw TB cases rise 10 percent since 2007. The south Texas city of McAllen has TB rates nearly three times higher than the national average.

    …

    Those demographics mean public health has become entwined with the emotional issue of illegal Immigration. Activists and commentators raise the specter of disease to argue that the U.S. should better enforce its borders.

    … [flipped]

    In the rugged terrain along the Rio Grande, this mobile population has forced public health officials to take a binational approach to the deadly respiratory disease. Texas is even taking the unusual step of sending medicines into Mexico that are paid for by American taxpayers.

    Doctors want to take on tuberculosis at the border before patients migrate northward into the U.S. If they don’t properly treat TB patients from the start, the disease can morph into a multidrug-resistant variety that costs 10 times more to treat.
    …
    Those demographics mean public health has become entwined with the emotional issue of illegal Immigration. Activists and commentators raise the specter of disease to argue that the U.S. should better enforce its borders.

    ..
    Even with that renewed attention, a troubling trend began emerging in recent years. Mexicans were developing a multidrug-resistant variation because they were not properly following the initial round of therapy.

    Short on more advanced drugs, dozens were migrating northward and checking into Texas hospitals, said Dr. Brian Smith, regional director of the Texas Department of State Health Services in the border city of Harlingen.

    Those patients lacked insurance, and their treatment was costing up to $250,000 each.

    As a last resort, Texas officials enrolled many of those patients in their binational program and offered to send medication to Mexico if patients would stay there.

    Smith acknowledged that the program could be controversial but said the several hundred thousand dollars Texas spent on the drug treatment actually saved millions in uninsured care.

    “Whatever your opinion is on undocumented Immigration, we have to focus ourselves on public health,” Smith said. “And if we don’t treat TB the right way, society pays.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-mexico-tb_avilafeb16,0,6769052.story

    Okay?

    This is beyond public safety and crime, because even “innocent/non-threatening” illegals affect the community and make us sick.

    Me and you and our families.

    That article says it’s not just confined to the borders anymore, too.

    This country has a reponsibility to protect its citizens, and a responsibility to protect the public’s health, first and foremost.

    This has a more immediate impact, than, say, that goofball global warming.

    Why the delay?

    ..

  • streiff

    appeared in any of your previous posts. This was the argument you made against it

    Creating an environment where crimes against the illegal population will go unreported or punished.

    It really isn’t conducive to a discussion if you don’t bother to read your own arguments. But on to the shifting goalposts.

    A porous border and no (effective) penalties against businesses that hire illegals.

    I’ll grant you the porous border argument. Your second argument is silly. There are effective penalties but the laws, like those concerning illegal immigration, aren’t being enforced. Arizona, again, has taken the lead in holding businesses accountable for hiring illegals.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    n/t

  • conservos

    and then there’s his surname, however he thinks that affects a potential constituency.

    DHS is already requiring local officals to note “reasonable suspicions” of citizens like you and and me in the states, beyond just cause.

    That’s part of “keeping Americans safe,” they say.

    Then why not include illegals.

    I wish him luck, but that quote irritates me.

    Arizona has a right to protect their own the way they see fit.

  • mbecker908

    In point of fact, in Arizona, it’s a misdemeanor to not have a photo ID. You can be arrested if a cop asks you for one and you can’t produce it.

    I’m not opposed to 1070, but I really think we could have accomplished the same end – getting illegals out of Arizona – without the cop stuff. I’ve written about that elsewhere and don’t have time to do it again.

    Bottom line though, this is the horse we’ve got to ride and I support it.

  • mbecker908
  • conservos

    like RapeLay to stir a cause for action?

    Pro-American games for everyone!

    Let’s hype patriotism and border security video games and get them connected to the hypothalamus part of the brain to “entertain a thought without accepting it.”

    Geez, Louise.

  • mbecker908
  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    The employer sanctions law is a joke. As of December 2009 only one (1) business has been found guilty of knowingly hiring illegals.

    Arizona’s employer-sanctions law has punished its first business.

    Waterworld, a water park formerly in northeast Phoenix, was the first Arizona company to have its business license suspended for 10 days as the law prescribes for first-time offenders, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced Thursday. The business also will be subject to three years of probation.

    But like many aspects of the law, there was a catch: Waterworld is already out of business, so the punishment will remain symbolic unless the company starts doing business again.

    It’s not that they aren’t being enforced, it’s that they are so weakly worded, in order to pass constitutional challenges, it’s almost impossible to find the employer guilty without a confession.

    Oh and I make no beans that I can’t argue with you “front pagers” as well as I’d like; but if you are having a STEMI I’ll have you call to balloon in 30 min, and you’ll live. Most days.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg
  • streiff

    in the country.

    I think the law authorizing police to check immigration status of people without legal ID is a good thing.

  • streiff

    because he pretty much mischaracterizes what it says.

  • The_Rebel

    certainly have something to do wtih providing education and social welfare for illegals and their families, who absorb far more in services than they pay in taxes. And they are still coming across the border every day, adding to the budget problem. Arizonans have had enough. Enough with the failure of the U.S. government and the Obama administration to undertake their responsibilities to enforce the border and to prevent massive illegal invasion.

  • Scope

    is weakly worded, and not enforceable. The E Verify system was a part of the already passed federal Immigration Laws. No employers are forced to use E Veitfy. There are no penalties if one chooses to ignore the E Verify system. Granted, when the system was first implemented, there were alot of problems with false positives and negatives. I don’t know if the system has been upgraded or made whole to date. Even if it was not 100% accurate, if employers were made to use the system, or face stiff penalties, which exceed their low wage illegal worker payrolls, it would help with the problem exponentially. Right now, it pays employers to pay the low penalties for sending the IRS W-2′s with unidentifiable SS numbers, rather than to pay higher wages to legal employees, in some cases also requiring the payment of benefits for their workers. If only one company in AZ was ever found guilty of hiring illegals, then again it is the fault of the federal government for not enforcing the law, and for not providing an adequate means of determination of legal status. If Waterworks was the only employer of illegals, who are they working for in AZ that keeps them there?

  • Scope

    charlatan caviler attitudes of some cops in Arizona gains no benefit either.

  • Scope

    to try to control the problem in NM, but, their approach of deporting illegals decreases the number of illegals in the US that are bankrupting the country, state by state. Yes, it is a national problem, but if each state doesn’t take measures to decrease those numbers, we have not gained much. The people of AZ can at least feel a sense of hope though that they may be safer in their lives and fortunes.

  • leftylurker

    I’m going to break my self imposed ban on responding to you to say this. I really like a lot of the people on this site, and I learn a lot, and I occasionally comment. But you are not respectful to me, and I don’t really want to interact with you. I’m sorry if my existence offends you, but until you want to treat me with respect, I have nothing more to say to you.

  • leftylurker

    Their duly elected representatives passed a law that their governor signed. The certain challenges in court will be the next part of our process.

    I’m totally sympathetic to the intent of the law. I do worry that some of it is unconstitutional, but that’s for the courts to decide.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Why does it go unquestioned so?

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    AZ Employer Sanctions Law and then you will know that E-verify is not the same as the AZ Employer Sanctions Law.

  • mbecker908

    It just so happens, in Arizona, that E-Verify is a requirement in an employment file. If the state audits an employer they have legal things they can do if no E-Verify is present. If you have illegals working for you, you can lose your business license or be shut down for a determinate period.

    The particular law that phxg is referring to is not federal, it’s state. Oh, and that would be the same state that is making a big deal about enforcement of 1070.

  • mbecker908

    And your posting continued examples of your utter ignorance serves no purpose other than as a reminder that you’re an idiot who just can help but present opinions as fact, when they’re not.

  • mbecker908

    it’s overly broad. I think most of us here in Arizona understand that there will be numerous challenges to 1070. They will likely be coming from various cities – Phoenix, for example – from the feds an from various advocacy groups. We’ve been down this road before, several times. A “friendly” federal judge will likely halt enforcement, AZ will appeal to the 9th Circus and that decisiion will go to SCOTUS.

    My quibble with 1070 is that we could have accomplished the objective without 90% of the litigation, but this is what we’ve got.

  • tngal

    four short months ago Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano left her post to join your administration. Arizona then found itself with a republican governor, Jan Brewer. Thanks for putting those wheels in motion.

    Today the Pheonix Biz journal says this about JN.

    “Former Arizona governor and current U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano continues to agree with her boss (President Obama) that Arizona?s immigrant trespassing bill is ?misguided?.

    Napolitano, a Democrat, vetoed a fair amount of get-tough immigration measures as governor and would have nixed Senate Bill 1070 also.”

    (snip)

    “Napolitano also continues to advocate for federal immigration reforms, including some level of amnesty for illegal immigrants already in the U.S.”

    http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/blog/business/2010/04/napolitano_doesnt_like_sb1070_presses_for_amnesty.html

    So thanks again O, As a Homeland Security official, JN has been ineffective at best. But by taking her back then you cleared the way for this bil to pass. Couldn’t have don it without you.

  • mbecker908

    who doesn’t have an ID – and in Maricopa County “reason” means the cop is having a bad day – then ICE will check their status at MC Jail.

    The cop part of 1070 was really unnecessary. But we’ve got it so we’ll see where it goes.

  • tomswifty

    Thanks for that succinct description. It is indeed like waking up in Opposite World!

  • Richard Mullins

    I think I was working selling fragrances and I that was in Mission(that’s not far from the Border). Our Cooperation with Mexico has a reason, but I think a fence for everything except the Rio Grande Valley would do well. Those in the border states in Mexico aren’t quite the same as those in the Drug Cartels. Things have gotten worse since then. I have link to the both HB48 and HB49HB 49 HB 48 . 2 things from last session of the legislature that could have helped.

  • northernva316

    I don’t really understand why the “reasonable suspicion” clause was needed in the bill. Either its going to be over enforced, which will lead to a massive amount of cases and possible overturning of the bill due to violation of the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause, or its going to be under enforced because policy officers dont want to risk being sued.

    Also the part of the bill which allows a person to issue a complaint that a person is an illegal working. Normally statutes like this will say that it is a misdemeanor to bring a frivolous law suit, which essentially means no basis in legal fact — so if you said, this person is unkept and is a latino gardener, investigate him for being an illegal, that has no basis in legal fact — however this adds the term “knowingly”, which makes the basis of finding a misdemeanor exponentially greater. It just screams abuse…

    The point is that the fed gov has been dragging their feet on this issue for a while now, and Arizona needed to do something. And there are many good things in this bill. But the possibilities for abuse are pretty high, and i think blind following of it isn’t helpful. Illegal immigration is a big problem in this country, its a drag on our services, it in some cases leads to gang violence, and creates a permanent underclass of individuals within the country… anyways i think i completely forgot what i was saying here and its about time i go home…. so.. yeah.

  • jgebo

    I have been saying this to my friends for about 9 months now…I swear I have awoke and am now living in Bizarro Land. It a very strange place…

  • jgebo

    I have been saying this to my friends for about 9 months now…I swear I have awoke and am now living in Bizarro Land. It a very strange place…

  • Raven

    It’ll be one more reason for them to take themselves out of that environment and somewhere they’re wanted.

  • Raven

    Maybe the other states will figure it out, too…

  • Raven

    Maybe eventually the other cities and states will figure it out…

  • casca

    “We?ve had numerous officers that have been killed by illegal immigrants in Arizona,? Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu said on a previous Monday, at a Capitol Hill news conference. ?And that shouldn?t happen even one time.? he also added ?Folks, your cops, your sheriffs cannot do this alone,? Babeu said. ?We?re doing our best and we?re overwhelmed. We?re stressed and things are out of control. We need the help of troops that are deployed along the border, additional resources for our border patrol and a zero tolerance policy.? THIS IS THE REASON FEDERAL TROOPS SHOULD BE DEPLOYED TO THE BORDER–TO DEFEND THE SPARSE POPULATION OF TOWNSFOLK, CATTLEMAN AND RANCH OWNERS ALONG THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE BORDER

    The cost of the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 to top $1 trillion within the next few months, according to the Congressional Research Service. Yet our politicians will not address the danger to people in the border region, Our politicians scratch around like headless chickens, worrying about costs. The deaths of Robert Kruntz, cattle Rancher-US Border Patrol, Sheriff and deputies who have been murdered along the region has opened a Pandora box. Yet it seems to most people they worry more about people on the other side of the world. Now because their complete disregard for Americans people safety, Arizona has been overrun with drug cartel criminal We have been continuously lied to, but not just from Democrats but Republicans as well about the border fence. If they build the original fence as originally designed by Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), instead of worrying about the sensitivities of a corrupt government run by elites.

    Any person trying to enter America would be apprehended between the two fences–in the no-mans-land–where they would be arrested. NOT ONE FENCE! BUT TWO FENCES? Before they could even scale the–SECOND–fence, they would already be exhausted from scaling the first fence and the patrolling flying drones or racing Border officer SUV would pick them up immediately. A good investigative report of the current fence–such as it is–comprises of vehicle barriers and rusty relic barbed wire in many sections of the border. In other regions the so-called lawmakers paid millions of dollars for virtual equipment that is malfunctioning and probably received monetary kickbacks for the contracts. For decades voters have reelected the same, tired, incumbent politicians must take the blame for the carnage in Arizona and have now blood on their hands. Arizona is on the front line of the blood bath, cause by the invasion of criminals pouring into the overrun state and a crippled economy of foreign welfare seekers. Send a message by Kicking out Sen. Reid as he tried to destroy the only immigration enforcement tool–E-VERIFY. HE IS ALSO FOR AMNESTY, WHICH WE WILL NEVER LET PASS. Get the facts–not lies and propaganda distributed by the Liberals hiding behind the Democratic facade at NUMBERSUSA.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    I can’t believe he has been so irresponsible. This hurts.

  • SteveLA

    Game

    So you’re all for turning Blackstone’s formula on it’s head? “better that ten innocent persons are punished than that one guilty person escape punishment”

    I applaud Rubio for understanding that real conservatism means respect for the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment, even when we don’t like the result.

    Rubio, McCain, Jeb Bush and a few others are standing up for the protections of the Constitution guaranteed everyone in this country, even the gosh darn illegal aliens because it’s the right thing to do if you’re in our country. If you beleive we are a country of laws governed by the Constitution that is, first, last and always that is.

  • SteveLA

    mbecker

    The ability of a police officer to stop any one at any time was the subject of a US Supreme Court case. The case was Terry v. Ohio and only allows a stop of anyone if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the individual has been involved in a crime. Something like outside of the 7-11 at 3 AM in the morning wearing a ski mask would probably qualify under this ruling.

    States, 24 I think is the number, have also given police the power to stop and ask for ID for various reasons that are less than the ski mask wearing visitor to 7-11 at 3 AM. Judges and the police force leadership at least out here in LA tend to step very carefully on topic of random stops just for grins.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    But you are OK with innocent people being victimized and the perpetrator going unpunished solely because these people are here illegally.

    That is sick.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    A police organization committed to the varying whims of its’ sheriff that is by all accounts a failure. The sole exception being an amazing ability to dupe the people through clever media manipulation.

    Don;t believe me, read this.

  • AndrewHyman

    Good for Governor Brewer.

    Doubtless there are some anti-Mexican racists who support what Arizona has done here, and those racists deserve to be condemned.

    What Arizona has done here is legitimate and sensible. It’s just a matter of law and order. Legal immigration from Mexico is fine, but illegal immigration is … illegal.

  • Scope

    but for some reason, in this thread, you have determined that even though others have argued that phxs arguments are misguided or wrongheaded at best, that my comments were idiotic. You’re losing your ability to be an equal opportunity offender, when you single only one person’s posts, and you are showing your distaste for someone that you always disagree with.

    You have indicated that I know nothing about AZ law as to E-Verify, but you call phxs to be 100% correct. He argues that the law is a “joke” while you post that the E-Verify in AZ is required in employer files. As to the E-Verify system, I have posted that the federal system may still be inadequate. You use the E Verify system to be the end all, phxs says it is faulty. So, which is it? Is your argument against my argument nothing more than finding fault at any cost?

    Here’s a website talking about the Arizona E Verify system-

    http://www,dhs.gov/xabout/structure/gc_1215715302905.shtm

    As to the Legal Arizona Workers Act, that went into effect 1/1/08, if, according to phxs, only one company, Waterworks has been found guilty, then, I must ask, how effective is the law? Who is employing the illegals?

    I will respond, in more detail to your comments to me tomorrow. I am very tired right now, and want to be rested and sharp to respond to you more pointedly.

  • JSobieski

    it is a long standing federal law that has gone unenforced for years.

    How close to the border do you live? I wouldn’t support the AZ in a place like Michigan, but it seems pretty reasonable for a border state.

    Since probable cause is still a requirement, I don’t see the constitutional violation.

  • JSobieski

    The point of the law is to allow police to go up to but not pass the Constitutional line.

  • leftylurker

    Can you explain that to me a bit more.

    I’m not much of a 4th Amendment scholar, so I’m ignorant here.

    Fwiw, I support the law in theory, but my understanding of the law and the precedent makes me think this one is DOA.

  • Jack_Savage

    The MCSO wouldn’t have to “misallocate” their resources to do it for them.

    What a little hit job that paper is.

  • Jack_Savage

    Maybe you would be happier if the Hispanic criminals you referenced preyed upon American citizens – would that make it OK?

    Do you support controlling our borders or not? If not, fine. If so, how?

  • leftylurker

    Terry stop v. terry frisk.

    My wife’s crim law professor used to have his students run through these. He would put a baggie of flour in his sock and have a student play an officer doing a terry frisk. If the student took out the “cocaine” then the search was unconstitutional.

    Thanks for the memories. =)

  • Jack_Savage

    Would rather the lives of American citizens be risked than to have their people follow the law as it exists today regarding having a green card on your person at all times.

    Far be it for us to ask that anyone be inconvenienced in the least bit.

  • Scope

    because he appeared to be pandering to his Cuban immigrant community. It is inconsistent with what everyone believes him to be, an unwavering conservative. Pandering is not a good trait for anyone. He will no doubt suffer in the polls for his irresponsible statement. I still support him over Crist, but, watch what happens in the polls over the next few days. 70% of AZ supports the law, and nationally a majority also support something very similar, Rubio is unfortunately on the wrong side of this issue, and he will have a bump in the wrong direction with his statement.

  • archer52

    http://truthandcommonsense.com/2010/04/25/telling-the-story-of-blue-haired-club-footed-midgets-and-stopping-a-known-drug-dealers/

    I go into great detail as to why the law will get hammered in court by lawyers and will end up getting the police into trouble. What irritates me is that the politicians once again kicked this can over to law enforcement. I’ll bet money that as soon as it cripples up in court with some bad arrests and injunctions you’ll hear those politicians claim the police or the courts screwed it up, but they TRIED!

    The problem here is that the issue isn’t illegals but WHY they are here. The answer is to cut off the money, which Arizona partially addresses. The reason nobody wants to take this on is here as I compare the illegal problem as a symptom of a larger disease.

    “So, what is the disease that keeps the boils popping up? Remember the rule- ?Chase the offender not the offense.? What is the offender here? Simple- money. The illegals come here to make money taking jobs we won?t take for the wages offered. It is a boon to them and a relief to us. The politicians see illegals as a way to insure their return to power in D.C. which of course makes them rich. Businesses want illegals to work for them because they cost less to employ. The government, especially the Social Security department, likes the idea of having seven and a half percent sent into their coffers under a fake social security number. If they didn?t, would they not immediately notify the employer?

    It is and always has been about the money.”

    As you know, I’m not a fan of lawyers in general only because some really think they are the smartest person in the room. The Arizona law was written by lawyers trying to outsmart lawyers who haven’t even decided to oppose the law yet. Good luck on that. Because for every truly smart lawyer on one side you can find one equally as smart or smarter on the other side.

    As this all sorts out, badly I fear, you have to remember what a senior prosecutor told me after I complained about a bad decision they made.

    “You must never confuse right and wrong or justice and injustice with the law.”

    One more thing, as much as you would like to see the police round up suspected illegals, this is America. Being an unidentified Hispanic person standing inside the U.S. border does not allow for your detainment or arrest. Inside a month you will have Hispanic groups spreading the word that if in contact with the police in a consensual situation to refuse to talk, period. It is protected under the law. Also, remember it is a numbers game. How many traffic stops and contacts will the police have to do to effectively round up 430,000 illegals in Arizona alone?

    I’d be more than happy to debate this with anyone who wants to take it on. I just checked with my former training officer who is up on the law and he agrees. Now if you want, I’m sure Obama would be happy to pass a law requiring a national ID card and a criminal offense for not carrying it. Because that will be one of the many unintended consequences.

    Feel free to visit my site and comment. If I’m wrong I’ll be a happy man.

  • SteveLA

    Jack

    So trample the Constitution, do what ever it takes to make you feel safe, that’s your answer? Inconvenienced, that’s what you call ignoring the plain meaning of the 4th Amendment on stopping people just to check their immigration status, you’re good with that in the name of making you feel safe?

    Sorry, I’m one of those silly conservatives that worships the US Constitution so we’ll just have to disagree that the price to make you feel safe isn’t worth the potential damage to our rights.

    I’m sure a court, probably the Supreme Court will eventually rule on SB 1070, and unfortunately it will probably not pass muster as currently constructed. Maybe if the law established a bright line of something like being under arrest before immigration status was checked, but unfortunately that’s not the case.

  • leftylurker

    If you made employing an illegal immigrant a criminal offense, then that alone would do a ton to reduce the numbers of illegals

  • Jack_Savage

    “The illegals come here to make money taking jobs we won?t take for the wages offered.”

    Rush reported today on a company who was forced to fire 300 illegals. In a very short time, all the jobs were filled by American citizens. That argument holds water to a certain extent, but only for citizens who are chest deep in government assistance anyway. But you are half right:

    “Businesses want illegals to work for them because they cost less to employ.”

    And the businesses that use illegals have a competitive advantage in the marketplace, which gets them more business, which increases the need for more illegals, etc, etc, etc. Generally, illegals work twice as hard for half as much, and you are hiring a hard worker instead of a walking lawsuit or workman’s comp claim. If amnesty meant we got to kick one worthless, lying SOB out of the country in exchange for giving an illegal who works citizenship, I would be 100% for it.

    So maybe you are on to something. The penalties for hiring illegals need to far exceed the benefits of having them work for you. No govenrment service, including health care, should be extended to someone who cannot prove they are a citizen. And, most controversial of all, no one born in America of parents who were here illegally should be granted citizenship. Period.

    People respond to incentives. Remove them, and they will go. I certainly do not fault people who live in Arizona and are victims of Obama’s de facto open borders policy for this law, though.

  • mbecker908

    the feds not doing their job, that paper is most certainly NOT a hit job. It happens to be right on the money. I’m not going to hijack this with a thread about what a worthless self-promoting piece of crap Arpaio is, but it happens to be the truth. An opinion, BTW, that is generally shared by the rest of the County Sheriffs in AZ.

    Please note that the paper was published not by The Real Paper but by The Goldwater Institute.

  • mbecker908

    either Phoenix PD or MCSO. Or, for that matter, Scottsdale PD in South Scottsdale.

    phxg is right on the money.

  • Jack_Savage

    How about checking status when they apply for government aid? Or renting a home? Or sending kids to school? Do you agree or disagree with those options?

    As far as I can see, this law only gives law enforcement officials authority to check immigration status if they are investigating a crime. Pulled over because you have a headlight out? Tough. Join the f’ing club. Immigration status checked? If you are here legally, no worries.

    This law does not give anyone the right to randomy check someone’s immigration status. If it does, please point out where for my benefit.

    And the “trample the Constitution” hyperbole is beneath you. Seriously.

  • SteveLA

    leftylurker

    A few perp walks live and in color on the local news with the owner of your local fast food joint in cuffs for hiring illegals would do wonders for putting a dent in the employment of illegals. Or a few raids on just about any housing tract being constructed in the SW of this country, same result.

    Unfortunately business like to hire illegals, off the books, cash only, no SS, no unemployment, no payments to the state. It’s a hidden tax on all of us, paying for the services for these illegal aliens. So guess what, nether party will want to get tough on businesses that hire illegals, the big buck contributions to the parties would dry up.

  • tngal

    and that bothers me. I mean, I generally like Robio. More conservative than Crist, but – and Rubio’s not the only one- he’s speaking in wiggly political language.

    Its like a politician saying” I’m for a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body” and then fits in “but all life is precious even the unborn.” O.K. sor are you pro life or prochoice. Pick one. Generally what ocmes after the “but” is the way they lean to vote but its still not a hard stand. I know they’re trying NOT to loose voters, but man up and take a stand.

    We’ve got a problem with illegals. Do we pull a Barney and nip it in the bud or just say “yeah we got a problem but we don’t want to make anyone feel uncomfortable so lets look at mediating this thing.”?

    Arizona wants to nip it in the bud. Go Barney!

    ( O.K. this would be the one bullet deputy on Mayberry not the big purple dinosaur)

  • Jack_Savage

    But why does Arpaio promote himself and his cause? Higher office? Money? Recognition? There has to be a reason. I haven’t seen one other than drawing attention to a problem that is helping kill this country. Again, I defer to you, but to a casual observer it doesn’t make sense.

    And FWIW, just because the Institute has “Goldwater” in its name does not mean that it is right, IMO. Again, my argument is that the feds are not doing their job, so resources are diverted. The paper may be spot on, but the underlying cause of the issue is the point that needs to be addressed.

  • mbecker908

    When you comment or write on subjects you actually know something about you do just fine. Your diary about the governor’s races was a good contribution even though there were some minor factual errors that were corrected in the comments without bloodshed. They were obviously inadvertent and didn’t effect a conclusion.

    Your comments in this case don’t measure up to that. You’re flat out wrong. You’re pretending you know what the heck you’re talking about to make some godawful obscure point and you’re playing the idiot. Once again.

    And the point about Waterworks is obvious. The act is NOT being enforced by the same people you are expecting to enforce 1070.

    Part of the reason it’s not enforced is that the penalties aren’t big enough. Make employment of illegals a felony with BIG fines and the state will be all over them.

    Here’s an example that is commonly known in Phoenix. Call 911 and report “shots fired” and you’ll have a squad car there in 20 minutes. Call 911 and report a drug deal going down between two guys, one driving a black Mercedes 600 and one in a white BMW 750 and you’ll have 10 police cars, a couple of sheriff’s cars and the DEA in a helicopter in about three minutes. The cars and the cash are impounded and become property of the agency doing the impounding.

    Is that an exaggeration? Yeah, but not by much. I’ve seen it happen.

  • SteveLA

    “The lives of US citizens are at risk” what a load.

    The vast majority of illegals are in this country for one reason only, and it’s not to go to Disneyland. It’s for the low paying jobs that Americans won’t do for that low pay, jobs that produce money they can send back to their families back home in some third world country. If you’re at all honest about it, you’d admit that given the same circumstances, you’d do whatever you could to get to where the crappy jobs are that would give you the opportunity to provide for your family, it’s human nature. Matter of fact, I have a lot of respect for the illegal immigrant that works his tail off picking our crops, washing our cars and the other jobs that illegals do.

    As long as we keep allowing businesses to hire illegals, there is always going to be be a cash only underground populated by illegal aliens. I blame us Americans for not putting and end to the reason why illegals come to this country, the low paying jobs that Americans won’t do for the low pay.

    Save the straw man of the the hordes of illegals coming to this country to kill people for a minuteman rally or a JD Hayworth rally.

  • aesthete

    It requires “peace officers” (police) to check immigration status upon “lawful contact” (them being on the job) if they have “reasonable suspicion”.

    Here’s the summary of the bill from the AZ legislature: http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/legtext/49leg/2r/summary/h.sb1070_04-19-10_astransmittedtogovernor.doc.htm

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    Raven condones the Illegal on Illegal crime solely because the victim is here illegally. That, is sick.

    As human beings we should in no way be accepting of criminal activity that harms anyone, illegal or citizen. Because I know first hand that unless those criminals are caught their antics will affect the entire community. If the illegals are fearful of reporting the crime, the criminal will stay on the street longer. That has been proven time and time again.

    Moreover, the underlying problem is not the Hispanic population in general, as quite honestly most are here to work and lead normal lives better then possible where they are from. No the problem is that they are able to come here at all effectively unrestricted which is a failure that lies at the feet of congress. A wall, 2 if possible is the correct 1st step to fixing the problem.

    Here’s a video about a Phoenix Officer I knew and liked. I was there that nite, I was with the detail that delivered the death notification to his wife. Something that I will never forget and also something that gives me a pretty good representation of the problems we face with illegals in this country.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    WOW. Just WOW.

  • Jack_Savage

    From a post of mine above::

    “Generally, illegals work twice as hard for half as much, and you are hiring a hard worker instead of a walking lawsuit or workman?s comp claim. If amnesty meant we got to kick one worthless, lying SOB out of the country in exchange for giving an illegal who works citizenship, I would be 100% for it.

    So maybe you are on to something. The penalties for hiring illegals need to far exceed the benefits of having them work for you.”

    However, the simple fact of the matter is that the slaughter currently confined (mostly) to south of the border is coming to America. No doubt about it. That is what I was talking about when I said “the lives of US citizens is at risk”, and if you disagree, I would say the burden of proof is on you.

  • mbecker908

    Power. And he’s “The Man” in Maricopa County.

    Again, nobody – and I am willing to go out on a limb and say I’m speaking in this narrow sense for me, phxg, aesthete and Steve LA – nobody is going to argue in any way shape or form that the feds are doing their job when it comes to immigration.

    The argument that I’m making – and I think the others will mostly agree – is that there is a more effective way to combat the presence of illegals in the state than either MCSO current operating policy or the most controversial parts of 1070. In fact, I expect all of 1070 will get tied up in court for a couple of years and the non-controversial parts – employer sanctions, etc. will get held up as well.

    Again, if the goal is to get illegals out of AZ, and we’ll just have to settle for them moving to CA, CO, TX & NM, that can be accomplished effectively with VERY stiff employer sanctions that have an enforcement mechanism (unlike the current law), a requirement for state issued photo ID (which has a birth certificate, proof of legal residency requirement) to apply for any state benefit or to attend a state funded college. Add to that separate legislation that requires ID to enroll a student in any public school. I would pass that separately because that one will bring serious litigation and I want the other two done regardless.

    Bottom line, they won’t be able to work here after a couple of business owners, top executives or HR managers get tossed in prison for felonies and their businesses get fined several hundred thousand dollars.

    Cops can already arrest anybody they want to who doesn’t have a photo ID and ICE runs verification on them when they hit the county jail – all AZ counties I’m pretty sure.

  • Jack_Savage

    “Stipulates that a law enforcement official or agency cannot solely consider race, color or national origin when implementing these provisions, except as permitted by the U.S. or Arizona Constitution”.

    So a peace officer just can’t go around asking people who look Hispanic if they are citizens. A reasonable interpretation of this would indicate that it can only be done in conjunction with investigation of some other matter.

    “Specifies that a person is presumed to be lawfully present if the person provides any of the following:

    ? A valid Arizona driver license.

    ? A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.

    ? A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

    ? A valid federal, state or local government issued identification, if the issuing entity requires proof of legal presence before issuance.”

    I can’t understand what is so damn tough about that. Really.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    HELLO!!! PHXg As in Phoenix I thought it was pretty clear.

  • mbecker908

    Heck, the vocal folks in this thread happen to live here.

    Our point, roundly ignored, is that there was a better way to accomplish getting illegals out of AZ. The current law is what we’ve got now and it’s going to be hauled into court and used as a bludgeon.

    It’s just as pointless to “take it up with Obama” as it would be to argue with the City of San Francisco about their purchasing policies. It will be a couple of years before this is settled when it could have been put to bed with virtually no legal ramifications.

  • Jack_Savage

    mbecker seems to be fairly objective about this, though. You seem to have a dog in the fight.
    Sorry.

  • Jack_Savage

    This particular paper.

    Let me give you an example. Let’s say they did a thorough examination of my spending practices, citing the fact that I spent far more than the national average on clothes, dishes and furniture, without mentioning that my house had burned down. Same thing, in my view.

    It may be absolutely, 100% correct, but it ignores the underlying issue, which makes it suspicious to me. Again, sorry.

  • aesthete

    It seems like it would be difficult for the police to even figure out valid uses for this provision, with that limitation. Most of the behaviors that could be attributed to illegals upon confrontation with the police are shared by the general populace (nervous) The lachrymose case law surrounding the 14th Amendment make this one a real land mine, and the police will have to have a pretty good rationale for any detainment made under “reasonable suspicion” grounds. I think that most of the law enforcement administration will see this as too much trouble, and will just not use it. Unfortunately, “most” doesn’t include Sheriff Arpaio, and I’m guessing that 90+% of all problems and suits will come from Maricopa County. Unfortunately, despite the fact that most law enforcement officers don’t want the power (and burden) that this law has entrusted them with, and despite the fact that this law was the product of the legislature, it has the potential of setting back racial relations with the police back to 60s-style hostility and non-cooperation.

  • Jack_Savage

    But I think Raven’s argument was that if this is the environment they live in, they are responsible for creating it.

    I would also say that your police officer friend’s case goes a ways to proving the point I am trying to make to SteveLA. I don’t understand why you seem to be fighting a law that seems to at least begin to address the issue.

  • Jack_Savage

    But he is playing the cards he is dealt – no one seems to be willing to touch what seems to be a completely obvious way to handle the problem, which is a law doing what you described. I would also propose one to deny any sort of govenment service to someone who cannot prove their citizenship.

    He can only enforce the laws that are on the books, and it seems his method is to make the environment as tough on illegals as he can sans the laws that would make his stance largely irrelevant.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    His bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clint_Bolick

    He is in a position to research and deliver a solid report upon an agency that is well known to intimidate and harass those that speak out against it.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    I’m just a bit more vocal about it because I am/will see the effects of this first hand and I am not pleased with how it has been presented.

    Fence first.

  • mbecker908

    Here’s just a snippit of what is coming down the train tracks. Hint, the “light at the end of the tunnel” may very well be the headlight of an oncoming locomotive.

    From The Arizona Republic:

    As Phoenix and other cities examine the impact of Senate Bill 1070 on budget-stressed local police departments, the Flagstaff City Council will discuss the city’s legal options to defend itself against the new law.

    Flagstaff Mayor Sara Presler said the city’s council will open discussion on the issue to the public during a special meeting Tuesday night, the same day that Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon asked members of his council to consider a lawsuit to prevent SB 1070 from going into effect.
    [...]
    Presler said the law would strain the Flagstaff Police Department’s resources as the city recovers from balancing an $18.8 million budget deficit and barely avoided cutting first-responders.

    “This is a lot less about immigration
    being right or wrong in Arizona and more about my duty as mayor to maintain fiscal resources and protect our municipality,” Presler told The Republic as she prepared for the meeting.

    And then there’s always Sheriff Joe:

    Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said Monday that even before the new Arizona immigration law
    was signed last week, his deputies were arresting “very few” non-Hispanics.

    Arpaio is under federal investigation over allegations of mistreatment of prisoners and for allegedly unfairly targeting Hispanics, which he has repeatedly said is politically motivated.

    And it’s only day one.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    was DEPORTED several years previously. In 2007 Off. Nick Efferly (I did not know him) was shot and killed by an illegal who had previously been deported.

    These 2 guys, both put out by ICE came back because there is no way to stop the inflow. Not now, probly not ever as the Congress will never likely seal the border.

    However, 1070 is not an adequate step to solve the problem. There are provisions I agree with, but the fact remains that:

    1) where are we going to house all these illegals we arrest?

    2) How are we going to handle the US Citizen children of these illegals?

    3) The illegals will eventually get a Workers Card (which is all but guaranteed) which will produce an underclass of non-citizens unable to attain the American Dream. Is that conservatism?

    4) Jan Brewer signed this bill as an effort to shore up her all but failed governors race. She has by all accounts turned every Hispanic in the state against her with this. She will lose and a Dem will win.

  • mbecker908

    says today that Goddard is up against all R contenders.

    I think at least two of the R primary challengers can beat Goddard come hell or high water. I think Brewer has a real uphill fight.

  • hickorystick

    “Illegal immigration is a big problem in this country, its a drag on our services, it in some cases leads to gang violence”

    And the first thing you worry about is trained officers doing abuse?

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    She had a pretty good deal as Sec of State, but is so out of her element now.

  • northernva316

    This bill did a very good job of not violating the supremacy clause (the main hurdle for these types of laws), given that normally immigration policy is the sole provence of the federal government, the bill was carefully crafted and worded to fall in line with the USSC rulings. So right now i would definitely agree with you that it has not violated any constitutional laws. However i would argue that down the road it is very possible that after its implementation given the broad discretion left to law enforcement, and the fact that its going to be latinos being asked to show ID (not possible illegal canadians), it could violate the due process clause or the equal protection clause.

    Look, i agree with a lot of whats in the bill, and as i said above, illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed, and if the federal government isn’t going to do it, then the states don’t have any other choice. But that reasonable suspicion clause wasn’t needed, and causes exponentially more problems then any good it could cause. Its seems like an overreaction to a serious problem. I really am not saying throw out the whole bill out, employer sanctions as well as a lot of the bill is a good thing, and reemphasizing the fact that if you hire or transport illegals you will be prosecuted is extremely important. But lets be honest that it needs work, and perhaps some parts of it should be removed entirely.

  • northernva316

    My point, which i thought i was clear about, was in response to the title of this piece “Arizona gets it Right on illegal Immigration”. I don’t think they got it completely right. I think the reasonable suspicion part of the bill is asking for abuse, and more importantly *it doesn’t need to be there for the heart of the bill to be preserved*.

    Think of it this way, any officer at any point can come up and start talking to, and thats perfectly fine. So what if he comes up and starts talking to a person, and they don’t speak english well, is that reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant. It might be to that cop. And there are plenty of people who don’t speak english well who are citizens or here legally in non-immigrant status.

    And what if you don’t have your wallet on you, you’re going for a walk, or a run or just happened to forget it… it just seems to be asking for trouble. And heres the thing, you can still crack down on illegal immigration without having that section of the bill.

  • snowshooze

    They are Criminals.

  • Scope

    I appreciate your comments.

    The reason I jumped on one of phxg’s comments was because it was not wise to post what I consider cavelier attitudes of his “cop friends.” There is no question that RS is a daily read, even by those that don’t like us. We all know that the new AZ Immigration law is the hot topic of the day. It is on fire across the country. Do we need to give the other side ammunition?

    Those against the new law are using every arrow they can against it, and, one of the biggest excuses/reasons they are using is racial profiling. Racial profiling is against the law, and the other side has been using that as an argument in order to make our police forces look like a bunch of racist pigs. Actually implying that there are some that are and will continue to “have a talk” with anyone they choose, fans those flames.

    Then when the discussion came up about E-Verify, I actually do know something about that, I did payroll for more than 30 years, and am very well aware of how useless the program has been, up until 2 years ago at least. Even if the new law strengthens the enforcement of E-Verify, the system database being used is a federal system. I don’t believe that the feds have put alot of money or effort into upgrading the system, and making it into a viable and trustworthy means of attempting to control illegal hiring. We all know that the feds are not serious about the immigration problem, including during the Bush admin. If it actually worked, they are all screwed.

    I wish your state of AZ good luck with proper implementation of the new law, and, hopefully after it is actually implemented after 90 days, it will stand up against the various lawsuits that will be filed against the state, including Holder’s statement that the fed. may challenge it. As Rush said yesterday, “go for it” Holder.

    I hear that Utah is now considering passing a similar law, and I hope more states follow suit. The states desperately need to band together against the O admin. and provide the push back that the illustrious R leadership has refused to do to any great consequence against the Marxists.

    Your very own former Gov., and now HHS sicratary, Napolitano claims that the border is now more secure than it has ever been, and, she said she ought to know. Where do you find these people. BTW, has she had a sex change operation?

  • mbecker908

    They’ve all been a disaster. We really need a LtGov.

  • RedBeard

    1. People crossing our border illegally are criminals by virtue of that act alone.

    2. A sovereign nation has both the right and the duty to secure its own borders.

    3. The U.S, for nothing but crass political reasons,.has done a terrible job of securing the borders, and even tried to stop legitimate enforcement efforts.

    4. Barack Obama is not only refusing to do the required enforcement, but is actively opposed to defending our national sovereignty, and disrespectful of the right of a sovereign state to defend itself against criminality.

    5. In the face of all this, Arizona felt the need to act, quite simply because someone needs to enforce the law. Bravo to Arizona.

    The nuances of this new law can be argued until kingdom come (makes great cocktail party and water cooler fodder) but nothing negates the critical need for more tools to combat illegal activities. Arizona only did what needed doing.

    If Obama and his feds don’t like Arizona’s law, there is a simple solution. He can start doing his sworn duty by defending our borders. Yeah, right, I know; fat chance that our America-trashing Citizen of the World will ever do so.

  • archer52

    As you can see by the thread, we don’t really know what is a good move or what is a bad move with this law. This type of back and forth is done all the time inside squad rooms, while sitting side by side in parked patrol cars, even at calls while waiting to go 10-8 from it. Some of the cops will be excited, but they will be the younger ones, the older one know what is going on and will be more cautious.

    They aren’t lazy, but certain of this fact. The law was written by lawyers, approved by lawyers, and when the cop screws it up, he’ll be prosecuted by a lawyer, in front of a lawyer wearing a black robe, who will sentence him to prison with all the “outrage” lawyers seem to manage when in front of the camera.

    What won’t happen is that as he serves his sentence, or if he is lucky will only get fined, sued and lose his ability to ever work in the field again, there will not be ONE lawyer suffering the same fate. Not one. Oh, there will be some very rich lawyers on the plaintiff side after the suits are settled, but the ones who wrote the law will say this- “We never intended for the law to be applied in such a manner. We agree it was outrageous!”

    How bad will it get case law wise? Quick example from FL. We have a law called Loitering and Prowling. It was designed as a crime preventative law by the legislation. It is actually a good law I used for years to snatching up people I knew were up to no good. It worked so well defense attorneys and judges began to dislike it so they started attacking it with case law.

    The core of the statute reads that I have the ability to detain a person and investigate his action if I think he did commit, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. For example, you catch a guy in an alley behind a closed business at 2am. He doesn’t live around the place, doesn’t work there, does not have a good explanation for being there. I search him and find a heavy screw driver and a pair of gloves. The area had been burglarized before. I ask him what he is doing, as the law was written, as a chance for him to dispel my “doubt” that he was up to no good. The more he talks the worse it gets. I come to the conclusion that he is about to break into the place and I hook him up. Great law.

    Here is how the lawyers killed it. They attacked it with Miranada/detention. The judges agreed that if I detain a person, I must first read him his rights before asking him any questions, he is the subject of an investigation and what he says can actually make it worse for him. Assuming he is guilty of something illegal. So now I have to read him, then ask him if he wants to dispel my doubt.

    Follow me because here is where lawyers THINK they are doing good. Same situation, 2am, screwdriver, gloves, business etc. I am suspicious of his activity, make the contact, detain, and then read him. He decides not to talk. It is his right. So I cannot dispel my doubt or build a case, I’m frozen. All the evidence of his potential guilt or innocence in my mind exists right there. Now I’m convinced he is actually up to something but have a case that won’t hold. However, this is the circular part. Let’s say he isn’t up to something or maybe with an effort he can dispel my doubt. He decides to exercise his 5th and the end result is he gets arrested. So by exercising his 5th amendment and not talking he loses his freedoms, get charged and ends up in court being defended by the same lawyer who told him not to talk and will get him off of the charges (maybe) that he would have evaded by talking and explaining his activities in the first place.

    And the lawyers of our state think it is a good deal! Why? Because the world outside the “law” doesn’t really exist for most of them. It is about the argument, the letter of the law, not the actually real world outcome of that law.

    Add to this the issue of the subject being unable to communicate because he doesn’t speak English.

    Good luck. Somebody dust off the “Stacey Koon memorial upper bunk” at the federal prison, it is going to be occupied soon.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Koon

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1614117_1614084_1614512,00.html

  • mbecker908

    he’s absolutely 100% right on the money.

    Oh, and by the way, just as a side note, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who happens to have endorsed JD Hayworth for Senate, endorsed Janet Napolitano for Governor in 2002 over Matt Salmon by one point. Joe’s endorsement of her was arguably the difference. He won’t help JD because his base is the same as McCain’s and to those folk John McCain is an American Hero and JD is a buffoon.

    So, where do we get ‘em? They’re endorsed by Republicans. Supposedly conservative Republicans.

  • mbecker908

    And specifically in Maricopa County the cops are bi-modal. The vast majority don’t want to have anything to do with this because they know that no good deed will go unpunished. They’re going to be chasing their tails messing with suspected illegals and getting sued when they could be doing real police work. And no, I don’t happen to think that random stops of possible illegals is real police work.

    On the other side of the coin, you’ve got a good sized cadre who can’t wait to enforce this thing.

    If you’re a Spanish speaking lawyer, now would be a good time to move to Phoenix.

  • mbecker908

    OK, so Tucson is basically our version of Berkeley. But it is the second largest city in the state and Pima County is further south than Maricopa County. Here’s what the Pima County Sheriff has to say about 1070…

    TUCSON (KGUN9-TV) – Pima County’s top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona’s controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 “racist,” “disgusting,” and “unnecessary.”

    Speaking Tuesday morning with KGUN9′s Steve Nunez, Dupnik made it clear that while he will not comply with the provisions of the new law, nor will he let illegal immigrants go free. “We’re going to keep doing what we’ve been doing all along,” Dupnik said. “We’re going to stop and detain these people for the Border Patrol.”

    It’s gonna be a long summer.

  • cactusjack

    Some may be wondering what is Texas going to do, it has the longest border and the greatest population centers along the border (the sister-cities from El Paso to Brownsville). First off, by reason of history, geography, etc., the border region of Texas and the northern States of Mexico are tied to one another in ways CA, NM and AZ’s aren’t. Especially in the legitimate economy. The border SMSA has been a business boom area these last 5 years, drawing all kinds of population – see conservos’ comment above. So a Governor of Texas has to be careful, and approach the problem with the surgeon’s scalpel, so to speak. Governor Perry has been quiet so far on the AZ law. All he said yesterday in a very brief press conference was, border security and illegal immigration are two different issues and should be handled separately. Wise advice for we conservatives. You could almost see his pollitical antennae twitching – his office senses a big, fat loaded liberal/MSM trap here and he’s not going to step into it. There is a laid media trap here, I pray it will backfire on the libs; that the loonies show up waving Mexican flags (as in CA), in in the first test case (oh yes there will be one), the facts go our way to uphold the law. Governor Brewer has a duty to protect the citizens of her state. She had to do something. But the good guys are still going to need our support in this one, the libs and MSM will be at their slimy rascally worst, not only posturing, but fortthem (I haven’t figured it outyet) there’s probably money to be made out of this situation somehow.

  • Raven

    Think the proper term through carefully:
    “Illegal Alien”
    Now, let’s see here, “Illegal” means, well, illegal. As in, not innocent.

    Yeah. I’m fine with it. About as fine as I am with gangbangers shooting each other and druglords getting their drugs stolen or set on fire or whatever.

  • Raven

    They will stop coming and leave, wall/fence or no.

  • Achance

    I’m willing to bet your local elections are on the first Tuesday after the third Monday after the third full moon when Venus is in Mars or some such date. Just like Alaska, you have a Republican state with all your cities run by Democrats. Here it is that way because the municipal elections have such low turnout and the only people who vote are public employees, people with their hooves in the trough, and super voters. The supervoters pretty much moot each other so the public employees and the grifters elect Democrats.

  • Raven

    1) We’ve already seen that tent cities work and don’t cost much
    2) They can leave with their parents and have the choice of coming back legally when they’re 18
    3) Take those “Worker’s Cards” and kick their asses out
    4) I don’t really care why she did it. I just want to know if it will work. Motives and intentions mean nothing. Only means and ends. The means seem a little shaky in this case, but aren’t too bad. The ends? We’ll have to see.

  • Jack_Savage

    “8 U.S.C. ? 1373(c) requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to respond to inquiries by federal, state, or local government agencies seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.”

    As has been pointed out many times on this thread, and something on which we can all agree, is that 1) This law may make a dent in the problem, but it will be a small one 2) There are many more effective ways of solving the problem, and 3) The interpretation is up to the officers, and they will probably not want to be involved in the litigation that will follow.

    I think this is a huge shot at the bow of the USS Federal Government, and is also politically a winner for state pols – that’s it. This placates residents, worries illegals, creates a firestorm and elicits discussion, and I believe those things are the main intent of the law.

  • BA Cyclone

    This comment deserves credit and criticism:

    “The illegals come here to make money taking jobs we won?t take for the wages offered.”

    The real problem with that is that it first assumes access to the job by the “illegal” in the first place. The wages are dropped assuming this very fact.

    It is definitely more complex than enforcing the border, to be sure. But to imply that border enforcement (or active enforcement of immigration status for those already here) is less than a critical component is misguided. Enforcement MUST happen at the border level, the company level, AND at the personal level to succeed. A law without proper enforcement is not worth the paper it is printed upon – which is what we have today.

    Savage is spot on that any “reform” without addressing the cavalier interpretation of birthright citizenship will also be unsuccessful.

    Further, an illegal should not be allowed to stay in the U.S. “just because they have Citizen children.”

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    his use of the term “police state” hurt me greatly because he seems to buy into the notion of the left, the LIE, that there are many Americans that want to round up all the illegals and send them back on buses. That was a lie when Lindsey Graham suggested it. Even Tancredo was not for that, and neither is AZ.

    What I know is that AZ has suffered greatly and that this law is very carefully written, but I know the left will trump up a suppose “victim” and when that happens we need to stand solid with AZ.

    Scope, if we are going to fix this country, it will take bold moves like AZ’s. It won’t happen merely thru debate and votes. It will take risks.

    more later
    column pending on this and my my fears that Obama is trying to gin up a race war.

  • BA Cyclone

    Just to Canada, not Mexico.

    Illegal immigration is a ‘problem’ directly for at least all states in the lower 48, and for every Citizen taxpayer.

    Living in the United States is a privilege, not a right.

  • Leopard1996

    Gamecock, I think you are completely right with that, and that allows him to have his crisis for which he will not let go to waste. In the meantime areas like where I live, which is a nice suburban, majority African American neighborhood will go up in flames and wind up just like Asbury Park, NJ during after the race riots of the 70′s

  • Scope

    http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/04/28/az-gov-poll-illegal-immigrant-law-boosts-brewer/

  • Scope

    do show leadership. I am awaiting new poll numbers on Rubio. Brewers numbers shot up in the latest Rassmussen poll, I think just released today. Unfortunately, I see Rubio’s going down. I do not support Crist in any way shape or form, but, he has until tomorrow to decide if he will switch parties. I can actually see him remaining an R after Rubio’s statement. And, what did Rubio think he would gain from saying what he did? That he would retain and make happy his Cuban community?

    I can’t wait for your AZ Law diary.

  • Scope

    hopefully he is in touch with the Rubio campaign, or Rubio himself to ask why he said what he said. Don’t know how he can explain it in any way that would change the sentiment now felt from what sounds traitorous. To say he did not agree with the new AZ Law is one thing, to use the term “police state” is devastating.

  • Richard Mullins

    The cities are run by Democrats and most of the County governments are run by Democrats as well. A law like this isn’t going to get much traction because the Police chiefs and Sheriff’s won’t comply. The County constables might but that would depend on the who’s running the Constable prescient. I was looking over the 2 bill my state rep had on this and while it should have passed in the 81st Legislature, it needs to be brought back again in the 82nd. I’m waiting until Jan. 2011.

  • Scope

    and yes, there can be no doubt that Obama is gathering the storm clouds to pit minorities against the whites. That is exactly why he dispatched Sharpton to AZ. I pray that the people/police downplay his whole event.

    At times, living very rural is not convenient, but with what I see coming “the summer of unrest” I love my little cottage in the woods even more. And, I know no one will be stealing my tomatoes to throw at each other.

  • hickorystick

    since he was not here to see it for himself. Same thing with healthcare. He is still bitter about his mom. Revenge on insurance industries. His words may be of one thing, but his inner being is that of Andrew Jackson, also a Scots-Irishman like himself. He got burned, and they are going to pay for it. Look up election of 1828, and see if this makes sense. Jefferson was in no way the founder of the Democrat Party, Jackson was: and the Democrat party hasn’t changed a whit, since then.

    Which grieves me too, because I am Scots-Irish, and he was the first SI president.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    before a BP attendant would sell me a Black & Mild cigar!

  • JSobieski

    our constitution has been in shreads since before I was born.

    Asserting that something violates the constitution is not the same thing as actually constructing a viable argument.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Hope Rubio gets the sarcasm…

  • JSobieski

    that given probable cause, a police officer can’t ask for an ID without violating the US Constitution.

  • JSobieski

    So long as the law doesn’t allow police officers to act without probable cause, there is nothing particularly controversial about this law.

    So yes, you are quite ignorant.

  • JSobieski

    so I am not sure why this is an overreaction.

    FYI, the relevant Constitutional provision here is the 4th Amendment, not the Supremecy Clause.

    Before this new law, the government of Arizona was specifically refraining from taking actions permitted by the U.S. Constitution with respect to immigration enforcement.

    This is analogous to a state that enacts a long-arm jurisdiction statute to expand the scope of permissible personal jurisdiction to the scope that is permitted by the US Constitution.

    You can argue that by expanding activities up the constitutionally-defined boundary of acceptable may result in more individual acts in violation of the constitution due to human (i.e. police) error/misconduct, but that is not the same thing as saying that the law is unconstitutional.

    If the law was unconstitutional, Obama would have said so. Note that he didn’t.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg

    is the fact that seniors, which we have a lot of, turn out in droves and vote with little to no information on what they are voting for.

    Example: Maricopa county has “Americas Toughest Sheriff” and has been elected since 1992, and yes I have voted for him multiple times. The problem is that since about 2000ish he has gone off the deep end having discovered his media whoring is a better way of shaping public opinion in order to get elected than actually being a competent sheriff. There’s no need to lay out all the details here, but the fact remains, that people who only watch the evening news will see this guy as a defender of all that is American. Unfortunately, what he is is a tin horn dictator with his little fiefdom, the MCSO, which has become at best, incompetent. He jumped on the illegal bandwagon in 2006 having previously stated publically that illegals are of no concern for the MCSO.

    This state is, electorally, schizophrenic. That and very transient as people fade in and out changing the demographics every few years or so. You should have seen the liberals here after the Northridge, CA earthquake in 1994.

  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg
  • http://phxg.wordpress.com/ phxg
  • leftylurker

    nt

  • Scope

    Rush, one of our heros just said he is very dissapointed with Rubio’s statementn abd, also Jeb Bush’s, who is also anti-AZ Immigration Law. Isn’t Jeb married to a Latino woman?

  • Scope

    and no, it wasn’t that one, even though it should have been.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    and the amnesia that a majority of the police in these border states are BROWN and so it has been and will be mostly legal brown folks dealing with illegal brown folks!

    The whole race game in this country from racial profiling to so called institutional racism is based on the lie that most whites are racist. That is alie! And its not refuted enough by the GOP too many of whose members spoke to La Raza and reinforced that lie and the one that suggested that we all want to round up all illegals and out them on buses, which is a lie.

    We have to combat this meme, because I beleive that Obama is going to intentionally instigate a trumped up crisis in AZ.

  • JSobieski

    Don’t be surprised when people agree with you.

  • mbecker908

    And, with respect to Arpaio, he started the “Sheriff’s Posse”. It’s a volunteer organization of literally thousands of old farts who get to run around in a “Sheriff’s uniform”, they’ve got a horsie unit and they get to come out on the holidays and “patrol” mall parking lots in north Phoenix and north Scottsdale. They’ll vote for Joe because he let’s ‘em play cop.

    With respect to elected officials in Tucson, they’re all way left because Tucson is way left. It’s our version of Berkeley.

  • JSobieski

    “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.”

    A couple of key words to think about:

    (1) “seizure” –is asking for an ID a seizure? In what universe is that true?
    (2) “unreasonable” -the Arizona statute has language expressly prohibiting unreasonable police behavior
    (3) “probable cause” – nothing in the statute attempts to bypass this requirement

    Crying wolf when there is no wolf causes people not to believe you when there actually is a wolf at the door.

  • JSobieski

    You might want to actually read a sentence or two from the U.S. Constitution before trying to disseminate falsehoods. It will make you a more effective lurker.

  • JSobieski

    a phrase that actually appears in the 4th Amendment.

    Cops have been dealing with the nuances of probable cause since the founding of the country.

    Nothing new to your concerns.

  • azred

    According to the Fountain Hills Rep. The intent is to make the environment appear inhospitable and consequently, they flee to friendlier places, be it other states, or back to their homeland. This will happen with no outright enforcement, just the threat of enforcement.

    While this may well move the problem to CA or NM or CO or TX (and reduce at least one facet here in AZ) it doesn’t solve it. CA and NM will be loathe to make any change to support the same mindset. So it makes AZ a somewhat safer place, but at a cost of being singled out as the bad guy.

  • azred

    Let’s not forget the daily fine the state incurred due to “inadequate” funding for non-English speaking students.

  • northernva316

    The problem is the new crime they are monitoring. This bill essentially mandates the officers to stop those who they have reasonable suspicion are illegal immigrants and request identification. The mandate comes from later on in the bill where it says that citizens can sue their local government if they think they aren’t enforcing the law to the fullest extent, up to 5k a day, which no agency will want to risk violating.

    Their is NOTHING wrong with stopping someone who a cop has reasonable suspicion is committing a crime, i have no problem with that, and neither does anyone else. The problem here is not the language of the bill so much, as it facially neutral (prohibits racial profiling, and does not target a protected group), its that implementation is going to have to have a disparate impact.

    What does an illegal immigrant do to give a cop reasonable suspicion that he’s illegal. Mowing someone’s lawn, in a truck with a bunch of hispanic people? And this is where the 14th amendment comes in, which applies strict scrutiny to state laws which violate it.

    I have yet to hear what factors police officers will look for to see if the person is an illegal. Color of skin, accent, inability to speak english, being a day laborer? Look, i don’t have sympathy for those here illegally at all, but the problem i have with this is the impact it will have on people here legally, both us citizens and legal non-immigrants. And as i said numerous times, IT DOESN’T NEED TO BE IN THE BILL, THE HEART AND THRUST OF THE BILL CAN BE SERVED WITHOUT IT.

    So i guess my two questions are: 1) what factors will police be looking at to build reasonable suspicion; and 2) do people here actually believe this section of the bill is essential to the law, because to me it seems to cause more harm then good.

  • hickorystick

    I assume your in Northern Virginia. A lot of you fellow residents are making decisions for Arizona, when they don’t live there and have to suffer the consequences of a do-gooder federal government.
    You express concern the law is asking for trouble. What your not getting is they already are in trouble. It’s a border state, with a National government dictating “anarchy and disorder”. It’s cpmpletely in reverse of 100 years ago.

  • northernva316

    I completely understand the need for arizona to take a stand against illegal immigration, and i applaud them for doing so. What i don’t get is the need for the reasonable suspicion portion of the bill. If you catch someone committing a crime or something, you can check their documentation under current law, and this bill mandates that they be turned over to ICE and the feds, thats a good thing, force the feds hand in dealing with the immigrants, force them to provide the funding for detention centers, and force them to increase personel. The only thing i really have a major problem with is allowing cops to stop people for having a reasonable suspicion that they are illegal immigrants, and i’ll restate the two questions i asked above:

    1) what factors will police be looking at to build reasonable suspicion; and
    2) do people here actually believe this section of the bill is essential to the law

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’m sure the people of Arizona are just so sensitive to the delicate sensibilities of the people of northern Virginia, when it’s the filthy, rotten DC cesspool that made the problem to begin with.

  • aesthete

    you live, hickory? I’m just curious.

  • aesthete

    One of the problems with this provision is that no one knows what the heck “reasonable suspicion” means.

    I’d have no problem with probable cause (though I have no reason how you’d establish “probable cause” for a crime with little outward evidence).

  • northernva316

    are you insulting the entire DC metro area.. because of the terrible policies coming out of captial hill?

    I thought i was raising a legitimate point.. if you didn’t want to address it why bother responding.

  • Doc Holliday

    at least the majority of the country. We put these elected officials into office. The Dems don’t care at all about illegal immigration, all they see are potential votes. The Repubs for the most part have been scared of their own shadows on the issue. The Bush years were horrible on the issue.

    Of course border states see the worst of this, but this also affects Northern Virginia. It affects Eastern North Carolina, as well as Western Kentucky. One reason we have skyrocketing health insurance premiums is that illegals use the ER and don’t pay. And I have inside information that certain hospitals are told they are not even allowed to pursue illegals to pay. But if we don’t pay, they will hound us forever.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    It’s a common problem that people in the greater DC area treat this like a theoretical issue, when there are urgent problems that need immediate solutions.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Arizona has the urgent problem to deal with, not Northern Virginia.

    Arizona has to find practical solutions, and make the tough tradeoffs, while Northern Virginia has the luxury of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    So I encourage Arizona to tell Northern Virginia to take a flying leap on this issue. It’s nothing personal. It’s not an insult. It’s federalism.

  • Doc Holliday

    just saying we all suffer from this scourge.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I guess I mis-read your point. :-)

  • texasgalt

    That’s gonna raise a knot. :-)

    Let them come to a border state to see the problem. Or let them come to any town within 50 miles of the border to see crisis. Or cross over the border at El Paso to see a war zone.

  • northernva316

    the dc area is a transplant area, almost no one is from here.. i myself am from upstate NY. So the idea that people here are aloof from the rest of the country is a fallacy. Thats not to say that the congress and administration isn’t out of touch, but please don’t lump them in with the rest of us who live here. Where someone lives doesn’t define who they are or how they think.

    As i said numerous times, immigration is a serious issue, and i think the arizona bill does a lot of good things. However, i don’t think that section of the bill needs work, if not to be taken out completely. Any purpose it does serve is out-weighed by the harm it can cause. And this is a problem for arizonans, 30% of whom identify themselves as latino or hispanic origin.

    If you support that provision of the bill i’ll ask you:

    1) what factors will police be looking at to build reasonable suspicion; and
    2) do people here actually believe this section of the bill is essential to the law?

  • Doc Holliday

    and I support Arizona and Federalism all the way. I would like to really dig down into the law to see if it is very clear. As long as Citizens keep their rights, I am all for it. I have noticed Sheriff Arpaio didn’t wait for no stinkin’ law lol. I hope the people charged with this duty act on what they know is right, no law can force that.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    But that’s the sentiment. That’s what people in my part of the country see on this issue, and have seen on this issue for 20, 30 years.

    So understand that when you nitpick and you have a username like that… it’s going to bring certain reactions.

    That’s the point hickorystick was making above, and I’m trying to help you understand it.

  • northernva316

    My fiance lived and taught in a houston school for 3 years, i understand the problems people down there have to deal with. The point i’m making isn’t some fringe issue. Its a major part of the bill, so much so, that it its the first section of the bill. My point, is that i don’t get what purpose it serves, and the goals of the bill can still be fully served without it in there.

    I’ll say it again, Illegal immigration is a huge problem, my fiance had to deal with gangs and drugs and large amounts of violence. That isn’t to say it was all caused by illegals, but they were a major part of it. This bill has a lot of going points which i noted above, but this section of the bill is asking for trouble. I remember reading several cases in business immigration my 3L yr where local laws were passed in border states doing similar things (they ultimately were overturned because court found they were preempted by federal law — thats probably not going to be the case here because the law was carefully worded not to). The end result was pretty clear racial profiling and latinos suffering the brunt of the the stops and tickets and harassment.

    You say that i’m talking about in theory and not the facts on the ground. I would say the exact opposite, in theory this is facially neutral and will be applied equally to everyone, however in practice it will be anything but.

    I’m trying to address your point, but you don’t seem to want to address my questions, other than to say i don’t what Arizonans are going through. I don’t see how that section of the bill helps arizona as a whole.

  • hickorystick

    The physical location is not the same, the problem is. Mexicans and South Americans coming to the US and using it for an ATM, undercutting wages, using hospitals without paying, going on welfare. They are human beings like the rest of us, but their view of the world is not ours.
    I have worked in construction for 27 years, often side by side, and know them better than most. It’s not a question of race that bothers me, it’s a question of economics and government. And yes, I care more about my fellow legitimate Americans, then foreign interlopers and their right to raid the treasury.
    I hope this was just a curious question. A word of warning, I have my six-shooters out today, and their is smoke coming from the barrels.

  • aesthete

    I wasn’t under the impression that you were from AZ, and your reply above made it seem like you were. Interesting to know that we have anyone from Washington commenting on our diaries; I thought conservatives were a dying breed up there!

    At any rate, I’m not particularly supportive of my tax money going towards illegals (or legals who aren’t citizens, for that matter), unless it’s absolutely necessary (i.e., legitimate medical emergencies and the like). OTOH, I don’t buy into the “American jobs” spiel myself: it seems to me that if Americans wanted the jobs that immigrants do so badly, they could make themselves more attractive candidates for said positions. I support quality work, and I see no reason to give a job to a less qualified person because that person happens to have a US passport.

  • hickorystick

    Northern VA, picking your screenname the way you did, instead of choosing Northern NY, is part of the problem your having here. Your speaking from a law degree, rather than the culture you came from. I know enough about Northern NY, to know it was a wild and radical place at one time. It used to be a frontier, fighting Indians and French or Indians and British or just Indians. If you had to ask whether to shoot or not shoot, you were probably already dead. Of course, if you didn’t shoot, it was because you had sized up the situation, and realized an Indian was just coming for a loaf of bread or something.
    This power that the police were given, was so that they had a legal right to approach someone. If they are OK, then fine, let them go on their way. The Police can fall back on the ordinance if their is a complaint. If they are not, they can be brought into custody, and stuck in jail, till the Feds pick them up. At that point the costs are born by the Feds, which is exactly where it should be. If Obama were any kind of man, he’d say OK Arizona, just send me the bill for our policy.
    After 9-11, every time I went to a ball game, I had to empty my pockets, and be searched and scanned. It was assumed I was a potential terrorist, until I was proven at least I didn’t have a weapon. No good American complained about this practice. They knew it was for the betterment of the community. If I can make this sacrifice, they can too. ‘Cept their not really part of the community, are they?

  • hickorystick

    But some of them are hard workers, that have too much energy to sit an office. They usually become supervisors very quickly. Because they are educated and can speak english. The work up her, at least in Seattle is custom or architecturally designed, and has a lot of technical elements that someone without a brain can’t understand.
    the gang-work goes to the immigrants. The boss is legal, and his second usually has a legitimate green card, but the rest are cousins, illiterate, non-engish speaking, and never will be. The Prime Contractor saves a lot of money, and more than half his profit is on savings in underpriced labor. The social costs go on the taxpayer.
    The subcontractors that are skill based, are Ukranians and Rumanians. They are good guys, speak english and are improving. Except that the banks have been taking back the projects with deed-in-lieu transactions, and stiffing the subcontractors, or offering 40 cents on the dollar.
    Thats the Western half of Washington. If you go to the eastern half, if you go into the police station for directions, you’ll see a list on the wall of the inmates. Half are illiegals, half are white crack-head losers.
    And yes, there are conservatives in Washington, they just have been dormant. There usually steamrolled at election time by the Unions ads, describing them as Ghengis Khan re-incarnated. Nice, considering that the conservatives free-market earnings pay for their over-priced salaries and benefits. And yes, were a borderland too, but in a different way. Don’t forget it was a native Washingtonian that had the guts to make the Millenium Bomber stop and answer some hard questions. She is a cool chic in my book
    Have a nice day!

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    No lo veo. Haven’t seen one of those in Houston in a decade.

  • northernva316

    about stadiums checking pockets and whatnot is that its a facially neutral policy, and its implemented neutrally. The issued i am worried about here is that while it is facially neutral, its not going to be implemented neutrally, that is, its going to have a disparate impact on latinos.

    For full disclosure, i am of latino descent, both my father’s parents immigrated here from peru, and my mother immigrated here from columbia as well (all legally of course.. although had my mom tried to immigrate here on a student visa now, wouldn’t have been as easy haha). So this is a somewhat personal issue for me. That being said, i have little sympathy for immigrants who are here illegally. My mom came here legally on a non-immigrant visa and worked her way into citizenship, and if people want to be afforded the protections of this country, they should go through the proper process to get here.

    That being said, my fear is that this will affect not only illegal immigrants, but people here legally, and those are the people i have sympathy for. It is a lot different going through the line at a stadium and having them check you for half a second. And having a police officer stop you and request proof of citizenship. i don’t presume to have the answers here, but i don’t see how you can have reasonable suspicion that someone is an illegal immigrant, without racial profiling in the long run. And i think many of the strict rules and penalties put into place by the bill are good things, i just dont agree with that specific portion of it, not at all saying that its racist or should throw the whole thing out. I guess you do agree with that section, i was simply wondering why.

  • hickorystick

    but I am really not the corporate type.

  • http://nationalchat.wordpress.com southeasttexas

    … but it isn’t limited just to construction. It’s everywhere! Including just about every level of government, too.

  • http://nationalchat.wordpress.com southeasttexas

    … but it isn’t limited just to construction. It’s everywhere! Including just about every level of government, too.

  • http://nationalchat.wordpress.com southeasttexas

    As popular as our illustrious President is, he’ll probably have to grant citizenship to the illegal aliens just to garner enough votes to stay in office.

  • http://nationalchat.wordpress.com southeasttexas

    As popular as our illustrious President is, he’ll probably have to grant citizenship to the illegal aliens just to garner enough votes to stay in office.

  • hickorystick

    you even have illegal immigrants working on federal facilities, and in unions. What would the unemployment rate be without them taking jobs?

  • hickorystick

    I do have an immense respect for immigrants who leave their country and culture and extended family to make a better life for themselves and country. My wife is French born, and hails from the Basque country. You have a lot of her distant kinfolk in your old country. Names like Eche*** or etche and others which I forget for now.
    I do feel a lot of compassion for people of color who are occasionally stopped by Police for the wrong causes. It’s rare, but it happens. In some other parts of the country it may happen more often, I don’t know, I’ll just take the word of others, people of color, who say it does.
    I’ll also say I am probably the only white guy on this site who gives a darn about where he came from. I don’t go by American unless there is a war or a crises. If others don’t like it, too bad. My GGGrandfather immigrated from LimaVady in Northern Ireland in 1871. I think there is a LimaVady in Peru as well.
    I am not in the least bit bothered by profiling, if there is a ongoing crime problem, and the same type of suspects keep turning up. It’s not racist, it’s smart. And no one benefits more from it, than people in the same ethnic group, since most of the crime, especially violent crime, happens from one of the same group to the other (statiscally verifiable).
    I don’t think you are making bad arguments. You have been very reasonable and passionate and patient. I respect that. The thing that is bothering me, is the problem is being subjugated to a lesser point of the law. The laws primary purpose is to protect people, and in this circumstance it is not. Law and order is breaking down in Arizona, and the authorities are quoting obscure points of law. All were getting from the President, is a community agitator-in-Chief. It’s pathetic. And Bush was no better. Vigilantes he called the Citizenry. Arizonians deserve better than that.
    Be very careful about advocating too strongly about the profiling. Kids get wrong ideas in their head about being wronged, and do stupid things in front of the Police. This can be dangerous for them. They should just cooperate, and settle profiling complaints at a later time.