- President Obama signing health reform—not fascism.
- Arizona police walking up to you and saying, "Show me your papers"—fascism.
Quick check: policeman walks up to you on the street and says, "Prove you're an American. Prove you're here legally." Can you?
Sheriff Joe Arpaio thinks this new power is a great idea. His new county attorney Rick Romley thinks it's a terrible idea, an unfunded mandate threatening civil rights.
Conservatives should be up in arms over this presumption of guilt and expansion of police power beyond probable cause. Some truckers are ready to boycott the state, and I can't blame them.
Yes, we need a secure border. Yes, immigrants must follow the law. But a law that allows police to yank us off the street just for looking suspicious and not carrying the right documents is the wrong way to enforce our laws. It's the Nazi way.
The 9-12ers are unable to protest against this as they are still recovering from their immense outrage over the "legalization" of warrantless wiretaps that was contained in the FISA renewal, oh wait...never mind
ReplyDeleteYeah, Teabaggers are angry about their loss of civil rights. Huh? What about marching in to Iraq and all the money we spend there? How many people still get blown up every month? They are so deeply concerned about themselves, their kids, their grandchildren, their ......... They are the party of ME ME ME ME ME.
ReplyDeleteBill says it better: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/24/bill-maher-to-tea-baggers_n_550430.html
first guy to invoke Hitler loses.
ReplyDeleteThe problem here is not the law, the law reflects what the Federal Government already says, it is a criminal violation to be here illegally. The problem is in implimentation so that civil rights are not violated.
ReplyDeleteThe Arizona law raises the issue of does a state have an obligation to protect the states citizens if the Federal government either can not or will not do so?
Joseph G Thompson
I see nothing ever changes with liberals: always siding with lawbreakers, invaders, despots and terrorists. Always plenty of money to waste on unconstitutional giveaway programs, begrudging the defense of our nation.
ReplyDeleteIf you guys were a part of a particular sports team, I'd sure love to watch the folly and debacle of your "teamwork."
Mr. Thompson I would say the Arizona law raises the issue of does a State have the right to detain me if I can't prove my citizenship.
ReplyDeleteBarry gets it. Joseph, too, recognizes the civil rights problem. BobE, as usual, epitomizes the partisan myopia of the right wing. I'm not siding with lawbreakers. I'm siding with innocent American citizens and legal immigrants who now face the prospect of warrantless searches and detention. But the 9-12ers just won't go ape about real Nazi tactics like that, or the warrantless wiretaps that Pres. Obama perpetuates. Anyone truly afraid of tyranny and seeking to defend the Constitution should first and foremost attack these violations of the 4th Amendment.
ReplyDeleteCori,
ReplyDeleteAs of yet there have been no violations of constitutional rights. The law is not even yet in effect. I believe the law can be implimemted constitutionally but law enforcement will have to be very careful.
Barry, yes the government has the right to detain you if you can't prove you are a U.S. citizen. I am living proof. Detained for over two hours at the San Yisdro Ca. border crossing because I didn't have a passport, even though I had a S.D. drivers license,US government issued picture ID and a library card. It is a long and somewhat humorous story but it did happen.
I have no problem with the Governor of Arizona trying to protect citizens of Arizona,so long as it is done constitutionally. It is a better response than the mayor of San Francisco declaring the city a sanctuary for illegals in clear violation of Federal law.
Joseph G Thompson
Joseph . I would expect to be detained at a border, that is quite resonable. I also have an experience similar to yours were I was detained by customs agents and my car was ransacked , but I concluded that it was a random search and I accepted it as necessary. The issue as I see it, is that same right of detention now going to apply when I am at church or even in my home. I agree with you this is a result of the Federal Governments faiure to act, but is this really the road we want to go down. Who was it who said ( and I paraphrase) " those who would give up freedom for safety dont deserve either"
ReplyDeleteOne more thing and then I will shut up :').
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't Arizona just pass a law instituting huge fines for anyone employing illegals. I would think this would go a long way to solving the problem at it's source. Perhaps someone has the answer to this.
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI agree, it is the slippery slope and the law of unintended consequences that we must be wary of. However, in South Dakota the illegal immigrant problem does not effect us like it does in the border states and the attitudes of the citizens there are much different than ours.
My son lives in San Diego and we visit often. The many friends we have made there have a much different attitude than I do because of the costs involved in supporting the illegals and the many crimes that involve illegals.
Federal Courts have already ruled that law enforcement officers have the right to ask you to identify yourself and if you provide incorrect information for identification that is a violation of the law. The slippery slope started before Arizona passed this law.
I don't have an answer as to what should be done and sadly I am not sure anyone else does either. I know what I would like to see done but those ideas are not constitutional and are therefore not worthy of discussion.
Would hope that posters on this foroum with some ideas would put those ideas foreward, because I am interested.
Joseph G Thompson
Actually, Barry, I think there is a provision to go after employers:
ReplyDelete"The controversial immigration bill that passed through the Arizona state legislature Monday could make you a criminal if your landscaper or maid is in the country illegally. A section in the bill makes it a crime to 'recklessly disregard' the immigration status of someone you pay for services." [link]
Will that put the screws to employers? And is requiring that vigilance from employers fair and constitutional?
Thanks Cory . When I lived and farmed in Colorado, many of my neighbors relied on illegals for field work. They would move through at times and setup camps were whole families would hoe weeds in the beet fields. The farm economy relied on this and big farmers lobbied heavily against any laws that would curtail this. I was just wondering if Arizona also has a big farm lobby that would keep massive fines to employers off the books.
ReplyDeleteIt won’t take long and activists masquerading as illegals will be clogging the legal system with blocking actions. Arizona is shooting itself in the legal foot with this soon-prohibitive, dangerous, Botha-like witch hunt.
ReplyDeleteJoseph, I agree a solution is needed. I agree unconstitutional proposals aren't acceptable solutions. Governor Brewer appears to feel otherwise:
ReplyDelete--------------------
One night last week, Grant Woods, the former state attorney general, spent more than an hour on the telephone with Gov. Jan Brewer, a fellow Republican who was considering whether to sign into law the nation’s toughest immigration enforcement bill.
The governor listened patiently, Mr. Woods recalled, as he laid out his arguments against the bill: that it would give too much power to the local police to stop people merely suspected of being illegal immigrants and would lead to racial profiling; that some local police officers have been abusive toward immigrants; and that the law could lead to costly legal battles for the state.
When he hung up, Mr. Woods knew he had lost the case. “She really felt that the majority of Arizonans fall on the side of, Let’s solve the problem and not worry about the Constitution,” he said [Randal C. Archibold, "Unexpected Governor Takes an Unwavering Course," New York Times, 2010.04.24].
--------------------------
Troy, if you're talking about "Godwin's Law" it doesn't apply in this instance. The comparison to storm troopers is entirely appropriate. The Arizona law is in blatant violation of the 4th Amendment:
ReplyDeletehttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=422&invol=873
“The Fourth Amendment held not to allow a roving patrol of the Border Patrol to stop a vehicle near the Mexican border and question its occupants about their citizenship and immigration status, when the only ground for suspicion is that the occupants appear to be of Mexican ancestry.”
“In Germany, they first came for the gypsies, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a gypsy. Then they came for the Bolsheviks, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Bolshevik. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn’t speak up then because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up.” - Martin Niemoller, A Lutheran Pastor arrested by the Gestapo in 1937
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
"The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering genocide, propaganda, early 20th century eugenics (racial superiority) or other mainstays of the Nazi Germany, nor, more debatably, to discussion of other totalitarian regimes, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances is appropriate."
I would think the Libertarian (anti-statist) would be incensed over Arizona's action here. It simply cannot be allowed to stand.
Here is a 2006 reportfrom the Heritage Foundation of all places, that states that laws likes this will only make the problem worse.
ReplyDelete"the real problem presented by illegal immigration is security, not the supposed threat to the economy. Indeed, efforts to curtail the economic influx of migrants actually worsen the security dilemma by driving many migrant workers underground, thereby encouraging the culture of illegality".
ALCON (Army speak for all concerned),
ReplyDeleteI am actually quite suprised to find that in this public forum, no one appears to have read the law, or linked to it ( http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf ). It is only 17 or so odd pages, not to difficlt to read, but let me pull out a sample:
"A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c)."
Having read the law, I do not see how it can be veiwed as fascist, and in fact think that using the term in this case is a straw man fallacy.
I know that illegal immigration is a hot button issue, and Arizona is attempting to find a solution to the problem. I think that ultimately the law is sound, but that of course there is room for the individual law enforcer to abuse it....just like most laws. I have been to Arizona; according to the census, a third of people there are Hispanic; I was about 5 miles from the Mexican border...easily more than half were Hispanic, to include the law enforcement officers I saw. If racial profiling was attempted, they would be questioning every third person.
As for the case mentioned by Bill, here is a quote from it:
"a) Because of the important governmental interest in preventing the illegal entry of aliens at the border, the minimal intrusion of a brief stop, and the absence of practical alternatives for policing the border, an officer, whose observations lead him reasonably to suspect that a particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in the country, may stop the car briefly, question the driver and passengers about their citizenship and immigration status, and ask them to explain suspicious circumstances; but any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause. Pp. 878-882."
and now to quote from the new AZ law:
"E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES."
The new law still requires probably cause, so I would say it is not a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.
I say, let's argue this rationally, looking at the law itself. Let's leave the mud slinging and name calling to the media; they need the ratings, we don't.
bah, sorry, the link got cut off:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
My only concern is what would justify probable cause. If there is legitimate probable cause that a crime is being committed of any kind than there is no infringement of anybody's 4th amendment rights to investigate. The danger in enforcement over-reaching constitutional restraints is the same as with any other crime. I support the Arizona bill in it's measures on illegal employment and on human smuggling and on rerouting those convicted of other crimes into the immigration system. I have deep reservations on giving latitude to police officers on arresting people for suspicion of being here illegally. That is far too open for abuse and should be narrowed or just removed. Americans have the right to live and travel without having "papers"
ReplyDeleteThe rest is great though.
BWJunior: The so-called "warrantless wiretaps" never even brushed up against unconstitutionality
JohnSD:I didn't bother reading the huffington post link but I agree Bill must have said it better because you said it so poorly. Try to be coherant in your derision of Teabaggers, who weren't even a part of the discussion in the first place.
Bill Flemming: The law doesn't say anything about racial profiling, which is what the case you refer to is addressing. It does leave itself open to abuse, but the law itself is not about race.
Folks,
ReplyDeleteTerry stops on people on foot or in a vehicle have been legal for a loooong time. For those of you that do not know that reference, it refers to the Supreme Court ruling in Terry v. Ohio that police have a right to stop and frisk you WITHOUT probable cause. It has been expanded upon under other rulings. A police officer basically has to articulate a suspicion that a person may be/has been/or was up to no good. Simply turning away from an officer to walk away has been upheld... Part of that stop requires the person to identify themselves to the satisfaction of the police officer. Sooooo, if it is good enough for American citizens then I guess it will have to do for those criminals here illegally. A note of interest... The DEA cites illegal aliens as the #1 source of illegal drugs in SD..
BWJunior: The so-called "warrantless wiretaps" never even brushed up against unconstitutionality
ReplyDeleteNever Roger? Really?
A Federal Judge has already called it illegal under original FISA laws and if you don't think that allowing the government to monitor your emails and phone conversations without first getting a warrant hasn't at least brush up against the 4th Amendment I'd like to know what would.
And I wonder how the 9-12ers would have reacted if they similarly "never even brushed up against unconstitutionality" with the 2nd Amendment?
[Joe, what's Army-speak for "Joe"? ;-) ]
ReplyDeleteJoe, commendable attention to detail. Thanks for citing the law and those magic words therein, "probable cause." I nonetheless share Roger's concern about defining probable cause. What is the legal trigger for a cop to decide, "Hey! I think that character is in the country illegally"?
And Stace, Terry stops may be legal... but the Supreme Court felt the same way about slavery in the Dred Scott decision. Terry stops aren't good for anyone... especially not for the conservatives I hear protesting about goernment intrusion in their lives.
Joe Nelson, fair enough, to the lawbooks then. The Arizona contains the seeds to its own demise by referencing Article 1, Section 8 which clearly states that the US Congress — not the State of Arizona —is the only legal body authorized to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..."
ReplyDeleteArizona is overstepping its constitutional bounds.
Further, as to the "probable cause" in UNITED STATES v. BRIGNONI-PONCE, it applies to the acts of Federal Agents, not Arizona state and local authorities. The latter are expressly prohibited from ANY such actions — probable cause or no — unless they have somehow been deputized by the Federal Government, which they have not.
Good discussion though. Keep digging.
In one fell swoop, Arizona by passing this law will::
ReplyDeleteThreaten the Constitution.
Alienate a third of their population.
Force new taxes upon their communities.( sanctuary cities are not about being nicey nice to illegals , they are about local governments not having the funds to uphold the immigration laws).
Clog the courts with costly challenges
Push illegals deeper into the shadows.
All because as usual republicans feel that the best place to attack a problem is at the least powerful denominator, and who could be less powerful in our society than the illegal immigrant. If we want to really solve this problem, maybe it is time to look at who wants them here and why.
Thought this pretty good analysis; http://www.leftinthewest.com/diary/4060/links-arizonas-immigration-law?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LeftInTheWest+%28Left+in+the+West%29
ReplyDeleteRemember National ID and Montana's lead to defeat it?
The article makes a good point at the end, Larry. Arizona's forcing of this issue to the front burner in DC puts immigration in front of energy reform legislation.
ReplyDeleteNot good.
The Obama mandate and corresponding congressional leverage will almost certainly be diminished this fall.
That means there is precious little time to push through key issues while Obama still has the numbers.
There are three key pieces of legislation pending. Energy, NEW SCOTUS JUSTICE, AND IMMIGRATION. Chances are, this Congress will only have enough time to handle two of them.
Which of the three should it be?
Bill , Most likely that will be dictated by events :')
ReplyDeleteBarry, you mean events like these of course...
ReplyDeletehttp://ufw.sollink.net/_board.php?mode=view&b_code=cre_leg_back&b_no=6408
The illegals that I personally new in Colorado , worked too da** hard to have any energy to commit crimes. :')
ReplyDeleteI can't believe Bob isn't pounding on his copy of the Constitution over this. Every Arizona citizen, man, woman and child is now subjected to 3 obvious and egregious violations of their Constitutional rights.
ReplyDelete1. Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 wherein naturalization rules are designated as the exclusive purview of the US Congress, not the State legislatures and their respective governors.
2. 4th Amendment, unlawful search and seizure.
3. 14th Amendment, equal protection under the law.
Slice it any way you will, someone's rights are being violated at every turn with this Arizona law.
For anyone interested go check out Prince William County, Va immigration enforcement policy.
ReplyDeleteJoseph G Thompson
sorry can't provide the link cause I don't know how
[Hi, Joseph! If you have a link in mind or up on your browser, copy it with your mouse, then come back to this comment window and paste it with your comment. If that doesn't work, call me, and I'll make a house call!]
ReplyDeletePrince William County... I find this source citing a Brookings Institute report finding PWC had to raise property taxes 5% and dip into reserves to pay for increased immigration enforcement. Washington Post notes that about 6% of folks arrested in PWC in 2009 were illegal immigrants.
My only comment here is Cory's misleading title to this blog entry. It does serve his purpose though but is not truthful. It is not an anti-immigration law that was passed in AZ; it is an anti-ILLEGAL immigration law. One little word but what a difference it makes.
ReplyDeleteAnd if 70% plus in AZ itself favored this law, this must include a lot of legal Hispanic citizens also who favor this bill as the illegal situation affects all citizens.
Linda McIntyre
Pretty doubtful, Linda. Arizona is right around 30% Hispanic. I don't think I'd say "lots."
ReplyDeletehttp://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04000.html
Bill:
ReplyDelete1) The insistence that the Federal government alone has the responsibility to make and enforce immigration law supports what is happening in Arizona as a denunciation of Washington. If the federal government was failing utterly to uphold its other responsibilities to the extent that the Arizona National guard had to defend against a military invasion or the state had to move into their national forests to put out fires the National park service was ignoring your argument would be to condemn Arizona for taking unconstitutional actions instead of expressing outrage at the federal government's failures.
That being said, I would still find it unconstitutional and would want a law that ursurped the authority of the US Congress to be stricken down - so it is a good thing that Arizona isn't doing that. The Arizona law only mandates that state officials aid the already existing laws of the federal authorities. It does't take or give any allowances for immigrants to stay, give any sentences for breaking immigration laws, or create or remove any of the conditions stipulated by Congress. If found to be illegally in the country it hands those people over to federal authorities. To call that a violation of federal law is a silly excuse for the current policy to aid and abet criminal activity in deference to federal incompetence.
2) Where is the unlawful search and seizure? You assume the police would have no cause and therefore no legitimate constitutional authority. You only can get to that conclusion by assuming they will pull people over without any cause except their race. The law makes no mention of race. I am concerned about leaving 'reasonable suspicion' too broad, undefined, and prone to abuse. You apparently assume the entire law to be abusive because you have no use for immigration control.
3) Who does the law unfairly target? You might as well just call Arizona law enforcement a bunch of racist and dispense with the pretense of addressing the law.
Curious, if all the "wise" liberals feel that a state does not have any rights to manage the citizenry within it's borders, how do you feel about the US Military dealing with foreign persons invading our borders? Under the assimilated crimes act, I believe they have authority to apprehend and detain the illegals... Under the military's charter authority, they have responsibilities to defend our country from foreign enemies. Clearly the armed drug cartel illegal’s invading our country fall under that definition?
ReplyDeleteWow Stace . States with rights to manage citizens. Really? Are you sure you want to go with that as your argument?
ReplyDeleteSeeing as Ariziona is already a stop and identify state, needing to show proof of citizenship as well as proof of identification isn't really that big of a step.
ReplyDeleteIn the course of human events, I don't think that this will be that big of a deal. I doubt the police, by and large, will do anything really stupid, especially not with every constitutional rights activists keeping a keen eye on the situation. I don't think the cops will be stopping every person who looks somewhat Mexican and demand papers. All Arizona is trying to do is enforce a federal laws (the need to enter the country legally). This newest law is just one more tool to help that.
I can't say that I'm a fan of this legislation, but until something better is devised to deal with the situation, this will have to do.
Careful, Stace, on conflating illegal immigration and higher crime rates. See above.
ReplyDeleteKyle, I hope you're right. I hope the government does not abuse the power it has given itself, a power that still appears to violate the Fourth Amendment. Of course, when I tell Teabaggers we won't abuse the power of a single-payer health insurance system, they never believe me.
Arizona's law, even if one can show it is a necessary response to a genuine problem, is a clearer violation of the Constitution than anything in health insurance reform, yet I don't hear a peep of protest from the usual conservative suspects. I guess the Constitution only matters when conservatives find it convenient.
Let's be clear.
ReplyDeleteWe’re talking about American citizens here. 30% of the people in Arizona are now having to be sure they’re carrying citizenship papers with them at all times. Actually, to be safe, it's probably 100%. It’s unconscionable. And unconstitutional.
We're also talking about a tear in the fabric of the once mutually protective and supportive relationship between the police and the people. The creation of an atmosphere of mutual suspicion and mistrust. If I were an Arizona citizen of hispanic ethnicity, I would feel uncomfortable every time I saw a police officer. I would worry about my kids out late at night and what might happen to them if they forget their IDs. I would worry about my kids taking a walk with their uncle and grandfather.
And if I were an Arizona police officer, I would wonder what "reasonable" means in the context of a completely unreasonable law... one that forces me into a paranoid relationship with my fellow citizens, the people I have sworn to defend and protect.
Come on people! Where is the Republican leadership on this?
This isn’t about street gangs and punks or illegal immigrants. This is about legitimate American citizens, some of whom are from families who have been American citizens for many generations longer than many of our forefathers have, who now, because of their ethnicity, have targets on their back.
Where is the outrage?
This is not a partisan problem, this is an American human rights, fundamental liberty problem.
If and when this gets to court, it will be summarily declared illegal on its face.
But why should we here in SD have to wait for that? It’s time to tell Arizona to get back in line.
And I call on every good American citizen, regardless of party to make that crystal clear, first in your heart, and then to one another.
(Are you listening, Roger? Stace? Troy? John Thune?)
p.s. Kyle if you knew even the slightest bit about Che, you wouldn't have written what you did. I think you should maybe study him a little bit before you go co-opting his brand as a badge for yourself.
ReplyDeleteBelieve it or not, there are some of us who actually remember a little bit about the guy and what he stood for. And what you wrote ain't it. Sorry.
Roger, in that instance, the National Guard would be nationalized, much as they were in Alabama to break the back of Jim Crow, much as they will be in Arizona -to the great surprise and consternation of the Governor and the State legislature, if they persist in their folly.
ReplyDeleteThe Arizona law changes "probable cause" to reasonable suspicion" and thus creates a naturalization rule that presumes to trump federal law. That's a no-no.
The law necessarily targets hispanics by definition. There is no way to look at it otherwise. And in doing so, it violates the 14th Amendment.
How would you "reasonably determine" that a person in Arizona might be an illegal immigrant, Roger? What do illegal immigrants in Arizona look like?
Stace . In your post you ask "how do you feel about the US Military dealing with foreign persons invading our borders?" I have an answer for you. Not so good!
ReplyDeleteThere is already a war zone climate in southern Arizona, I sure don't see how turning it into a genuine war zone will make things safer.
Since the vast majority of illegals are unarmed, what will the rules of engagement be so that more incidents like what happened to Esequiel Hernández Jr don't happen again, and will these rules of engagement be so strict that it puts the soldiers at undue risk, causing more American deaths.
Would you suggest that we declare war on Mexico , since the cartels are based there? or should it be like Afghanistan , where the enemy merely has to cross a border to find safety?
As per the military having the responsibility to protect us from enemies, that is true , but they do not have the authority to decide who those enemies are, check Article 2 Section 2.
Barry, good point. Stace's argument is a red herring. He goes from an issue of Civil Liberties for American citizens, past the question of peaceful but illegal immigrants straight to the conflict with the worst of the worst of thugs as if they were all the same issue. He's either hopelessly confused or intellectually dishonest about the real point here.
ReplyDeleteAre we to blame the victims of 911 for the actions of the terrorists who hijacked the planes?
Bill: It is not Che Guvera; it is Maddox. Note the pirate eye patch.
ReplyDeleteSo,since most posters here believe what Arizona is doing is wrong, I ask this question, what would you do to solve the program since the Federal government is either unwilling or unable to do anything?
ReplyDeleteDo we want to do away with all immigration laws and say anyone who wants to live here can?
Does the President declare a national emergency and give the Department of Defense the job of protecting our borders from civil criminal violations(illegal crossing of the border)?
Do we grant amenesty to all who are here illegally and just start over again(reward the law breaker)?
Do we redefine the Constitution and say that rights under the Constitution only apply to U.S. citizens or to resident aliens who are here legally?
It is easy to critize what Arizona is doing and what other non federal government govenments are doing to stem the flow of law breakers(illegal border crossers)into this country, but I ask again, what would you do to stem the flow?
Joseph G Thompson
Oh. Maddox. Got it. You get a pass then Kyle. Sorry. These old eyes fail me sometimes. Did you draw it?
ReplyDeleteJoseph : Check out the Heritage Foundation Report. That I referred to earlier. While I am by no means a conservative,and do not agree with everything in the report. I feel the conservative Heritage Foundation makes some very valid suggestions on this subject. Give it a read and see what you think.
ReplyDeleteJoe, Luis Guiterrez and Arturo Rodriguez have a good model with the AgBill. I'm guessing that would be much like the one Obama would support.
ReplyDeletehttp://ufw.sollink.net/_board.php?mode=view&b_code=cre_leg_back&b_no=6408
Excerpt:
"The United Farm Workers and the agricultural industry negotiated the most bipartisan broadly supported immigration reform measure in the United States Congress: the AgJobs bill letting undocumented farm workers earn the right to permanently stay in this country by continuing to work in agriculture. It may become a model for a comprehensive immigration reform bill."
Barry,
ReplyDeleteI am considered by most who know me to be a "conservative" and agree most times with what the Fondation says and do agree with the writer of the article and I assume with you on immigration reform, but.....
Bill,
I like the Agjobs proposal. It harkens back to the days of guest workers and a program that was successful for many years, but.......
Neither address the problems being created in the border states. How are we to enforce the immagration laws that are now in effect?
First things first, controll the border then establish a strong guest worker problem, with I would hope, more of a path of citizenship
than either the Heritage Foundation supports or the Agbill proposal allows. Most of the illegals possess the drive that made America great and I would hate to see that squandered.
Bill, did you once work with Casaer Chavez and the UFW, just wondering.
Takes us back to the main question, how do we controll border crossings?
Joseph G Thompson
Joseph. Securing the border? That is the $64000 question. The New Arizona law does nothing to answer that question either, it is merely reactionary. Throwing the constitution under the bus is definitely not the answer.
ReplyDeleteYes, I did Joseph, from 1972 to 1975 on the last Boycott and passage of CA's labor law for Farmworkers. I was Communications Director at Union headquarters in Keene, CA. Cesar was my direct boss.
ReplyDeleteBarry,
ReplyDeleteYou are getting no arguement from me, but remember government must be pro active or re active. This law might well have a postive effect in Arizona in that it may cause illegals to go else where. While that does not solve the problem nationally it may well help the citizens of Arizona. Notice Mexico has issued a travel alert for Arizona. I am not so ready to condemn the bill as unconstitutional until we see how it is enforced.
Prince George County, Va has a law that tasks law enforcement with checking immigration status after a legal stop. Would hope, and I believe that local immigration checks would not be a primary stop but would only be checked after a primary stop has been made.
This has been a pleasant exchange. No name calling, ect., the way it is meant to be. Have enjoyed this. I would find it even more enjoyable to set down with some of the posters and talk face to face.
Joseph G Thompson
Yes, good vigorous debate. Thanks all. I agree, it would be fun to meet you sometime, Joe.
ReplyDeleteThe bill will not racially profile. An officer of the law can not randomly stop anyone and inquire about his/her citizenship. They can only be questioned about their citizenship status if they have already been stopped for a illegal act.
ReplyDeleteTim Higgins
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI may be a "conservative" but Chavez is one of my activist heros. You have my utmost respect and admiration.
Joseph G Thompson
Bill: When the federal entity fails in its duty the consequence is the federal entity co-opting the state entity...sounds like an effective solution.
ReplyDeleteThe AZ law begins with a reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause before anything more is done. It doesn't try to trump any federal immigration law. They would not be detained based on a reasonable suspicion, they would simply be asked to provide documents. The lack of any supporting documents would change it to probable cause.
The law in no way targets race by definition, as Tim says it is only applicable when an individual is stopped for a violation, in which case identification is always requested from everybody. The reasonable suspicion would thus begin with the lack of the driver's license needed to be driving in the first place. That alone would be enough to at least inquire further without any regard how they looked. So to answer your question an illegal alien in AZ looks like a nervous kid unable to provide documents the rest of us can. I want reasonable suspicion more defined myself. I dislike any requirement for Americans to carry papers that this seems to amount to, but the fact that they can only approach for a separate crime helps.
Yes it would primarily effect Mexican aliens - how could it not? But unless you approve of the indentured servitude the substandard wages without any legal protections that hurt them as much as it does u.s. citizens you should recognize any effective measures will effect them the most. That isn't racism, it's just demographics.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm concerned about how it effects American citizens, Roger. They will be under suspicion just because of their ethnicity unless the officer knows them personally.
ReplyDeleteAnd even then, there will sometimes be doubt.
Some illegals have been in the country for decades. They are part of the neighborhood. The officers on the beats know them by name.
Every brown Arizona citizen has now just become "reasonably suspicious" in the eyes of the law and will be expected to carry proof of their citizenship at all times. Not good.
Keep in mind that Arizona is also the state that says "if you can't produce a birth certificate to our specifications, you can't be on the ballot for President in our fair state,' and you'll get a little better feel for the nature of my concerns.
(Bill: Cesar Chavez?! Your history fascinates me. :-) )
ReplyDeleteIs this the Michael Black that visits Madville periodically, Cory?
ReplyDeletehttp://buffalopost.net/?p=8621
Okay Cory and Joseph, I'll give you one little "Cesar" story and try to keep it short. I really should write the long version someday.
ReplyDeleteWe were in a staff meeting with Cesar at his office in LaPaz, Keene, CA — UFW headquarters when a call came in from Governor Jerry Brown.
Cesar put him on speaker phone, and said, "So Jerry, what's up with this bill? Why hasn't it passed yet?"
Brown says, "Well... umm... Cesar, these things take time... and..."
Cesar says, "Bullsh*t, Jerry, I'll tell you what, if that thing doesn't pass tomorrow, I'm gonna bring 200,000 people to Sacramento, and I'm gonna go up on the capitol steps, and pour gasoline on myself and set myself on fire! And then what the f*ck are you guys gonna do?"
We all must have looked like ghosts, because he looked at us, grinned a huge grin, and winked.
(Of course, the Governor didn't see or hear that part.)
Jerry says, "Oh no, ummm... no way, Cesar, don't do that! I'll go talk to them again right now."
Cesar, still smiling, but his voice tone still very serious said, "Okay, Jerrry. Good." And hung up.
He shook his head at us and we all laughed. (Okay some of us cried too.)
California passed the state equivalent of the Wagner Act within days after that.
He was quite the guy. I think about him and those times every day, but especially now. It's more like every hour.
Great story Bill. I can just ol Jerry Browns face.
ReplyDeleteBill,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the story.
Joseph G Thompson
I'll third and fourth that! Heck of a story, Bill!
ReplyDelete