Racial Profiling and Discrimination in Arizona

Posted: April 29, 2010 in Politics
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Have you seen some of the signs held by those protesting the new Arizona immigration law? They say things like “We have rights!” and “We are human!” Well, nothing in the law allows for inhumane treatment of anyone. (Of course, illegal immigrants do have fewer rights precisely because they are NOT LEGAL citizens — or, even residents — in this country.) So, these people are either ignorant of what the law actually says or dishonest about its implications. Honestly, you’d think Arizona was gonna round up all the Hispanics and throw them in an internment camp! But, this kind of “poor us, we are so oppressed” thinking is ridiculous!

Arizona Protesters with "We Are Human" signs

Protesters against Arizona immigration law (Monica Almeida / NY Times)

Arizona’s lawmakers and its governor are just trying to reinforce the law and the idea that illegal entry is indeed a crime and punishable as such by law. What a concept! If people, including LEGAL immigrants, want somebody to yell at, try the federal government, who let the situation get so bad in the first place. (Yes, that includes prior administrations, not just Obama’s.)

I won’t get into it all, but I do have a few thoughts on the immigration mess and, in particular, the new law passed in Arizona.

1) Ninety-five percent of those crossing illegally into Arizona from Mexico are, indeed, Mexican. If those being asked about their citizenship status are Mexican, then that’s certainly not untoward discrimination as far as illegals go. If the problem were hordes of red-headed Irishmen, that’s who would be questioned. That’s called playing the odds, which leads to my next point….

2) Generally speaking, “racial profiling” has become a racially-charged term decried by civil rights protesters. But, is this fair? Law enforcement (and everyone else) knows, for example, that modern terrorists are predominantly (by far) of Middle-Eastern extraction — and, in particular, devout Muslim. So, identifying terrorist suspects will by nature involve “profiling” those that fit the description. (That’s what “profilers” do, for cryin’ out loud, to narrow the list of suspects!) By the same token, if a cop is already confronting someone over illegal activity and they fit the general description of someone guilty of another crime, he/she has every right to demand valid identification. This is not open license to hassle anyone who looks a certain way just because you feel like it, and measures do need to be taken to make sure law enforcement — whether agencies, departments, or individuals — doesn’t become “overzealous”, just because most of the criminals they deal with share a certain appearance. Beyond that, profiling based on whatever characteristics make sense for a particular type of crime is reasonable.

3) According to anthropologists, Hispanics are part of the “Caucasoid” race. They are not their own race any more than Jews are. These are better called “ethnic groups” or “ethnicities”. Many forms (e.g., the Census) consider both groups Caucasian, too. So, how does this law or any immigration crackdown have anything to do with “racism”? And, lest you accuse Arizona (or anyone else) of “ethnic profiling”, please re-read #1 and all but the first two sentences of #2.

4) If you listen to President Obama or the ACLU or even some conservative politicians (e.g., Marco Rubio) and news shows (e.g., Fox News) that should know better, you would think the new Arizona law allows for law enforcement officers to approach and hassle anyone just for speaking Spanish or having brown skin. Wrong! The law actually specifies that a “lawful contact” take place first. This could be anything where an alleged crime (other than illegal entry into the U.S.) has been committed — e.g., domestic violence, drug trafficking, robbery, bar fight, etc. It also applies for certain traffic violations, like speeding — often an indicator of more serious infractions. The cop can demand they produce some form of valid, government-issued ID that indicates the individual is legally in Arizona (and, thus, the U.S.). Failing this, the individual may be subjected to additional questioning. If the officer believes he/she has probable cause, they can make an arrest.

5) The law makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to be in the U.S. That is, it is illegal to be illegal. Someone who has committed this crime shall now be treated as a criminal. How about that! If the federal government had been doing its job, the leaders in Arizona wouldn’t have felt it necessary to enact such an “obvious” law. But, it wasn’t, so they did. Good for them.

6) My advice to the legal immigrants (who shouldn’t have an issue with this) is to stay calm, stay friendly, speak English, and cooperate. That’s it. If you panic or do something stupid or suspicious, you’ll just cause yourself more problems. (Same goes for anyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, of course.) And don’t listen to the Leftie activist groups and individuals. They either haven’t got a clue, or they’re purposely trying to rile you up and cause racial & ethnic tensions, which keeps them in business. (Yes, Al Sharpton, I’m talking about you. And the ACLU. And many in the mainstream media. And….)

End.

UPDATE 5/2/2010:  As LD said in a comment below, a new bill (or amendment?) was passed on Friday, April 30, that already changes this new law. See my new “Update on Arizona Immigration Law” post for more.

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Jay says:

    Great assessment and logical view of the issue.

    To think people were on the verge of rioting over the State of Arizona declaring it would be enforcing existing laws like the law demands is just plain silly.

    What I’m really wondering here is why there is an issue at all with the US enforcing the sovereignty of it’s borders like every other nation on the planet. Michelle Malkin had a great article on her blog about how the Mexican Government handles it’s own immigration issues. They are heavier handed than we as a Nation have EVER been and they openly encourage the violation of our southern border and still believe they have a legitimate claim to the south west US.

    I’m with the people of Arizona. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

    Enforce the law. If we cease to be a Nation of laws then we are NOTHING.

    I say send em’ all home, including their anchor babies, and then build a wall manned by auto tracking machine guns and flame throwers.

    Well the last part about the machine guns might be a bit outrageous but you know where I’m coming from.

  2. sirrahc says:

    Hey Jay!

    Yeah, I read something along the same lines as what Malkin said, but couldn’t remember where it was.

    Your last comment made me think of a scene from Mad Max or somethin’. A bit harsh but, yeah, I know where yer comin’ from.

  3. LD Jackson says:

    Great post, sirrahc. The signs accusing Arizona of racism were the first things that jumped out at me when I started reading up on this issue. I do not believe Arizona has been or will be guilty of racism, but the protesters use that charge because it sounds and looks good in print. In focusing on this non-issue, they are taking the focus off the real problem.

  4. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by LD Jackson. LD Jackson said: Is racial profiling really a bad thing when it comes to cutting down on crime? http://su.pr/4AaJgZ […]

  5. Ben says:

    Illegal immigration is a serious issue in this country, there is no doubt about that. However, is this really the best way to go about ridding our country of illegals? I don’t think so, namely because this does not remove the incentive to cross the border.
    People jump the border because they know that A). There will be jobs and B.) Those jobs will pay better than anything they can find in Mexico.

    Now, has this law changed any of that? Has stepped up patrols, walls and tougher laws taken away the incentive that an illegal has to come here? Absolutely not. It’s akin to the war on drugs. America has some of the toughest drug laws in the world, but our illegal substance use is still near the highest around. “Getting tough” on drugs only makes them more expensive and more violent, which actually works in a drug cartels favor.

    Now, this situation can be resolved in two ways, both of which are cheaper and more effective than stricter laws. Firstly, it should be a criminal act punishable by imprisonment and HEFTY fines for a company to hire an illegal. Fines and jail terms should be extended if the employer was paying less than the minimum wage. If not jail time, the fines should be large enough to sink the company. This takes away all incentive for a company to hire illegals, as they will benefit little from it and likely ruin their business by hiring illegals.

    The second option would be to make it much easier for someone to become a citizen, or at least be able to work. As of now, it can take years to become a citizen and it is very costly. To a poor mexican worker with limited skills and funds, the wait and costs are simply too much.

    From a Conservative, right wing viewpoint, these are the options that make sense, not increasing already ridiculously high police powers. These would not only be the cheapest options but the most effective. Basically, we could spend billions on trying to keep foreigners out, or we could remove their incentive to come here and increase gov’t revenue by punishing people who hire illegals. Everyone wins, and there’s nothing racial about it.

    • sirrahc says:

      Hey, Ben! Thanks for stopping in and leaving a very thoughtful comment.

      I totally agree with you that harsher penalties should be visited on businesses that hire illegals. Their willingness to do so just exacerbates the problem. Some may not be able to stay afloat w/o the cheap and/or seasonal labor. Others will figure out ways to do more with less or change their business model. Not easy, mind you, but necessary.

      I’m not sure what to make of your second option, though. On the one hand, I’m sympathetic to the plight of someone trying to claw their way out of poverty, get out of a bad situation, out from under an oppressive regime, etc. On the other hand, becoming a citizen of the greatest nation on Earth is a privilege. It’s not a right, and it shouldn’t be “easy”. Any nation has the sovereign right to determine what kind of restrictions & requirements for people to reside in or, better yet, become a part of their society. So,… I guess it would depend on what you have in mind for “mak[ing] it easier”.

      The new Arizona law does not address every part of the problem, but that’s OK. It’s a start. We need to tackle it from different angles: eliminate the incentives; enforce the laws for illegal entry, including punishment for those caught (before deporting them); erect physical walls/fences; employ high-tech surveillance equipment; increase border patrols; work with Mexico and other governments to do their part; etc. It shouldn’t be an either/or, but a both/and approach. Prioritization and responsibility are the issues.

      I’m not sure what you mean about “already ridiculously high police powers”. And the new law only lets the state LEOs do what the federal law is supposed to do. Of course, the immigrants and the American Left don’t complain about the federal law, because it isn’t being enforced. America is a laughing stock, on this matter.

      Finally, removing the incentives (or, at least, the promise of work) will still be viewed as “racial” by the Left, because we would still be seen as responsible for taking away jobs from Hispanics. Of course, there is nothing truly “racial” about it now, as I explained in my post.

      • Ben says:

        I struggle to see how this plan meshes with a conservative mindset. Illegal immigration is a problem, but is it enough of a problem to warrant the kind of spending that vastly increased enforcement and punishment will bring? To spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to imprison a foreigner when deportation is infinitely simpler and easier seems more a leftist approach than a conservative one. Arizona already has one of the fastest growing prison populations in the country, and taxpayers pay 880 million dollars per year on the prison system, which is nearly 10% of their budget. One of the biggest issues I hear is the strain Illegals put on the taxpayer through healthcare, law enforcement and public programs. Is this law not exacerbating the overlying problem?

        Further, over 1/4 of the population of AZ is of Hispanic origin. This number reflects registered citizens of AZ, not illegals. Statistically speaking, this means that at least 25% of lawful contacts between law enforcement and the people will be made with legal Hispanics. These CITIZENS will now be forced to carry legal documents to prove their status, and can be shaken down for them during a traffic infraction. Whites, Blacks. Asians and every other race will not be required to do so, but Hispanics will. While it is not the intention of the bill, this law will cause a large amount of legal immigrants undue grief that will likely manifest itself in lawsuits against the state.

        The second option I mentioned serves simply to solve the problem of immigrants getting something for nothing by jumping the border. Immigrants do not enter the country illegally because they prefer to be criminals, they do so because becoming a citizen is often a long, tedious process that is not economically viable to wait through if you are just coming to pick fruit for 4$/hr. The fact of the matter is that the cheap, seasonal labor provided by illegals is what puts food on your, and my, plate. I’ve done extensive farm work on raspberries and blueberries, often with illegals. Now, I was 13-16 at the time and had no other viable options besides working on a farm. You could not drag me back to the long, hot days for crappy pay, and the same goes for the vast majority of the other legal workers, who were also young teens without much other options. But the illegals stay. They come back each summer and provide the labor that feeds the country. If they were legal, the same labor would provide taxes to contribute to the public as opposed to draining it. While I realize that we cannot have completely open borders, it makes sense that allowing more people to work legally would greatly reduce illegal immigration.

        Being a part of this nation is a privilege, but a right to people born here. My question for you is what, besides the random event that led you to be born in the States, qualifies you for the privilege and not others? If they come to America to work and contribute, why should we stop them? Bring me your huddled masses….

        Finally, your last statement is both a slippery slope fallacy and a non-sequitur. While it is true that the Left does not prioritize immigration reform, it does not follow that they support illegal immigration. The slippery slope comes inwith the assumption that since they term this bill racist because of the inherent profiling involved, then they will find another bill racist. Liberals need tax revenue for their Big Government programs, so having tax free work provided by illegals hurts them equally if not more than a conservative. There is nothing racist about requiring legal proof of citizenship or ability to legally work before hiring, because it affects all races equally.

        • Jay says:

          Ben, your assumptions about legal Hispanic citizens having to carry “papers” is simply not true and seems pure conjecture. The only thing this bill does is emulate already present federal law on the state level.

          Have you actually READ the bill?

          • Ben says:

            Actually, Jay, I have and it is directly from the bill that I drew this conclusion. SB-1070 Sec 2 Title 11 Chpt 8 lns 20-26 “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement officer… where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States, A reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of that person.”

            Further, from the same section on lines 37-39, “A law enforcement office, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”

            The bill is does not directly state the means of identifying if a person is legal or illegal, but does say that it will be handled in accordance with Title II, Chpt 7 sec 264 of the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which reads “Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d). Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.”

            Finally, from subsection G of Title 11 Chpt. 8, ” A person may bring action in a Superior Court against any officer or agency…that implements a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws to any extent less than that permitted by Federal Law.”

            Now that we know that both of us have read the bill (I personally like to avoid immediately calling a contrary opinion uninformed conjecture because I don’t agree with it, but to each his own…) lets go ahead and break this down. What do you classify as reasonable suspicion that someone is illegal? Let’s say that you’re an officer, and you pull over a car. What tips you off that the driver may be an illegal?

            Secondly, what public offenses are punishable by removal from the states (also known as deportation)? Come on, you can get it. That would be either a.) being here illegally or b.)… I got nothing. So basically this states that if an officer suspects you of being illegal, he can arrest you without a warrant. That’s super.

            Ahhh, here is where my “conjecture” turns into those pesky little facts. A legal alien is required to carry papers stating their legal status. Combine this with the fact that discretion and lenience have been stripped from the officers powers by allowing any and every citizen of the state to sue the officers for not following the letter of the law and you get a sticky situation. Lets make you the cop again, officer Jay. I’ll be a recently legalized mexican citizen, Benito Legalo. You pull me over for a busted tail light, and I comply. I hand you my drivers license, but my broken english and general distrust of law enforcement leads you to question my legality. You ask for proof the my citizenship or legal status, but I have none. I say “Meester, I have no papers for that. I am a ceetizen!” Now, with your reputation and job literally on the line, what do you do? If I’m illegal, of course I tell you that I am legal and don’t need papers. But if you don’t execute this to the letter of the law, you are going to get sued. So would you arrest me without a warrant in direct violation of my 4th and 14th amendment rights?

            This is why Hispanics in AZ will now have to start carrying proof of legality. A normal traffic could likely end up in detainment and hassling if not straight out arrest.

          • Jon-Paul says:

            Jay,

            Love your passion! But have you read the bill in it’s entirety? What the h*ll is wrong with carrying ‘papers’? Our drivers licenses’ are nothing more than papers, right? Moreover, with this new biometric national Id we’re all going to be carrying will leave zero room for belly aching.

            You do point out a great point — this law was federally mandated by Congress years ago and remains on the books; however, no one has the guts to enforce it. So we say Bravo Arizona!

            jon-paul
            http://onemorecup.wordpress.com “The Thinker”

            • Jay says:

              Hey Jon-Paul! Welcome to the fray!

              I think you may have me confused with another poster as I am pro-bill.

              There is nothing wrong with requiring those who are non-citizens to carry papers but the constitution provides very clearly for citizens to be secure in their property, personal effects and “papers”. Secure from unwaranted search and seizure, in otherwords, privacy. Unless you are in the act of doing something which requires licensing then there is no requirement for a citizen to carry identification or to identify ones self to any authority unless there is good reason to believe, on the part of the requesting authority, that you committed a crime. That is the way it should be.

              I am strongly against any expansion of our ID system. This would include things like RFID’s or a national ID system.

              The soverignty of this nation really is the soverignty of it’s people.

        • sirrahc says:

          You’re right, the liberals aren’t really FOR illegal immigration. In fact, they want to take your suggestion of making it easier a couple steps further by making it legal for anyone to come across, including granting amnesty to those already here. Who cares if they’re documented, ‘cuz we’re gonna give everybody government-funded healthcare and let them vote. Thus, the Dems/Libs get millions of new people to tax, who are also indebted to them and keep the Dems/Libs in office and in power.

          “There is nothing racist about requiring legal proof of citizenship or ability to legally work before hiring, because it affects all races equally.”

          Yes, exactly.

  6. Jay says:

    Here is the article by Michelle Malkin I mentioned above.

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64833

  7. Jay says:

    SB-1070 Sec 2 Title 11 Chpt 8 lns 20-26 “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement officer… where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States, A reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of that person.”

    – A lawful contact. This means a crime or infraction, other than being brown and speaking Spanish mind you, that causes the officer to have probable cause to pull you over, stop you, question you. You were speeding, you were observed picking up a prostitute, you made an illegal left turn, you were driving erratically. This never has included race, color, language, etc. And after you have been lawfully contacted by the police and asked for ID and you can’t produce it, why in the world should the officer NOT be able to determine your alienage?! If you’re pulled over for speeding, you don’t produce a drivers license or other form of ID and you don’t speak English then I would say that is good reason to believe, in a state where there are 240,000 ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants that you may be one of them. I see nothing wrong with that. If the individual produced a license, green card or immigration papers then there would be no question and no detainment. And your problem with that is?

    Now lets not forget the rest of the section that you decided to not include here. This from SB-1070 Sec 2 Title 11 Chpt 8 lns 30-34;

    “A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.”

    You said, “Further, from the same section on lines 37-39, “A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”

    And tell me how that is any different than before the law. Whether you are a natural born American citizen, LEGAL immigrant or illegal, you will be arrested without a warrant if you’re observed committing a crime. The police have NEVER needed a warrant to make an arrest when evidence is present right in front of them, ie, they show up at your house and see your wife with a bloody lip and they determine you were responsible, they personally witness you running a red light and then smell marijuana in the car after they pull you over and in a search find a bag under the seat, etc, etc… This is no different. The police don’t have to have a warrant to make an arrest unless the arrest comes after a reasonable amount of time from the infraction elapses, ie, a grand jury decides evidence is sufficient to indict you for a crime, then a warrant is issued and the police search you down and arrest you, or you evade the police and get away, then a warrant would be issued.

    Looking at how you are quoting sections and lines and my comparison to the actual bill that passed, I think you read a preliminary draft of the bill. For instance, SB-1070 Sec 2 Title 11 Chpt 8 lns 37 – 39 does not contain the text, “A law enforcement officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person if the officer has probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” There is something similar but greatly more expanded upon on Page 7, line 11 and 12.

    In your hypothetical example where I get to be Officer Jay, you missed one key thing that is contained in current federal immigration law as well as SB1070 where you state you give me your drivers license but I still ask you for your papers. This can not and will not happen according to the law. Read lines out of the same section, lines 34 – 43. I pasted them below.

    “A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
    1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
    2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
    3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
    4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.”

    Once again I will renew my statement that your assessments ARE indeed conjecture because you are ignoring the entire body of the law in this country and also cherry picking out of the legislation in question by grabbing items that make your case and ignoring others.

    Officers of the law can NOT just arbitrarily arrest anyone they want just because they feel they might be illegal and they can not just arbitrarily cruise down the streets asking anyone and everyone for proof of citizenship. This is simply false and has been the typical hyperbole that has been spread about the bill by the main stream media.

    You sound like you are simply arguing for allowing individuals who are criminals the second they enter our country to be able to slide.

    The law is the law and it MUST be applied equally to all individuals in this Nation. SB1070 does not change, modify, decrease or increase any current law but only solidifies it on the state law books. It simply sets a standard by which State officials now have the ability to enforce those laws, that before were solely on the Federal books, locally within their State.

    The Feds have largely ignored the issues that border States like Arizona have been dealing with for years. All the Feds offer up is amnesty, which would be a HUGE mistake and only make the issues we have now 1000% worse with chain migration and an utter destruction of our economy through increased entitlements.

    It is Arizonians who are dealing with the increased crime, identity theft, drug smuggling, murder and robbery. If you want to see the statistics, go to http://www.google.com and search.

    It is the Arizonians who are paying increased taxes and insurance costs to support the illegals getting medical care that they don’t pay for at hospital ER’s, welfare payouts and sending their children to public schools.

    I think it is only fair that the State of Arizona is allowed to clean up the problem the Feds obviously have no desire to handle.

    You say you read the bill, Ben. I’m wondering though. Did you read the WHOLE bill and then just ignore the things in the bill that defeated your points because there were a lot of them.

  8. Ben says:

    Why, Jay, you caught me. Red handed sir. Why, yes, I used the parts of the bill which supported my claim, because they support my claim. Lets have a new hypothetical, shall we? You be the pot, and then call me black.

    Firstly, the section about not profiling by race has literally nothing to do with the “reasonable suspicion” aspect i quoted earlier. Your quote comes from the employment section, and actually says that a complaint of violation of this laby an employer cannot be issued on the basis of race. Basically, it says you cannot raid a business because there are a lot of Mexican employees.

    Secondly, I have scoured the bill looking for the section on drivers licenses and other ID forms, though it may actually be there. Here is the link to the bill that I have been using.http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

    Notice I did not just tell you to search it on google, and that this link is to the AZ Legislature Website. If you can find it on there, I would very much appreciate it because that aspect changes a lot of my problems with the bill.

    While it is true that an officer can arrest you without a warrant with probable cause to believe you have committed a crime, this law set specifically states that it is to be done for suspicion of illegal immigration, the “public offense punishable by removal from the United States.” This begs the question again, what is probable cause for belief someone is here illegally? I never once said that they would stop Hispanics more or less than before, in fact, I put the number of Hispanic lawful contacts as a function of their population percentage. If a white person didn’t have their drivers license (I’ve left mine at home before) will they be questioned/arrested as potential illegals? I have a feeling that they won’t, which inherently makes this a race-centric law.

    Once again I will warn you about poisoning the well. You have literally no evidence that I am uninformed or that I have not read the entire bill. I have read the bill in its entirety, and I drew a different conclusion from it than you did. Notice that I never once drew any conclusions about your reading/not reading of the bill. I assume you have because to intelligently debate one must assume that the other has obtained all available knowledge.

    Arizonians are the people dealing heaviest with this issue, this is true. It is also true that this causes them a heftier tax burden for illegals than in other states. However, as I showed earlier, this bill actually increases the tax dollars spent on illegals through increased work on the arrest and jailing of these illegals, without doing anything to reduce the influx of the immigrants.

    I have never once discounted the problem of illegal immigration or the necessity of dealing with it. What I have seen is that this bill does little to treat the root of the problem and will create unintended problems arising from the costs associated with the bill and the very high potential of unnecessary harassment of legal immigrants.

  9. Jay says:

    Here is the text I quoted that was copied straight from the bill from the Arizona Legislature website. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf

    11 Sec. 2. Title 11, chapter 7, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended by
    12 adding article 8, to read:
    13 ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
    14 11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of
    15 immigration laws; indemnification
    16 A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR
    17 OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE
    18 ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT
    19 PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
    20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
    21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
    22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
    23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
    24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
    25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
    26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY
    27 PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED
    28 BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE
    29 VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION
    30 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY,
    31 CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY
    32 CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF
    33 THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
    34 ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
    35 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW
    36 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
    37 1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
    38 2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
    39 3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
    40 IDENTIFICATION.
    41 4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES
    42 BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    43 ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

    It is overwhelmingly clear that there has to be LAWFUL CONTACT by an LE before legal status can come into question and if the contacted individual produces a legal form of identification then legal status can NOT be questioned. It’s bold and clear, Ben.

    Whether the individual is white, black, brown, yellow, purple, chartreuse or violet it makes no difference. If you get stopped because you are suspected of committing a crime and your identity can not be determined on the spot, you will be held until it can be determined. This is nothing new. It has always been this way.

    If I was stopped and did not have id on me, I speak English and could give the officer the needed information that would result in establishing my identification through the records all LE’s have access to through dispatch and State records.

    If I wasn’t white but a citizen then that situation would not change.

    If I was Hispanic but was here with a green card or student visa and made the decision to be in compliance of the laws that I was informed about when gaining lawful entrance to the US then I would have my visa on me at all times when leaving my residence. This is no mystery and all foreign nationals are made aware that they must have those papers with them at all times to establish legality of their presence here. If I was here legally but chose not to adhere to the law and get detained long enough for the police to confirm my residence status then so be it. I should have had my visa on me, right? Not willfully choose to disobey the law I was clearly made aware of?

    If I don’t speak English but am a citizen, the county and or state always has translators available to work with you and the LE. If I only spoke Spanish, a large amount of LE’s in Arizona already speak Spanish. If I don’t want to deal with that then maybe I should learn the language of the country I reside in.

    If I am an illegal immigrant then I am a criminal already and deserve to be detained and then deported to my country of origin.

    This law does not give LE’s the ability to single anyone out more than they already can. They MUST have probable cause to request you to establish identity. <— that's the key, Ben. That's the key… I don't know how to make it more clear for you.

    I still do not understand what problem you have with this whole situation?! You claim it's the cost of the implementation but have you looked at the costs of illegal immigration in these border states?

    In Los Angeles County by itself, they spent over 1 billion dollars supporting illegals when you combine entitlements, prison costs, education and public services. over 600 million of that was spent providing welfare payouts to parents of anchor babies. This is just in the County of Los Angeles.

    FAIR said, In 2000 nearly one-third of all of Arizona’s children are either foreign born or the child of an immigrant. Seven percent are first-generation immigrants (foreign born) and 24 percent are second-generation (a child of an immigrant). FAIR estimates in 2004 that the taxpayers of Arizona spent $748.3 million per year on illegal aliens and their children in public schools.

    FAIR estimated that in 2005 the cost of illegal immigrants to taxpayers in Arizona topped 1.3 Billion dollars.

    FAIR stands for The Federation for American Immigration Reform and can be found at http://www.fairus.org/

    Here are some statistics that I included in my last article.

    "On October 2nd, the Maricopa County, Arizona District Attorney’s office released crime statistics covering the current issues. Overall, while illegals represent only nine percent of the population in Maricopa County they are responsible for approximately 22% of the crimes committed. Here is a breakdown of statistics by crime category. Illegal aliens account for:…

    33.5% of those sentenced for manufacture, sale or transport of drugs.
    35.8% of those sentenced for kidnapping.
    20.3% of those sentenced for felony DUI.
    16.5% of those sentenced for violent crimes.
    18.5% of those sentenced for property crimes.
    44% of those sentenced for forgery and fraud.
    85.3% of those convicted of criminal impersonation or false ID.
    96% of those convicted of human smuggling"

    The costs associated with Illegals is enormous. The costs of this amendment, and it really is just an amendment, dwarfs in comparison. If utilized properly and with the complete cooperation of Federal Immigration authorities, it will reduce the amount of illegal immigrants in Arizona. They will also think twice about coming there in the first place when they know they are always an inch from being sent back.

    I don't know you personally so I can not attest to your character as a human being but, Ben, your stances on the bill so far and what you've said really puts you squarely in the corner of those who support amnesty and open borders so what do you support? Why are you really so against a bill that does nothing but properly enforce existing laws?

    This bill is not THE solution but it is part of it. The other parts of the solution are working with the Mexican Government to not only stop encouraging the influx but also to punish those who violate our border. This would include them paying for the incarceration of their citizens in the US. A fence would be in order as well and a well armed and trained group guarding it night and day. I would also pass federal legislation that punishes and sanctions sanctuary cities along with stepping up the enforcement of immigration laws already on the books by increasing the funding and efforts of ICE. If anyone is caught, send em home along with their anchor children and if they get caught here again, they do hard time at the expense of the Mexican Government.

    Go after the employers with a vengeance including harsh fines in the 100's of thousands of dollars and for repeat offenders, prison time.

    Deny benefits of ANY FORM to those who can not establish legal residency including SS and welfare. If they are starving, offer them a one way trip back to the welfare office in Mexico City.

    There is a myriad of measures that can be taken but from the way you're demonizing this bill, I have the feeling you will be against those as well. You can accuse me of what ever you will. I will not be nice, warm and fuzzy with you just to save your feelings.

    But I digress. I am done here and am tiring of arguing with you. You are entitled to your own opinions, no matter how skewed or incorrect. If you view this as a victory in the debate then congrats! I have made my points and refuse to begin beating you as a dead horse.

    Have a great day!

    • sirrahc says:

      Whew! Perhaps a tad snarky, but logically and clearly explained. Well done.

      One point of correction, though. You said, “They MUST have probable cause to request you to establish identity.” I think you meant to say “reasonable suspicion”.

      For those wondering, both are terms of law used by LE and the courts. And “probable cause”, which is needed before issuing a warrant or making an arrest, requires more evidence.

      • Jay says:

        Just returning in kind.

        I am no lawyer or LE but isnt it reasonable suspicion that creates the probable cause?

        @Ben. You are 100% correct. I read the senate bill in it’s entirety and what I’ve said still stands and I still firmly believe your arguments to be baseless.

        With that said, if you have anything new to bring to the table then I would be happy to discuss. Otherwise, I’m not going to rehash the same points again.

        • sirrahc says:

          “Creates”, no; “precedes”, yes.

          ‘Reasonable suspicion’ is what the LEO must have before asking questions and requesting documentation. What follows from that is how the LEO determines whether or not there is ‘probable cause’ to justify an arrest.

          But, you knew that.

    • sirrahc says:

      Oh, and if anyone wants to check out Jay’s article that he mentioned, it’s over at http://www.LibertyScorned.com.

  10. Ben says:

    Ahh but Jay where would we be in this world without intelligent discussion and passionate argument? I feel like I somehow offended you or otherwise upset you, I can assure you that was not my intention.

    I recently discovered that you and I have been reading different drafts of the bill. The bill that I have been reading can be found at http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf. The link you have been using is http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf. Now if you open those up, they look exactly the same until you scroll down a couple pages to Article 8 subsection B, which begins with “during a lawful contact…” On the version I have been referencing, the paragraph stops at line 26 with “pursuant to 8 United States Code…” On the version you have been using, the entire section regarding race, skin color and what constitutes proof of legality, etc…

    Honestly, it took me about an hour to figure out why these texts had this huge difference in wording and clarity. Have you figured it out yet Jay? Look at the urls. Look right before the .pdf. Mine has an S as the last letter. Yours has an H. Know what that means? Still no? If you look at the tops, you will see that my source says “Senate Engrossed” in the top right corner. On your source, it says “House Engrossed Senate Bill.” What this means is that your source was passed in the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate, where it was edited and changed and eventually passed. The editing process removed the section that I couldn’t find, causing this confusion.

    Now, obviously i cannot blame you for not realizing it was not the final bill, and in the form that was passed through the house your points are all completely valid and to be honest it is a bill I feel much better about.

    Unfortunately, that bill is not the law. The law actually has no specifications for what constitutes proof of legality nor restrictions on racial profiling, except in the case of a complaint about an employer.

    I very much enjoyed how you took my lack of support for this particular bill and turned that into my support for amnesty and open borders. That was a nice little trick ya did there. I don’t like this bill because, as I’ve said before, it treats a symptom, not the disease. There are other ways to stem the tide of illegal immigration than simply giving police more power to search and arrest. It’s simply a waste of money and resources and will eventually infringe on the rights of citizens, namely Hispanic citizens.

    I’m all for keeping illegals off of public programs, public schools, healthcare and the like, and I strongly feel that firmly denying them access to these services, along with denied access to work, will be a much more effective deterrent than any laws that help to “round em up.” The problem with doing that is that they turn around and come right back. And they are always going to come back until what awaits them here is not enough to make the risks worth it. To put it another way, if potential illegals are looking at making the jump based on a risk/reward ratio, what this law serves to do is to up the risk of coming here. What I would like to do is lower the reward until its not worth it anymore. Upping the risk (jail sentences, deportation and increased chance of capture) all cost the taxpayers a lot of money. It would require massive manpower to watch the border, and a wall would be astronomically expensive to build and monitor.

    To illustrate just how expensive, lets say we build the wall. 2yds thick, 20 ft high with 10ft in the ground of solid f***ing concrete. And it runs the length of the border, which is 1969 miles long. That’s a volume of 69308800 cubic yards. Cement costs 65$ a yard retail, but lets say the government gets a deal and they’re buying bulk, so lets say 30 bucks a yard. That’s 2,079,264,000$ in cement. The world record for cement in a single project is 21 million cubic yards for a dam in China, which took 17 years to build. Lets say that, because were just building a wall, not a dam) that we can do it 3 times as fast, say 20 million cubic yards per 6 years, or 3 1/3 million cubic meters per year. We could be done in just under 23 years. Of course, that’s 23 years of paying God knows how many employees prevailing wage, which will definitely run into the billions of dollars. And then patrolling it indefinitely with guards and machines. Its just not cost effective.

    And to be completely honest, illegals would still find a way around it if their lives were significantly improved by coming here illegally.

    Anyways. I’m pretty bummed that you’ve decided to stop this banter we have had going, I’ve been under the opinion that two intelligent people can present arguments and there not have to be a winner and a loser. Personally I feel the winner because I have gotten a well reasoned opinion from you that was contrary to my own. There is not, and never will be, a right answer for this discussion. At least not in the sense that for one opinion to be right another has to be wrong. I hope you enjoyed this as much as I did.

    Have a wonderful day

    • sirrahc says:

      Thanks for clearing up the mystery of the two versions of the bill. That certainly helps. However, I believe you got the order of events backward.

      You are reading the term “House Engrossed Senate Bill” to mean that the House passed it and sent it to the Senate. However, I believe it actually means this is the version of the bill that began in the Senate and was subsequently passed by the House. This would make more sense, since it was State Senator Russell Pearce who originally sponsored the bill, which was then passed in the Arizona State Senate in February. This would be what you were reading, which did NOT have the specifications about “race, color, or national origin” or what constitutes proof of legality. A modified version of the bill then passed the Arizona House of Representatives on April 13. That must be what Jay was reading, which does indeed have those extra details. The revised measure then passed the State Senate on April 19.

      As I discuss in my newest post, one of the changes just made to the new law as of Friday is to remove “solely” from the wording about race, color, national origin. This seems to be further proof that Jay was looking at the version that was signed into law. (This is confusing!)

      On the broader matter, I guess Jay and I maintain a multi-pronged approach, whereas you want to focus mostly on “removing the carrot”, so to speak. I’m obviously not convinced that alone will work, but if they take that approach somewhere and it’s proven effective, great!

      Here’s an idea: As part of their punishment, able-bodied illegals can be put to work on the border fence-building project — e.g., mixing cement, digging trenches, etc. Heck, they may even learn a skill to add to their resumes.

      • Ben says:

        I think, and certainly hope, that you are right in that I had the bills backwards. If this is the case, then the additions made to the bill certainly alleviate many of my concerns I had with it pertaining to potential for racial profiling. Jay, I would like to apologize for accusing you of not reading the current bill, but as you can see it was an honest mistake.

        The section about race being used to file a complaint against employers in the bill I was reading as read “solely based on national origin, etc..” so that is inconclusive onto which bill is final, however I believe that Jay has been using the correct version. I am glad to hear that the wording has been changed, as it works to make race a non-issue in the “reasonable suspicion” forming.

        The reaction shown in this bill to the problem of illegal immigration is a response shown to be ineffective in many other aspects of life. It is like the California prison boom of the last two decades. They had higher crime so their response was to build more prisons, and not to work on making less criminals. Since 1980 they have built 19 prisons (out of 33 total) and still cannot keep up with their prison population. In 2007 Gov. Schwarzenegger had to spend 7.4 BILLION dollars to get 40,000 new beds. In 2008, he had to declare a state of emergency to move some of the inmates out of state. Basically what this indicates is that jail time and punishment are not effective deterrents to many crimes. I have a sneaking suspicion that illegal immigration will be one of these crimes.

        If we can first reduce the number of illegals that are coming here, then enforcement of this law would be much simpler and more practical. As I said earlier, especially in border towns, government and public programs should require proof of legality before one can enter the programs. They should have to produce proof of legality before they can get a job. If they don’t, then they should be deported and the employer put out of business.

        Laws around immigration should focus on reducing the potential payoff for coming here, which would actually be a cost-saving measure as opposed to an expenditure. It gets to the root of the problem, which is that there is a great big carrot sitting in the States.

        The reason that I oppose this bill and think that it will be ineffective is that it is more of the same, and the same has failed over and over again.

        The idea of removing the carrot will not solve all the border issues. Referring to the crime numbers that Jay displayed, I feel like this approach would have little effect on the violent crimes, kidnapping or drug trafficking. These crimes are not a function of jobs in America or really even an immigration issue. The people who are trafficking and kidnapping and killing are part of the highly profitable American drug market, and the violence and kidnapping are products of what happens in the black market. Believe me, all the enforcement in the world will not make these problems go away. In fact, increasing the risk of carrying and running drugs only makes them more profitable to the cartels.

        However, some of those crimes will be greatly reduced, namely the human smuggling and identity crimes. The identity crimes happen because illegals often get false SSN’s, drivers licenses and the like. The human smuggling is largely coyotes bringing in people to work. Without work, the human smuggling becomes drastically reduced, as well as the identity crimes.

  11. LD Jackson says:

    Well, I have been following this topic and the comments for a couple of days. To start with, the law was fairly clear about how the police were to proceed, but Arizona has made it even clearer. Governor Brewer signed a new bill into law on Friday, that revises the original law. It makes it clear, even more so than the original law, that the police can not stop a person just to check their papers. The lawful contact has to consist of someone breaking another law.

  12. […] borders (pardon the pun) on fear-mongering. As I’ve pointed out in Part 1 and earlier posts/comments, most of the proposed scenarios for potential harassment and arrests of church & family members […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s