Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

Ragusa, can you show any evidence at all that they hold different views of immigration of other groups? Or that they hold similar views of hispanic citizens? If not, it may just be an immigration issue, which is what it should be, and what it claims to be.

You do realize that you're just as bad, don't you? Since you can't look into their heads, and their past actions could be interpreted either way, you assume racism without any real proof, and then condemn them for it. That's what I call paranoid. Or just hate-mongering, but I suspect for you it's a real fear.

That... is so bad I'm not even sure how to respond. Again, though, you are just assuming all the bad.

You do realize that the ethinic-studies law doesn't ban ethnic studies, don't you? Or have you fallen for all the same BS that's on the news? It's one thing to ignore context, but it's something else entirely to ignore even the actual document itself, and instead cling to sensationalist claims that ignore the facts.

Oh, I won't deny that politics is involved. Of course it is, these are politicians. I see little difference, though, between these laws and the games liberals play with their favorite issues. How many liberal Democratic lawmakers do you think have made back-room deals for reasons related as much to the polls as to the good of the nation? It doesn't mean it's an evil action, just not 100% altruistic.

Ragusa, the amount of sheer paranoia I've seen here is too much even for you. I can only guess, now, that this really is simply a 'the enemy is doing something, so I must attack' response. This is the way politics has always been!!! One group does something that, on it's face, isn't wrong or evil. Their opponents select the most extreme element of it, twist it out of context, sometimes flat out lie about it, and try to use it to portray the first group as 'racist', 'anti-business', 'un-American', 'in the pocket of big business', or whatever the current demon for that group is. The rule of politics is to lionize your allies while demonizing your enemies. It makes me sick, but it's the way it is.

You want to know what a racist law is, Ragusa? Blacks can't go to the same schools as whites. That's racist. The ruling black majority forcefully taking land from all the peaceful, productive white farmers and giving it to political cronies who let it lie fallow. That's racist (in South Africa, this time). Jews aren't allowed to buy or sell anything. That's racist. It's illegal to enter the country illegally? Not racist. Public schools shouldn't be promoting racial division and racist political ideology? That's not racism. That's just plain logic.

Chandos:

Could you cite a source for this? Because, you know, since the law isn't in effect yet, I don't think the police have that authority, which means a legal suit should be following closely. Assuming it really happened, at least.

Beyond that, find me one law, state, or district that does define 'reasonable suspicion'. It's a commonly used legal standard nonetheless. As for 'proof of citizenship', the Federal Government defines that, so the law doesn't need to. If it did, then it would certainly be unconstitutional. The criticism on these points is pure BS, and low quality BS at that.

 

On top of all the references I made in earlier posts that are too bothersome to collect for you right now? I can quote Sheriff Arpaio from the GQ article in my last post:

I don't need to look in to their heads when I can listen to what they have to say. The point is that their talk and actions can petty much be interpreted in just one way. There is very little ambiguity there.

Please, spare me: The news all lie? That's BS, really, and an excuse to believe what you want to believe anyway.

Who says Arizona is ready legislating? Hispanics, with some being Americans and others being illegals, don't have the convenience of being readily identified, like Blacks are. A law that ends up practically only requiring Hispanics to show ID is de facto discriminatory, like it or not. The law is clearly is not as bad as your examples, but you know, murder and theft are both crimes, albeit of different severity. Likewise, there are degrees in discriminatory laws.

 

The link is in the previous post.

 

That's true for a couple of people running for offices, yes. And like I said earlier, I don't approve of Arpaio at all. But is it true of the majority of the legislature that voted for the bills? Or the Governor who signed them? Or the 70% of the people that support them? I notice you haven't said anything about these people. You've attacked two people, but this bill comes from a lot more than that.

And again, note that he's talking about illegal immigrants, not all hispanics. So, in other words, this proves nothing about racist beliefs. He just doesn't like illegal immigrants.

Oh, no, they don't lie, they just conviently ignore the truth and cite grossly out-of-date facts. I can't even count the number of news articles on MSNBC I've seen that are still claiming the law lets police stop anyone for nothing more than a 'reasonable suspicion' that they're in the country illegally. And then there's you talking about this 'anti-ethnic-studies' law, ignoring the fact that it singles out classes that promote racist hate. But, of course, I'm sure that's just because you decided 'anti-racist-hate-spewing-or-government-overthrow-advocating-ethnic-studies' law was too long, right?

And again, you have yet to prove that this is the case. You can assume it all you want, and it seems you're eager to do so, but that doesn't prove it's true.

 

Then explain to us why you have it right and Politifact (among many others) have it so wrong:

Sen. Huppenthal's position seems to mirror your own, and as you can see, it doesn't hold up. I think you're relying far too much on the impeccable ethics of the officers involved, and seem unwilling to consider how easy it would be for any one of them to sidestep the letter of this particular law, making it ripe for abuse. Your stubborn refusal to acknowledge this is pretty irritating, to say the least. Perhaps you should halt your ill-conceived crusade against the liberal media for a minute, and really ask yourself if your understanding of this issue is as sound as you seem to think it is.

 

Amen to that.

 

You know, a cop can stop you for pretty much any reason - you do realize that? But really, my understanding is that citizens can call and just ask them to check on someone they suspect may be illegal and the police have to at least check them, even if they are doing nothing wrong.

 

Just people who really do care about the law....

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

This is a good point, and one I've been trying to make for many posts now. The law doesn't actually give them any more authority to stop people, question people, or detain people than they already have. All they need to do is say the person matches the description of some suspect for some crime, and they can pull in whoever they want for, what, 24 hours of 'questioning'? That's without this law. This law doesn't really change anything.

You'll have to support that claim, Chandos, because it sounds to me like he does. A citizen calling in an anonymous tip doesn't give the police any cause to stop people on other crimes (required before you can ask for their proof of legal residence), so no, they can't just go knocking on the doors.


You know, all in all, this incident reminds me of the conservative outcry over the 'death panels' in Obama's health care plan some months ago. There was some vague hint of a truth behind the claims, but the claims ignored most of the facts, distorted the few remaining, and sometimes flat out lied about what was there. Now, low and behond, the liberals are doing the exact same thing. Funny how the media is reacting differently.

 

... I actually thought Chandos was just translating the comment for us slower members; not that he was disagreeing ... but I've been wrong about these things before.

 

Statistics, statistics ....

Pre-emptively and based on a hunch: NOG please don't reply that, like the media get it wrong all the time, statistics lie all the time.

There have been assertions that Arizona is facing a serious crime problem due to immigration right now, necessitating SB 1070.

This asserted connection between immigration and crime is apparently not supported by federal crime statistics. Even FOX News admits that hard to say that illegal immigrants have triggered a crime explosion in any of these states.

So take that assertion with a grain of salt.

 

Oh, don't worry, I don't intend to say that statistics always lie. I looked into your 'violent crime drop' to make sure it wasn't a cherry-picked statistics (since the most common accusation I've seen is drug crimes), but it looks representative of Arizona crime in general. Yes, it does look like the purpose for this was manufactured, and that means the legislature and people should take a second look at the law itself.

Mind you, that doesn't mean they should necessarily repeal it, and it definitely still doesn't mean the law is racist, just that it may not be as needed or justified as the people believed. Of course, they do still have a lot of illegal immigration.

 

This is true, and I see what you're saying. But it ignores some important realities.

I'm sure you would completely agree that a judge would interpret "reasonable suspicion" in this context very narrowly. A case of human smuggling is just about the only situation I can think of that would survive judicial scrutiny. Certainly looking Mexican or speaking Spanish would not be enough, on that we agree. My issue is that it's hard to see how these decisions will be subjected to judicial review.

There's a reason why there is extensive case law interpreting what "reasonable suspicion" means. Defense attorneys routinely move to suppress any evidence procured by way of an illegal stop, search, or frisk. The arresting officer is then forced to explain the basis of his "reasonable suspicion." If he can't do so to the judge's satisfaction, the evidence is suppressed and the charges are thrown out. This is why proper procedure is so important if law enforcement officers want their charges to stick. No one wants to lose on a technicality.

But when we're talking about illegal immigration, what evidence is there to suppress? Defense attorneys won't have an obvious mechanism for contesting how reasonable the request for documentation is. I don't see what circumstances would lead to any kind of routine judicial review of these decisions. This pretty much means the officers involved would be on the honor system. And even if the officer can't provide sound basis for reasonable suspicion, all he would need is a sympathetic judge with similar views on "the illegal problem" to decide the officer was acting in good faith and side with him. I'm sure you could see why an ethnic community with a history of receiving mistreatment at the hands of the authorities would find such a situation very unsettling.

This, to me, is why the law is problematic. It makes racial profiling and police abuse all but inevitable, despite how the law is written. While I believe the majority of Arizona police generally do the right thing (as anywhere), there are plenty who don't and get away with it - and so the very real possibility of such abuse will only serve to drive illegal immigrants further underground. That also translates into fewer legal immigrants cooperating with the police or reporting crimes (illegals almost never do so as it is). Many more will flee the scene of accidents (ditto). Fewer children will get medical care because their parents are too scared take them to a hospital (ditto). In my view, it sends an unambiguous signal to legal and illegal immigrants alike: the system is not your friend. This will hurt the situation more than it helps it, in my view.

I don't really care how the law is written. It's just a bad policy.

 

Or the inability to produce a SSN card or even the inability to relate to the cop what his/her SSN is. Legal citizens know this info. Especially recently legalized hispanics.

 

Not for nothing, but Arizona hispanics oppose this law overwhelmingly - some studies show as much as 80%. They view it as racial profiling, even if some do not. Since their community is going to be targeted more than any other by this law, they are going to feel like it is open season on "their people." They'll do everything they can to avoid helping a system whom they feel will turn on them (or their friends and family) if they make one false move. Ask any minority community in America if they think crooked cops who falsely arrest and/or plant evidence is a real problem in America. The less a community trusts its law enforcement, the fewer crimes are reported. This breeds apathy and vigilantism. And even a legal, law-abiding immigrant would be smart to avoid the scrutiny of a suspect police force that "getting involved" would invite.

But lets leave that aside. Not all "legals" are citizens. Few immigrants - even the legal ones - do everything perfectly. Despite our best efforts, most potential Americans find our immigration laws and requirements to be very confusing. It is very common for them to make a mistake here or there. I don't necessarily mean committing a crime - they could fail to fill out a form properly, or miss an appointment with the immigration office due to transportation problems, etc. They are responsible for these mistakes, of course, and in a normal environment, these problems can usually be handled without much fuss. But in a highly-charged environment like Arizona, where anti-immigrant fervor is palpable and this new law means "there's a new sheriff in town," so to speak, any mistake on their part could spell disaster, even if they are doing everything else the right way. Otherwise well-meaning, harmless immigrants will get caught up in the dragnet. A situation that will not be lost on the local Hispanic community, even those who are citizens.

That's not really the issue. Every police officer asks everyone they stop to see their license. The issue is the reason FOR that traffic stop. In the case of speeding, there is documented evidence of a crime (the radar gun says 65 and the limit is 50 - case closed). But what about moving violations that rely merely on the officer as eye-witness? Failure to use a turn signal while changing lanes comes to mind. How about something even more subjective, like reckless driving? This would give an officer enough reason to pull someone over, and as is routine, ask for identification. It's not hard to imagine an officer with a racial grudge deciding "today's a good day to pull over some 'reckless drivers' (aka - beaners)." Even the most minor and esoteric of infractions could be all the excuse some officers would need, and there are plenty of anti-immigrant cops that are itching for it.

Such an officer would be both a jerk and in the minority, I know. But this law now gives him all the cover he needs to harass, essentially, whomever he wants. I for one have been pulled over for suspicion of drunk driving, merely because I was a block from a local bar and my front tire crossed the yellow line while I turned at an intersection (I was 18 at the time, hadn't had a drop, and they don't come any whiter than me). The standard for justifying a common traffic stop can be stretched almost laughably far.

 

They've been told to oppose it by every hispanic celebrity on the planet. I think the average hispanic citizen is much like the average white one -- far too easily influenced by celebrity endorsements (many of celebrities crying foul haven't even read the law).