Obama Assails Arizona Immigration Law

[Utah Bob]

Originally Posted by Richard

And so it goes...

Richard

:

[Green Light]

Originally Posted by Richard

And so it goes...

Richard

your point?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Defender968

Sigaba I think you're misunderstanding that section, I read it to mean that anyone can bring suit against an agency that restricts an LEO's ability to enforce the law, which gives anyone standing to sue....though I haven’t read the whole thing yet, I would be surprised if that were the case.

FWIW, my concern stems from reading the entire bill and listening to/reading the comments of others who have as well.

There's intent and then there are unintended consequences. (You and I are on the same page regarding the former.) My concern centers around the latter.

This bill not only provides new tools to LEOs, the clause under discussion allows anyone to insist that the tools be used to enforce specific laws. There may be situations in which LEOs make a decision based upon professional judgment alone to take a DADT approach to residence status. Source is here.

But police were deeply divided on the matter, with police unions backing it but the state police chief's association opposing the bill, contending it could erode trust with immigrants who could be potential witnesses.

Now, anyone and everyone can cry "politics!" if they don't like certain configurations of policy. Are the courts really the best place to settle these kinds of issues?

Originally Posted by Defender968

As for the article,

Is the article about the enforcement of the new law or is it about the politics behind the new law and the political implications of its passage?

Easy. The American model of assimilation.

Maybe not so easy. The model you sketch out is but one among many. It proved largely unsuccessful in the decades after Frederick Douglass suggested it in the late 1840s.

One can find myriad examples ranging from the War of American Revolution to GWOT in which various groups of immigrants and Americans have done everything in their power to assimilate and still found themselves on the outside looking in. Yet we are aghast when some take a skeptical view of 'assimilation.' Just because we say "the past is in the past" doesn't make it so.

[Don]

Originally Posted by Green Light

your point?

I take it to mean my comments on immigration reform establishing a new voter bloc was ...implausible? Maybe he was referring to something else.

[Gypsy]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

The model you sketch out is but one among many. It proved largely unsuccessful in the decades after Frederick Douglass suggested it in the late 1840s.

One can find myriad examples ranging from the War of American Revolution to GWOT in which various groups of immigrants and Americans have done everything in their power to assimilate and still found themselves on the outside looking in. Yet we are aghast when some take a skeptical view of 'assimilation.' Just because we say "the past is in the past" doesn't make it so.

What proved unsuccessful? Worked ok for my families and many of the families I grew up around.

I didn't say assimilation was easy. However, it's annoying as hell when people come to this country and demand their customs trump all and I have to press 1 for English. Or they cry foul when asked to prove they belong here. Social programs for illegals are draining our taxes and I'm sick of paying for people who are here and shouldn't be. Hell, your state is bankrupt thanks to that in part, no doubt.

This is about AZ taking care of their state and constituents. If someone is here illegally I have no sympathy for their "trials and tribulations". They can go back where they came from.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

FWIW, my concern stems from reading the entire bill and listening to/reading the comments of others who have as well.

Ok just finished reading the bill, and as I figured there is nothing in it that takes away officer descresion.


From the bill which can be read here. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON.

Further if you read when it speaks of making arrests throughout the bill the word MAY is always used, and in legal terms that grants authority but does not require action. If action were required by law it would say MUST.

This bill is well written IMHO, if even provides that LEO's must be defended by their agencies should a law suit arise based on their applying this law.

This bill not only provides new tools to LEOs, the clause under discussion allows anyone to insist that the tools be used to enforce specific laws. There may be situations in which LEOs make a decision based upon professional judgment alone to take a DADT approach to residence status.

That will likely happen, but not because of this bill IMHO, it will happen because there are lots of lazy people on this planet and some of them happen to wear a badge, that's not to say I'm in favor of arresting everyone every time they commit any crime, but if I had this law in SC my stats would have been through the roof.

Source is here

Not sure what you mean with the above link, what did catch my eye was these two statements which make me want to disregard the rest of the article....

Opponents, however, raised the specter of officers untrained in immigration law being required to determine who is in the country legally. They noted that though the bill says race cannot solely be used to form a suspicion about a person's legality, it implicitly allows it to be a factor.

Now I know I'm not a Harvard trained lawyer, and I don't have any special training in immigration law, but when a guy doesn't speak English, doesn't have an id or a green card or a visa, and/or more often than not has an id from another country, has a car that is not registered with no insurance the likelihood is that guy is not here legally.

Then there is this.

"A lot of U.S. citizens are going to be swept up in the application of this law for something as simple as having an accent and leaving their wallet at home," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

Based on this statement I think Mrs. Meetze is an oxygen thief, LEO's never have to deal with people who don't have ID, we have no idea what to do, as a matter of fact if a guy doesn't have an ID we just run screaming..... or maybe we could ask name and date of birth and have control check them for an current license, then we could maybe ask them for the address on their license and check the biometric data that's on the license to ensure we've got the right person.


Mrs. Meetze do us all a favor and leave maters of law enforcement to the professionals, someone with common sense or at least someone with a clue, another shining example of the fine work done by the ACLU.

[Crue]

How would a police officer verify immigration status? I know more than a few States do not require you to be legal to get a drivers license (IL being one).

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Gypsy

What proved unsuccessful?

For starters, Douglass's strategy of assimilation failed to secure the abolition of slavery through a political settlement alone. From there, his vision of assimilation as well as competing visions propagated by B.T. Washington and W.E.B. DuBois did little to enhance the ability of freedmen and other blacks to exercise their rights as American citizens or to receive respectful treatment in 'mainstream' American culture.* ("Go back to where you came from" is a catcall that echoes back almost two centuries.)

Originally Posted by Gypsy

[Assimilation] worked ok for my families and many of the families I grew up around.

Is there a one-size fits all formula for success in America? To what extent does viewing the past through our own achievements (and shortcomings) help and hinder our ability to understand others in their own terms?

Originally Posted by Gypsy

I didn't say assimilation was easy.

The question for many is not "Is it easy?" For Douglass and countless others, the fact that it was difficult made it worthwhile. Instead, the question raised by the harsh lessons of experience is "Is it possible?" (DuBois despaired that it was not.) And from there, the question "Is it desirable?" (Many radicals believe not.) My answers to those questions work for me but they may not work for others.

You say:

Originally Posted by Gypsy

This is about AZ taking care of their state and constituents.

But also you say:

Originally Posted by Gypsy

However, it's annoying as hell when people come to this country and demand their customs trump all and I have to press 1 for English. Or they cry foul when asked to prove they belong here.

And

Originally Posted by Gypsy

Social programs for illegals are draining our taxes and I'm sick of paying for people who are here and shouldn't be. Hell, your state is bankrupt thanks to that in part, no doubt.

and

Originally Posted by Gypsy

If someone is here illegally I have no sympathy for their "trials and tribulations".

My friend, these statements eloquently testify to the notion that immigration reform is a complicated issue that strikes at how we as Americans view the present in the context of our collective history and individual experiences. As we live in a nation in which the rule of law is critically important, it is nothing less than outrageous to see those laws being flouted.

From this complex interplay comes a core question: To what extent does the sense of outrage help or hinder America's ability to find solutions to this problem that are sustainable strategically, politically, economically, psychologically, and culturally?

__________________________________________________ _
* To clarify, this 'top down' summary deliberately privileges rhetorical clarity over a nuanced thumbnail of the complexities of African American political, intellectual, cultural, religious, and social history.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Green Light

your point?

A station break for a GB 'whether' report - we're experiencing another high-pressure front in which we're likely to see continuing cloudy issues throughout with a strong chance of stormy opinions, gale force long-windedness and isolated pockets of slightly relevant hyperbole followed by brief periods of clear insight and gentle disagreement. Periodic rays of bright insight will randomly appear and readers are advised to ensure they take their hypertension meds, avoid KWIH*, and - despite the government's recent warnings - large grains of salt may be required to aid in digestion of contents.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

*KWIHS - Keyboarding While Intoxicated or Hypertensive

[Dozer523]

What if you were Born In East LA? (Maaaaaa-n?)

AZ's plan didn't work in the movie (and everyone was laughing) Nobody's going to be laughing, this time around . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQxfBBTWoNU

[Sten]

For the record, "press one for English" is mostly a business decision for customer service. So to make a law preventing a business from servicing who they see as their customers, as they see fit is really asking the Government to add regulations to the most blessed and already oppressed job creators.

[ZonieDiver]

And many are from families that have been American for generations, no longer speak Spanish and are ambivalent toward the new arrivals.

Many of the people I personally know who fit your description are anything but "ambivalent" about this issue. They see them as lawbreakers, destroyers of some neighborhoods, and a "blight on their good name." I teach with a Latino guy who is pretty far to the left on this issue (as he is on all issues), but his brother (and most of the rest of his family) are waaaaay to the other side, and support this law, as they did the Employer Sanctions Law, etc.

As for all the "racial profiling" comments being tossed about by Sharpton, et al -isn't that already done? I drive to San Diego from Phoenix quite often and on the trip I usually pass through 3 or 4 Border Patrol checkpoints on I-8. All cars stop, or slow til waved through. Often a dog "works" the vehicle. I am always waved through. Most that I see are waved through. It seems that the Border Patrol has established some criteria for actually stopping vehicles for further investigation. I have no doubt that Arizona's professional law enforcement agencies will do the same (and most probably already have). "Sanctuary Phil" Gordon and his double-dipping Police Chief-Public Safety Manager will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into this brouhaha.

In the end... it really won't have much effect IMHO. To some extent it is already being done. As our school's SRO told me as we watched students from two of our "sister schools" walk by last Thursday on their way to the state capital (they walked over 9 miles, one way, to do it - PE at last!), "If anyone thinks that this law is going to change the way the average street cop does his job, they don't know much about policing." As someone said, "another tool in the tool box."

IF this law finally forces the feds to DO something... like maybe get a DHS head whose head is not firmly up her 4th Point of Contact... or build the damned fence... or finish the "virtual fence" that she cancelled... and come up with some kind of immigration policy (but NOT until the border is secured)... then, good on SB 1070.

Phoenix's Channel 12 (NBC) had this exchange on its "Sunday Square Off" last Sunday in regard to this law. The Latino guy on the left (fittingly) is a former Democrat state legislator and a member of my district's school board. The guy in the midddle is a former Republican state legislator. (He is now a "political consultant" and a former student of mine - God, I am old - who ran for Congress from District 6 against Jeff Flake in 2004 on a platform that included "Secure the Border".) The guy on the right is a Republican political consultant.

http://www.azcentral.com/video/79830342001

[sf11b_p]

Interesting...

"Our potential competition appears almost unlimited as thousands upon thousands of green carders pour across the border during peak harvest seasons. These are people who, though lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence, have not now, and probably never had, any bona fide intention of making the United States of America their permanent home. They come here to earn American dollars to spend in Mexico where the cost of living is lower. They are natural economic rivals of those who become American citizens or who otherwise decide to stake out their future in this country. - Navy Veteran, Yuma Arizonan, Cesar Chavez

Chavez and his UFW lobbied for stricter border control and marched against the hiring of illegal immigrants in 1969. Chavez and his UFW actually reported illegal immigrant workers to the INS.

Chavez UFW in 1973 set a "wet line" along the border to block crossings of illegal immigrants. The UFW, believing the Border Patrol unresponsive to reported border crossings, set outposts to stop illegal immigrants. Beatings and weapons were reported.

Only in late 1973 under pressure from the Chicano movement did Chavez begin to relent, as the UFW was losing support.

Still...

"most of the [Chicano] left attacking us has no experience in labor matters. They don't know what a strike is." "They don't know," he continued, "because they're not workers. They don't know because they've never felt the insecurity of being on strike. And they don't know because really they haven't talked to the workers." - Chavez

... and as late as 1979 the UFW organized "wet patrols" along the border, again complaining the Border Patrol wasn't doing it's job.

[orion5]

Napolitano takes aim at Arizona immigration law
Posted: April 26th, 2010 01:16 PM ET


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told ABC News Monday Arizona’s new immigration law is ‘misguided.’

(CNN) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is taking aim at the new controversial law passed in her home state of Arizona dealing with illegal immigration, telling ABC News it is "not a good law in any number of reasons."

"That one is a misguided law. It's not a good law, good enforcement law," said Napolitano, who served as governor of Arizona before being joining President Obama's administration last year. "But beyond that, what it illustrates is that other states now will feel compelled to do things." [Damn straight.]

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a bill Friday that requires police in her state to determine whether a person is in the U.S. legally – a measure critics say will foster racial profiling. But supporters argue the law will help crack down on illegal immigration. The law requires immigrants to carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires police to question people if there is reason to suspect that they're in the country illegally. It also targets those who hire illegal immigrant day laborers or knowingly transport them.

In her interview with ABC broadcast Monday, Napolitano said the law is evidence a comprehensive federal immigration plan is needed. [You think?]


"You will have this patchwork of laws where we need a federal immigration system that meets our security needs, that recognizes where we need to go in this 21st century and gives us a better framework on which to stand," she said.

After appearing to be put on the back burner, the Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have now indicated passage of immigration reform legislation is a top priority before the close of the 111th Congress. [Safety first...ya'll don't hurt yourselves thinking too much up there in Washington. There's always the 112th Congress...........]


LINK

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Does the law allow or force officers to enforce existing laws?

I'm not sure because I have not read the entire bill.. But I'm pretty sure the bill does not abolish officer discretion.

The real question will be what type of policies individual agencies adopt and how passively or aggressively they choose to enforce the laws. In concert with that will be how passively or aggressively individual County Attorney's choose to prosecute these crimes. Because believe me I have had many rock solid cases dismissed for "prosecutor discretion" with the real reason being that the prosecutors office was too busy to prosecute a case or it "lacked jury appeal". With budget cut backs, it is just worse now... So unless the law forces the prosecutors office to pursue and actively prosecute these cases I doubt you will see a huge increase in these cases. Why you may ask? Because it lacks jury appeal!

Truth be told the cities, counties, and state do not have the funds nor infrastructure to deal with prosecuting everyone of these potential cases. After the dust settles you will see it being used as another tool by LEO's to solve specific problems.

Just my .02 cents, YMMV