Texas Won’t Join Arizona on Immigration
[Guest post by DRJ]
If Governor Perry gets his way, Texas won’t join Arizona in passing legislation giving law enforcement a role in curbing illegal immigration. Instead, Perry continues to ask for more National Guard troops and Predator drones to secure the Texas-Mexico border:
“Recently, there has been much debate over immigration policy in Washington and what has been implemented in Arizona. I fully recognize and support a state’s right and obligation to protect its citizens, but I have concerns with portions of the law passed in Arizona and believe it would not be the right direction for Texas.
“For example, some aspects of the law turn law enforcement officers into immigration officials by requiring them to determine immigration status during any lawful contact with a suspected alien, taking them away from their existing law enforcement duties, which are critical to keeping citizens safe. Our focus must continue to be on the criminal elements involved with conducting criminal acts against Texans and their property. I will continue to work with the legislative leadership to develop strategies that are appropriate for Texas.
“Securing the border has to be a top priority, which is why I have a standing request with the federal government for 1,000 Title 32 National Guardsmen who can support civilian law enforcement efforts to enhance border security in Texas. I have also requested predator drones be based in and operate over the Texas-Mexico border to provide essential information about criminal activity to law enforcement on the ground.”
In the meantime, Perry will continue to authorize state funding and resources to enhance traditional border security efforts.
There is no right or wrong way to solve this problem and I’m glad border states are trying different things. What works for one may not work for another, but ultimately these experiments will help us find workable solutions more quickly.
— DRJ
One more reason this Republican despises Rick Perry. He is nothing but a weasel on this and so many other issues.
Rhymes With Right (5b000e) — 4/29/2010 @ 5:34 pmGov. Perry’s desire for troops and drones is fine for keeping illegals from crossing the southern border into Texas – it will do nothing for all the already-across-the-border illegals soon to be coming from Arizona into comparatively illegal-friendly Texas.
Arizona’s action is interesting because it 1) solves their own problem (to some degree), and 2) wakes those up around them as they now get even more illegals than they had.
thrill (8be6be) — 4/29/2010 @ 5:35 pmOne more reason this Republican cannot stand Rick perry. he is a weasel on this and so many other issues.
Rhymes With Right (5b000e) — 4/29/2010 @ 5:35 pmGood for Perry. He probably figured that Anglo-Saxon Texans are so sun and wind burned that the Texas police could not separate them from Mexicans anyway. 😉
And, on a more serious note, Americans having to carry papers just to walk down the street sucks one real lot.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 5:43 pmCashed a check lately, or used a credit card at Home Depot?
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 5:52 pmI am an old-fashioned guy. I have a community bank where everybody knows me in person and apologize when they ask for my ID.
I have no problem with having to show ID for a qualified activity such as driving, voting, or cashing a check. I have a problem with having to carry papers not to be sent to a deportation center.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 5:58 pmIt’s a smart move that puts the onus on Obama to better secure Texas’ borders. He’s made a reasonable request that’s hard to demonize, as Obama has done with Arizona.
And if Obama fails to respond adequately, Perry can just say “I tried,” and then call for stronger state action. Note that Perry objected to only “some aspects” of the Arizona law.
Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:01 pmEverybody needs to carry ID or be able to identify themselves, as a matter of common sense in case of accident, or if stopped by police. If you don’t have a driver’s license, you need an ID. But this isn’t Nazi Germany where police demand to “see your papers”, it is part of the same process police go through with you or me (and we are required to provide a license or ID).
Here’s the part telling law enforcement officers that they need to check on individuals’ immigration status:
“For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.
But elsewhere, the bill inserts some limitations. Here’s one:
“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.”
And here’s another:
“This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.”
TimesDisliker (ad14a9) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:02 pmDaleyrocks, Texas has Mexicans. In Chicago we have Eastern Europeans. Think of the effect if Illinois adopted Arizona’s law.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:07 pmnk, if it were not for people like you, the Arizona law, which simply reinforces FEDERAL law, yet is more restrictive when it comes to Arizona LE than the laws that apply to Border Partrol, who are FEDERAL LE, we would not be a nation that is facing such a divide that we may not be able to repair that divide in our lifetimes.
Instead, you seem hell bent to make a fool of yourself.
Perry is in a hard race with the DNC throwing tons of money behind Bill White. And Texas has a huge Hispanic population that has been sweet talked and swayed by a DNC that only cares about their votes, not their lives. Democrats must keep a continual new crop of poverty stricken in order to maintain votes. Without the poor, the minority to place the race card against Republicans, Democrats would be reduced to the statist of the Torries.
Once a person crawls out of poverty to reach some level of financial success, the only ones that stay Democrats are those who are willing to share, with the poor, other people’s money, never their own. The fact that Al Gore just purchased a beach front home for almost $10 million shows that the snake oil saleman is not willing to share, only to flaunt.
But there are those Hispanics who are beginning to see the light, and they are the ones, the Tejanos, who object the most to illegal immigration as they are the ones most affected by it.
retire05 (2abfb2) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:08 pmi love the idea that 1000 troops are going to make any significant impact on the southern border of Texas, given how long it is.
Perry is further proof that amateurs study tactics while professionals study logistics.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:22 pmComment by nk — 4/29/2010 @ 5:58 pm
Why do lawyers have difficulty in actually reading laws?
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:24 pmWhat you allege as a probable outcome of this legislation is specifically excluded in the language of the law.
Talk about Straw-man construction; have you been taking lessons from DuckCrap, Moron, & imadickwad?
Daleyrocks, Texas has Mexicans. In Chicago we have Eastern Europeans. Think of the effect if Illinois adopted Arizona’s law.
This is a joke, correct? Because last time I checked, IL was right behind the border states on illegals originating from Mexico. When I worked in Aurora way back in the early 80’s, it was well – known as a direct connection for illegals coming from Juarez. It soon spread to the rest of the Fox Valley, and now the entire area is quite popular with our denizens to the south.
Don’t you remember the ridiculous controversy a few years ago when a local church in Chicago gave “sanctuary” for an illegal from Mexico? Her case was lame, and she was ultimately deported.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:25 pmmuch of the whining about the new law is based upon the fact that most ID that people have doesn’t prove residency qualification.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:38 pmthis is largely a deliberately self inflicted wound, caused by the usual suspects whining that the illegals need drivers licenses to get to all those j*bs “Americans don’t want”, because otherwise they will be driving without a license.
i say make proof of residency/right to w*rk part of the licensing requirements in all fifty states, and voila, possession of a driver’s license/state ID is all the cop needs to see to verify your status. don’t have one of those, then you’d best have something else, or be prepared to go into the system for awhile while we sort you out.
native born residents need only prove their status once, and anyone on a visa has their license with a suspense date of the visa, to be re-verified when renewed.
after all, what part of “illegal” is so hard for you whiners to understand? besides, the law has passed, so the time for debate has too: its the law. (hey, it’s what Ear Leader said about health care, and who am i to argue with him? %-)
But there are those Hispanics who are beginning to see the light, and they are the ones, the Tejanos, who object the most to illegal immigration as they are the ones most affected by it.
Comment by retire05 — 4/29/2010 @ 6:08 pm
I have said before that the most anti-immigration (legal or illegal) people in my experience are the newly-minted citizens.
Why do lawyers have difficulty in actually reading laws?
What you allege as a probable outcome of this legislation is specifically excluded in the language of the law.
Talk about Straw-man construction; have you been taking lessons from DuckCrap, Moron, & imadickwad?
Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 4/29/2010 @ 6:24 pm
AD, weren’t you the one who advised me against litigating my civil rights with a cop at the curb?
I was a pretty good defense attorney and I know the Terry standard. Illinois codified it and Chicago teaches its police the code and I think that’s a very good thing. Letting some judge decide three years after I’ve been sent to Morocco that the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion is not a good thing. I want a bright line for the police to stop and question citizens and this law blurs that line.
And, like I said before, if I am doing something that does not require papers, like stepping out of my house for a cigarette, I doan wan to need no steenkin papers.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:47 pmOK, here is a provocative idea: Since Gov. Perry wants drones to help monitor the Tex-Mex border and since Pres. Obama is such a big fan of using predator drones to attack our enemies, how about a new policy of launching predator drone attacks on the narco-gangs inside the Mexican border? After all, the narco gangs are also linked heavily to the human smuggling that goes on so why not go after them the way we go after al Qaeda? Do you have to kill 3000+ Americans in one fell swoop before we start taking you seriously? For those of you who might complain about citizen casualties, the good news is that they don’t seem to bother Obama when they are in Pakistan, so why would they trouble him in Mexico?
JVW (08e86a) — 4/29/2010 @ 6:50 pmOur focus must continue to be on the criminal elements involved with conducting criminal acts against Texans and their property.
I love the way he pretsnds that illegal immigrants (i.e. criminals) are not committing crimes against Texans and their property.
Subotai (1d5c79) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:09 pmNeither troops nor drones can apprehend anybody.the troops will not have loaded weapons or if they do and use them ,they are certain to be prosecuted.they are trained to kill violent enemies not process criminals.we had troops in az. before and it was just eyewash.totally ineffective.Perry just showed his true colors.his office is beyond his ability.
clyde (64e04d) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:16 pmI like Mr. Perry more and more.
happyfeet (c8caab) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:18 pmDRJ wrote:
The problem isn’t the states or the feds; the problem is us good Americans. Every time we buy something made by an illegal immigrant, we are paying him to be here. If you don’t want illegal immigrants in this country, then it’s up to you to not buy the stuff they make, to not pay them to come here.
Every couple of years, we vote for politicians who promise to “do something” about illegal immigration, while every couple of days we pay another illegal to be here.
If you aren’t willing to inconvenience yourself, by not buying something or paying more for a product to make as sure as you can that it was made by legal citizens, then don’t blame other people for not stopping illegal immigration.
The coldly realistic Dana (474dfc) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:19 pmI’m curious. I understand some people are disappointed with Perry’s decision and some are happy. It seems that most of the disappointment or happiness results from one’s position on immigration, but why is it bad to try different solutions and see which ones work?
Both states’ plans may work, both may fail, and in all likelihood the results will be somewhere in between. I’m selfish because I need to deal with this problem before my community turns into another El Paso [Quoting prosecutor Debra Kanof (Ramos-Compean trial Vol. 15, p. 102): “Ladies and gentlemen, we live in El Paso, Texas. There is a substantial likelihood that somebody in your neighborhood is a dope dealer.”] or, worse yet, Juarez.
To me, that means working with state and federal military resources to secure the border and with law enforcement to remove illegal immigrants, especially those who commit other crimes. We have existing programs like 287(g) to do that, and several Texas law enforcement agencies are participating. This way we can Deport the Criminals First and that’s something everyone should be for.
DRJ (d15e92) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:34 pmList of products Made In The USA by illegals?
Icy Texan (1c9d6c) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:38 pm“Daleyrocks, Texas has Mexicans. In Chicago we have Eastern Europeans. Think of the effect if Illinois adopted Arizona’s law.”
nk – I would not have any problem with them getting rid of some of the crazy Russian cab drivers I’ve had. Plus, we’ve got plenty of illegals from Mexico and central America here, as well as other places. If you’ve got a better solution, spill it.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:41 pmDana:
I like that in principle but it’s almost impossible to do in reality. Much of what we buy (especially in my area) has Mexican components even though it isn’t made in Mexico, so it’s hard to tell what to buy and what not to buy.
DRJ (d15e92) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:41 pmI am totally against illegal immigration, DRJ. I am totally for border security. I am against this method. I don’t want a policeman to stop me in the first place, but if he does I want to just be able to tell him who I am.
There’s more. In 1984 or so, Illinois passed its seatbelt law. We were promised that nobody would be stopped or ticketed just for not wearing a seat belt. That it would be incident to another traffic offense. Now we have “safety checkpoints” where the police slow down traffic and pull aside and ticket drivers who do not have their seatbelts on.
“Slippery slope” does not quite describe it but all the other imagery I have is too disgusting to put on one of your posts.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:43 pmnk,
Are you against immigration screening when someone has been detained or arrested for another crime? Because we already do that in many communities.
DRJ (d15e92) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:47 pm“I want a bright line for the police to stop and question citizens and this law blurs that line.”
nk – Is there a bright line now? How is it changed by this law except that Arizona police are now empowered to ask questions about immigration status if they have a reasonable suspicion about it during such stops?
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:48 pmTexas does not have to follow AZ if they don’t want to if they don’t feel they have the same problem. This is the essence of federalism.
But with Juarez being a lawless city, New Mexico, Texas and D.C. better make sure they protect their citizens from crime spilling over the border.
MU789 (13091a) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:48 pmI don’t live in Arizona, so I don’t feel qualified to criticize the approach they have been forced to take out of desperation. As I understand it, all they’ve done is codify existing law.
I do feel that the need for a law like this is the result of “do what feels good” policy running roughshod over “do what works”.
The current inaction and reluctance of the federal government to enforce existing immigration laws leaves America in an unsustainable position. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool and does not have the best interests of America – or Americans – at heart.
GeneralMalaise (53ce9e) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:53 pm“Every time we buy something made by an illegal immigrant, we are paying him to be here.”
The coldly realistic Dana – A “Look For The Illegal Immigrant Label” advertising campaign?
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:56 pmDMac and daleyrocks, you’re Chicago people.
A long time ago, I paid off two Chicago cops not to get a speeding ticket. It cost me $40.00. That’s how much their badges were worth to them. I was speeding.
The next time, cops from the 25th District were patrolling in the 16th, where a lot of Polish illegals are, and they thought I was one too. I refused to pay them right off, showed them driver’s license and insurance, and got a ticket for running a stop sign. I had not. I took care of the ticket and, as I had more immediate to deal with, I did not have enough interest in whether they were the cops who went to prison for shaking down illegals or the ones who shot themselves before going to prison.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 7:58 pm26.nk,
Are you against immigration screening when someone has been detained or arrested for another crime? Because we already do that in many communities.
Comment by DRJ — 4/29/2010 @ 7:47 pm
Arrested, no. Detained is what I’m worried about.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:00 pmnk-
I appreciate (as I understand it) your desire to not give the govt. any more power than necessary over the typical citizen.
That said, we all know, I think that “probable cause” is not a clear line and never will be. Almost no one stops completely at a stop sign in Philadelphia. Does an officer stop every car they see slide through? No, they don’t. When they see someone less than 20 driving a new Navigator in a drug dealing neighborhood do they sometimes use that failed coming to a stop as a reason to pull the car over and ask for ID on the driver and the car while the plates are being run through the computer? Yes.
My understanding of the AZ law is basically to say that when such a stop occurs, assessing whether the person is an illegal or not should be within the actions of the official, rather than going by the policy of looking the other way.
I don’t know if any AZ law enforcement officials read here, or relatives of such, but I’d be interested to know if the emphasis will be on getting every abuelita who doesn’t have papers on the next bus back, or if they will use this as a tool to get the criminals who should be deported, deported. I’ll be happy to see the law thrown out the first time a (otherwise) law-abiding resident is picked up for walking down the street and is investigated for immigration status solely on the basis of no habla Inglés muy bien.
Now, that said, I am undecided as to what should be done with the otherwise law-abding illegal immigrant from Mexico. Our nation’s policies have been a de facto invitacion for hard working people to come here to get out of a lousy situation.
I would be interested in seeing a well-done poll on what legal immigrants from Spanish speaking countries think about the issue.
Concerning Perry, maybe he is just not interested in taking the point on getting flak like AZ, especially if he can force a deal to get more fed help along the border. I don’t know.
MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:09 pmMD – That is interesting, as happyfeet and I were discussing polling on these issues just the other day. I would be interested in how legal immigrants polled on it, non-Mexican hispanics, and how the polling differed the further from the problems that people are, ie. how it polls in Texas as opposed to Vermont.
JD (c1a2b8) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:13 pmDespite the tongue in cheek look of my first remarkk, I think I was right. I think that Perry does not think that it will seat well with most Texans to be asked to show their papers.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:14 pmMy daughter picked my new computer and I am relearning the keyboard and you will see a lot of typos from me. Don’t hold it against me. 😉
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:15 pmI would posit that most Texans would not be asked to show their papers, nk.
JD (c1a2b8) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:17 pmI type slowly, many posts appeared after I started mine above.
As I see your examples, nk, the problem you’re pointing out is the possibility that those who are meant to enforce the law won’t do so in a fair way- threatening a ticket but take a bribe, write out a ticket for something that didn’t occur. I’m not sure what difference what the law is if officers are not abiding by it.
And as for the slow-down check points in Chicago- has the current policy been challenged? or is it useless to challenege because the powers that be need the intake to the state coffers? Again, the law is not the problem, it’s the dishonest functioning of the govt.
I suppose part of your argument is that the fewer laws that can be taken advantage of by crooked cops, the better. That’s a reasonable point, but obviously that can be taken to an extreme, too.
MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:19 pmThey’re not going to ask me . . . even though I am from Arizona.
Icy Texan (1c9d6c) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:25 pmnk, have you ever resided West of Chicago?
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:28 pmYou know, out in the Wild West?
Where one cop, in one patrol car, is responsible for patrolling 400 square miles of nothing, or even more – much more.
He doesn’t know you from Adam, and in most cases could care less. He just knows that you’ve been, a- driving erratically; b- speeding; c- have expired license plates; d- look like Timothy McVeigh; e- All of the above.
But, he has a legitimate reason to turn on the gum-balls, pull you over, and ask for License & Registration.
Now, if your “papers” are in order, the worst you’re going to get is a ticket; if they’re not, he – like all cops – is going to start asking additional questions, one of which – if the others have too many blank spots – could be “Where were you born?”
In fact, U.S. Citizens are pulled over every day in the South-West by the Border Patrol and asked these questions – sometimes out in the middle of nowhere, sometimes in check-points set up fifty or more miles North of the Border.
Just try driving from El Paso to San Diego on I-10/I-8, you’ll probably have to go through a half-dozen of them. Every time I drive down to San Diego from L.A. I know I’ll have to go through the one at San Onofre on my way back – the traffic there is sometimes backed up five miles on a four-land highway.
All AZ’s new law does is empower the State, County, and Local cops to do the same things that the Border Patrol is doing (well, supposed to be doing, but they’re stretched a little thin – particularly when you have prime smuggling routes through Fed land that they’re not allowed into, for environmental reasons).
Amazingly, they won’t be issued leather coats either.
I understand your point about detentions but we already screen for illegals under the 287(g) program, which trains local officers to enforce immigration law as authorized through section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. There are 71 participating agencies nationwide. In other words, many agencies already do what Arizona wants to do.
DRJ (d15e92) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:28 pm37.I would posit that most Texans would not be asked to show their papers, nk.
Comment by JD — 4/29/2010 @ 8:17 pm
That’s possibly the most troubling part, JD. That 95% of the people will not be bothered and leave the other 5% to their fate.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:30 pmnk – I’m not sure I can assuage any of your feelings about dishonest cops, especially in Chicago. There are going to be bad cops everywhere, but that’s not an excuse not to pass laws to deal with issues of national consequence. I think the other scenarios you bring up about stepping out of the house are pure flights of fancy.
I’m going to go with Andy McCarthy on that:
“There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent “reasonable suspicion.”
Brief detentions are known in the law as “Terry stops” — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, “Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good,” does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity.
The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.
So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.
Now, why do I say the Arizona law is more restrictive of police than is federal law? Well, the Supreme Court has held that one common rationale for a permissible Terry stop is to ascertain the identity of the person who is detained. That is, federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place.
The Arizona law, by contrast, does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person’s immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific “reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.” As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien.”
The whole thing is worth a read.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:32 pmMD:
My guess is Perry doesn’t want to alienate moderate voters before the election, but I may be doing him a disservice. I’m not sure what I would do. The Texas-Mexico border is different than other southern border states. For much of its length, it’s remote, hard to cross, and far from somewhere worth going. Thus, drones and military surveillance might be a better first option for all but the border cities.
DRJ (d15e92) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:33 pmIn the course of a normal stop, I just do not get what is so horrible about checking immigration status, nk.
JD (c1a2b8) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:33 pm287(g)…and they do it with the blessing of the Federal Government (well, all except Joe Arpaio, who has the permission, but is too public of a target for the likes of the weenies at DoJ).
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:34 pmI mean really, when you get pulled over, you are asked for your driver’s license and proof of insurance. Why is going one step further so evil?
JD (c1a2b8) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:35 pmIf anybody wants pork chops vesuvio and salad with crusty sourdough bread and feta cheese, drop over. Otherwise, good night. If you are articulating your arguments better than I it’s because at some point I ran out of ways to say “laws like this just rub me the wrong way”.
nk (db4a41) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:38 pmnk:
Following up on AD’s point above, we have a lot of drug smuggling in the Southwest and to counter that, Border Patrol and law enforcement agents regularly check vehicles on all major roads near the border.
That’s why every time I’ve driven on I-10 to El Paso or Phoenix in the past 10 years, there has been at least one checkpoint where all vehicles were stopped and our papers inspected. During those stops, they looked carefully at everyone in the car, including any small kids napping in carseats or under blankets.
But I get your objection.
DRJ (d15e92) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:40 pm“…That 95% of the people will not be bothered and leave the other 5% to their fate…”
When they’re looking for a bank-robber, far less than 5% of the peole are bothered;
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:42 pmso, is there a real point with this, or are you devolving into trolldom?
nk – I got pork loin, corn and baked potato just about done here. No visitors.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:46 pmDid you know that in the state of my birth (AZ) they can deputize federal law enforcement officials to enforce state laws? Also:
Amendment 9 – Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
— Isn’t that neat? Just because the federal government takes responsibility for immigration issues DOES NOT mean that states are barred from arresting illegals.
Icy Texan (1c9d6c) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:56 pmas i suggested above, make proof of eligibility for residence part of getting state issued ID (regular or drivers licenses) part of the procedure, and voila: if you have a valid drivers license or id when you’re stopped, there’s no problem.
of course, you;d have to ask the folks who don’t want that sort of checking to be policy what they stand to gain from not verifying immigration status. (cheap labor, illegal voters, more constituents, etc…)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/29/2010 @ 8:57 pmred,
I think Texas has required proof of citizenship or lawful status to get a drivers license since 2008. But I’m not sure of the status because I didn’t have to provide proof of citizenship when I renewed my license last year.
DRJ (d15e92) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:12 pmDRJ…I think that Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner wrote on this in the last couple days. He had to renew his license (prior to expiration), and they did require him (either in DC, or Maryland) to provide proof of citizenship. I think each state is different. I know I just renewed her in CA in ’08, and they did not ask…but then, our Legislature has been trying to issue DL’s to all comers for years. It’s a such an ongoing battle, that the main sponser of the idea is known as “One Bill Gil”.
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:27 pmDRJ:
Unless the law has changed significantly, in Texas you can always renew your license by simply presenting your old one, as long as it is not expired.
If you let it expire, though, you have to start over. However, and again I’m going from memory, if you’re over 24, you don’t have to take drivers’ education again. Up to 24, you have to prove you’ve taken drivers’ ed.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:29 pmif you don’t like the AZ law, you can’t support Obamacare either
it appears that proof of residency is required for it to, so, as it stands now, Obama and his plan are obviously racists.
/cue exploding heads on the left 😀
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:29 pm@DRJ: one down, apparently, and 49 to go. %-)
here in CA, where i go to get my haircut, there is a bottom feeding car lot that advertises, only in spanish, that no drivers license is needed to buy a car….. there’s another hole that needs fixing.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:32 pmThat’s possibly the most troubling part, JD. That 95% of the people will not be bothered and leave the other 5% to their fate.
I’m sure there was a version of that “Nervous Nellie” response among certain people in Mexico when they heard about President Calderon’s approach to fighting out-of-control narcotic-related murder sprees, and crime in general, by sending in the military.
“We’ll become an oppressive police state!” some probably said. “We won’t be able to walk down the street without feeling paranoid about lurking, grenade-carrying guys in military fatigues!” others likely proclaimed.
The irony of the reality is that, as things turned out, already huge rates of murder and mayhem in Mexico have actually increased since the country’s president, by sending in the troops, literally turned it into a war on crime.
So the cops weren’t enough, and the military isn’t enough.
(Just as I bet Arizona’s new law ultimately will be symbolized by most cops showing more interest in finding the nearest donut shop, or meeting their daily quota of citations by glomming onto the easiest, most overtly obvious traffic infraction instead of going to the trouble of arresting someone for not having papers and therefore possibly being in the US illegally.)
Merely one more reason why if what makes a country like Mexico tick becomes more of what make the United States tick, two major parts of the Americas will become one big pathetic joke.
And then where will all the limousine liberals (and one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of that type of two-faced behavior) run off to? After all, the supply of walled compounds or gated villas is rather limited.
Mark (411533) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:33 pmWell, that’s pretty much true across the country.
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:36 pmThere is no requirement that you be a licensed driver to buy a car…you might have a chauffer, after all.
And, as long as you operate your vehicle on private property, and not on public highways and biways, there is usually no requirement that you have a DL for such operation, or have it registered and licensed.
“After all, the supply of walled compounds or gated villas is rather limited.”
Especially when the hungry mobs start storming the compound walls, and tear down the gates of the Bastille.
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:39 pmbut you can’t buy insurance in CA unless you have a license, and you’re not supposed to drive without insurance.
yes, you can post a cash bond instead, but that’s not the demographic this lot is selling to %-)
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/29/2010 @ 9:54 pmAlso, in Texas, if you are stopped for a traffic violation, you do indeed have to present the papers — a valid license and proof of insurance..
I don’t get stopped often, but just once, I would like to hear an officer ask me:
“May I see your papers?”
Full disclosure: I’ve been stopped four times for speeding, once for blowing a red light, twice for an expired inspection sticker, once for a headlight that was out and once for driving a car that matched the description of another car used in committing a crime.
Oops, maybe I do get stopped often. Anyway, I’ve only had to pay two fines and, so far, I’ve avoided jail time.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/29/2010 @ 10:19 pmnk is dead on right – so is Perry – its interesting that a non political guy like Perry – who’s a terrible politician somehow has become Texas’ most important and conservative gov in their history – and the longest served – yet anything he does is always suspect to be in political self interest instead of in the interests of Texans
EricPWJohnson (f128de) — 4/29/2010 @ 10:40 pmComment by redc1c4 — 4/29/2010 @ 9:54 pm
Again, if you’re driving your vehicle, on your land, why would you need insurance? Or registration?
Let’s say it’s a Ferrari 430GT, full-on race car, only to be driven on a race track. No registration required, except by the sanctioning body. Plus, the only insurance you’re going to be able to get is VERY VERY VERY expensive, if at all.
AD - RtR/OS! (3def68) — 4/29/2010 @ 11:00 pmIn fairness, the Arizona legislature is clarifying the law to make sure that the request for papers can only be incident to a stop, detention or arrest for another offense. http://www.abc15.com/content/news/phoenixmetro/central/story/Arizona-lawmakers-OK-several-changes-to/qNpxW7Jonkm9shejhnkiSQ.cspx
But I steel doan lahk eet.
nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 4:33 amnk – I enjoyed my dinner.
daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/30/2010 @ 5:48 amA long time ago, I paid off two Chicago cops not to get a speeding ticket. It cost me $40.00. That’s how much their badges were worth to them. I was speeding.
You don’t have to convince me of the Chicago police in the distant past having more than their fair share of ethical problems. But…that was a long time ago, and while there will always be a few bad apples among the department, they’re a heck of a lot better these days. I personally know three detectives and two patrol cops, and I truly believe they do a difficult job with professionalism and fairness.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/30/2010 @ 6:11 am48.If anybody wants pork chops vesuvio and salad with crusty sourdough bread and feta cheese, drop over. Otherwise, good night. If you are articulating your arguments better than I it’s because at some point I ran out of ways to say “laws like this just rub me the wrong way”.
Comment by nk — 4/29/2010 @ 8:38 pm
Fair enough. Disagreements are allowed, as long as you don’t call us Gestapo or Soviet Border Guards in East Germany (that some here may not even remember-amazing, isn’t it). (UNless you try some of that extra-dry humor you sometimes use).
Otherwise, I think this might call for a Dos Equis summit. (I just found out that a German brewer who had immigrated to Mexico started the brewery, now it makes sense.)
MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/30/2010 @ 6:42 amVisit San Diego and I’ll take you all to a Stone Brewing summit.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:09 amGosser is the best but I feel guilty robbing the kid’s college fund at almost $3.00 for a 12 oz. bottle. There’s a Tony’s in the neighborhood and I switch between Dos Equis, Carta Blanca, Alhambra and Beck’s.
nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:52 amI always do a double take when a Mexican tells me his name is Everett Konrad Wilhelm-Ruiz. I know, I know, JD. RACIST.
nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:57 am72.I always do a double take when a Mexican tells me his name is Everett Konrad Wilhelm-Ruiz. I know, I know,
It took me a second while in Costa Rica to wrap my brain around the concept of someone who looked Chinese but spoke Spanish as his first language and whose favorite food was pizza.
MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:30 amMD – My niece and nephew are half Vietnamese, but speak with a southern accent. It is disconcerting at first.
JD (0f9c01) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:33 amEnglish with a Southern accent or Vietnamese with a Southern accent. My cousins in Florida speak Greek with a Southern accent and it’s the cutest. (And likely a little bit closer to ancient Greek pronunciation because ancient Greek used musical rising and lowering pitch for intonation.)
nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 10:16 amSouthern accent or not, ancient or not, it’s all Greek to me. 😉
Actually had a Greek-heritage med student doing an elective in our office years ago, someone used the phrase, “It’s Greek to me!” to which she replied, “I wish it was Greek to me, I know Greek!”
MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/30/2010 @ 11:41 amThis isn’t really up to Rick Perry.
I think it would make sense to incorporate this into the criminal justice system in some way. Perhaps if you’re already in court for some reason, you need to prove you are a citizen or you are charged with the same ‘trespassing’ style offense Arizona would charge. You get a fine, some jail time, and that’s on top of your speeding ticket or DUI.
I agree that each state should try differing things to find a solution that works, but this is something legislators will have to vote on. It’s probably not going to die in committee again. I’m delighted Arizona has completely jacked up the narrative… Phoenix is the best argument I’ve ever seen for why illegal immigration is a terrible blight on our people.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/30/2010 @ 11:56 am“That’s why every time I’ve driven on I-10 to El Paso or Phoenix in the past 10 years, there has been at least one checkpoint where all vehicles were stopped and our papers inspected. During those stops, they looked carefully at everyone in the car, including any small kids napping in carseats or under blankets.
But I get your objection.”
– DRJ
I get the objection too, because every time I’ve driven through one of those BP checkpoints (as recently as last Friday – the checkpoint on I-25 just north of Las Cruces), I’ve been waved through immediately – although they occasionally ask me whether or not I’m a citizen before waving me through immediately. Wonder what cue they’re using… probably the general wholesome legality of my appearance. Wasn’t asked for ID of any kind, by the way – just waved through. Same goes for my dad, every time I’ve been with him when he passes through one of those checkpoints.
So… yeah. I see the problem with laws like this. These days, I don’t want to give any government any more power than it already has: not with healthcare, not with bank bailouts, not with immigration. Because it’s not really “our” government, anymore.
Leviticus (f0f166) — 4/30/2010 @ 12:22 pmLeviticus, if you’re stopped in Las Cruces (gorgeous place) and you are white, it’s extremely likely you are not an illegal immigrant.
That’s the problem with racial profiling: it’s extremely rational in some cases. Is it racist to give hispanics more scrutiny near the border with Mexico when rampant illegal immigration is actually causing great harm?
I suppose it is, strictly speaking, and I also suppose that racism, while usually terrible, is not always terrible. Thank God I’m not emailing this to Harvard law students. If we want to go ahead and require whites and asians and blacks to prove they are citizens too, that’s understandable from a ‘don’t act like a racist’ POV, but we all know that waving them along is actually pretty rational.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/30/2010 @ 12:30 pmIt is a gorgeous place. And I see what you’re saying, to an extent – that profiling is rational, in some cases (although I don’t really like the idea of legitimizing it as government policy). But I kinda wish people would admit that this Arizona law is indeed going to be applied on racial grounds, because officers don’t really have any other cue to go on.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:49 pm