Patterico's Pontifications

4/30/2010

Arizona Lawmakers Amend Bill Against Illegal Immigration

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:29 am

The changes are either neutral or for the better:

PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers have approved several changes to the recently passed sweeping law targeting illegal immigration.

If Gov. Jan Brewer supports the changes, they will go into effect at the same time as the new law, 90 days from now.

The current law requires local and state law enforcement to question people about their immigration status if there’s reason to suspect they’re in the country illegally, and makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally.

One change to the bill strengthens restrictions against using race or ethnicity as the basis for questioning and inserts those same restrictions in other parts of the law.

Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word “solely” from the sentence, “The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin.”

Another change replaces the phrase “lawful contact” with “lawful stop, detention or arrest” to apparently clarify that officers don’t need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

These both seem like positive changes.

That first change (the removal of the word “solely”) is not given much context, but I believe the relevant language is here. The “complaints” in question appear to be complaints that an employer is knowingly employing an illegal; I don’t see the harm in requiring such complaints to be based on something besides race or national origin.

The second change addresses what had been my major problem with the law: a concern that illegal immigrants will be reluctant to call the police when victimized, because that would initiate a “contact” with law enforcement that could potentially result in an investigation of their immigration status. Victims of crime, especially violent crime, need to feel safe to contact law enforcement without worrying about being deported.

If you are inclined to disagree, consider: violent criminals often prey on illegals precisely because they know their crimes are less likely to be reported. So violent people get away with robberies, rapes, and other serious crimes because they prey on people who are scared to call the police and involve themselves with authorities.

This is analogous to one of the reasons I am against prison rape. In addition to being a moral wrong, prison rape gives a benefit to the prison rapist. When hard-liners chuckle and approve of prison rape, they often forget that while prison rape does harshly punish some prisoners, it rewards others. What’s more, the people it rewards are generally the worst of the worst, while the victims are generally less tough, more low-level criminals. When you approve of (or condone with laughter) the rape of the low-level criminals, you are condoning the toughest murderers getting their jollies by intimidating and sexually violating weaker people.

The same goes here. When I prosecute a gang murder or attempted murder, I couldn’t care less about the legal status of the victim or witnesses — and I have told people that more than once. You can take a tough line and say that every police contact with an illegal can and should be a chance to deport that illegal. After all, the victim is illegal! But if you hold fast to that principle, you are discouraging the reporting of violent crimes, which ultimately benefits the violent criminal.

Arizona lawmakers see this, and have made a good change. I applaud it.

118 Comments

  1. My problem with this was always that cops were supposed to stop someone just on the basis of suspecting they might be an illegal. That would invite harassment of people here legally. If they check their status because they’ve arrested them for something else, there’s nothing wrong with that. I’m sure libs would still have a problem with it, but it should definitely pass muster in court if that was the case.

    Comment by JEA (9f9fc9) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:17 am

  2. My problem with this was always that cops were supposed to stop someone just on the basis of suspecting they might be an illegal

    A bold and brazen lie, demonstrably false.

    Comment by JD (0f9c01) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:36 am

  3. My problem with this was always that cops were supposed to stop someone just on the basis of suspecting they might be an illegal

    For our edification, please produce the text of the law that outlines how cops were supposed to stop someone just on the basis of suspecting they might be illegal. Not only does that fly in the face of the amended version, it flies in the face of the original version, but I will await your offer of proof that shows where this is affirmatively called for, as you claimed.

    Comment by JD (0f9c01) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:38 am

  4. You still have the problem where you’re requiring cops to do something which may not be in the interests of the investigation they are conducting.

    Comment by imdw (054c30) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:50 am

  5. Don’t be too hard on JEA, I was afraid of the same thing. For a different reason. A reasonable suspicion that a person might be illegal might be a pretext to roust someone for drugs or guns or whatever even though there was no other articulable basis.

    A little anecdotal. The Cook County Sheriff stopped sending out notices of enforcement of orders of eviction to the tenants. Because he wants the eviction to be a surprise raid in order to catch the tenants committing some illegal activity and/or for the deputies to find things like drugs and guns “in plain view”.

    Comment by nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 8:06 am

  6. I am not being too hard on him, nk. He made an affirmative and declarative statement of something that is most certainly not contained in either the original or amended legislation.

    Comment by JD (0f9c01) — 4/30/2010 @ 8:11 am

  7. God Bless the People and State of Arizona! They enacted a law that requires, oh my gosh! That Sworn Officers of the Law actually enforce the bloody Law!

    Arizona: Where the Second Amendment is my concealed carry permit!

    Comment by J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 4/30/2010 @ 8:14 am

  8. I wonder if “Police Women of Maricopa County” is on the Internet as well as cable? There is an episode where a person is pulled over for a traffic offense. The boob opened up about the cops only stopping him because he was Mexican. The male and female deputies identified themselves as of being of Mexican descent. They weren’t taking the illegal alien victimology as an excuse for lawbreaking.

    Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 4/30/2010 @ 8:17 am

  9. OMG! 3 posts and JD hasn’t denounced himself!!!!

    Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 4/30/2010 @ 8:18 am

  10. Would the gentle readers of Patterico please help me fact-check the linked article on crime in Arizona? Not so much for the numbers in the story, which I think are accurate, but how meaningful they are.

    For example, the FBI crime stats cited go just from 2005 to 2008. Are there more recent numbers? Also, this three-year stretch seems arbitrary.

    Comment by Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:05 am

  11. Bradley – It is almost a truism that when artificial boundaries are placed on a stat, and expanded view of same leads to a different result. As an example, last night a basketball announcer was noting that player A had made, for example, 18 out of his last 20 free throws. When viewed in the context of his last 50 or 100, the percentages were significantly lower, and viewed as a season, they were even worse.

    Comment by JD (0f9c01) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:10 am

  12. While Googling Supreme Court decisions re: the issue of pre-emption I discovered that Prof. Jacobson at http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-not-read-this-supreme-court-decision.html
    has already done my work for me.

    Comment by Robert N. (df90b3) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:22 am

  13. There were legitimate claims of unintended consequences, and these changes addresses some of these claims.

    Far different than claiming that Arizona is Nazi Germany. (Would that make Mexico the new Auschwitz)?

    Comment by Secret Squirrel (6a1582) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:22 am

  14. Thank you Patterico for bringing this to our attention and clarifying it.

    Your presentation of the concern was clear enough for a non-lawyer to understand and I think better narrows and defines the intent of the law as I understood it.

    Comment by MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:38 am

  15. “A reasonable suspicion that a person might be illegal might be a pretext to roust someone for drugs or guns or whatever even though there was no other articulable basis.”

    Or the guy, like my two brothers, might just look Hispanic. Because cops never do thing like that, do they?

    My one brother, who is darker skinned than the rest of us, made the mistake of moving to TX. I told him he should be on his guard, and sure enough, he was stopped driving his boss’ car to the repair shop. So what reasonable suspicion did the officer have to stop him? Because the car looked expensive and he (IMO) looked too brown to be driving it.

    So please, don’t lecture me about how cops never do things like that. It’s moronic beyond belief to claim that.

    I know and understand the arguments on both sides. I understand that, in the inner cities especially, young black men dressed a certain way aren’t on their way to choir practice. I understand that crimes are committed by illegals.

    But to stop a legal citizen for no other reason than because their skin is a certain color isn’t the way I believe the United States should be run.

    Comment by JEA (9f9fc9) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:40 am

  16. So, you are trying to support your statement with examples and anecdotes that would have been contrary to the law?

    Comment by JD (0f9c01) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:47 am

  17. What are you supporting your argument with???

    Comment by JEA (9f9fc9) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:54 am

  18. The text of the damn law.

    Comment by JD (0f9c01) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:54 am

  19. It is tiresome to try to discuss this with people that only want to talk about potential abuses by bad cops. There is potential for abuse in every law we have, from traffic stops to criminal law, and no law can be written in a way to prevent a bad cop from acting badly. However, those potential illegal actions do not get to define a law. You should be able to show, in the actual text of the law or the amended law, how what you claim to be affirmatively called for, is in fact, called for. Reality is that you cannot show that, because the scenario you describe runs contrary to the law as originally written, as further clarified in the Gov’s Executive Order, and even further clarified in the amended version.

    Comment by JD (0f9c01) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:57 am

  20. What? Police NEVER abuse their power? How much time have you got? I’ve got a few dozen examples I could cite, starting with the 110 or so cases here in Camden, NJ, that have been dumped because an ‘elite’ police unit was fabricating evidence.

    Comment by JEA (9f9fc9) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:58 am

  21. JEA,

    You said:

    My problem with this was always that cops were supposed to stop someone just on the basis of suspecting they might be an illegal [italics mine].

    You made an assertion and JD challenged it asking you to provide any proof you had that this was true. Can you do that or just continue to move the goalposts? Going from saying that ‘good cops following the law are going to discriminate because the law tells them to’ (a paraphrase of your words), to ‘a bad cop will use this as an excuse to discriminate’ (another paraphrase), doesn’t make your assertion I quoted above true. Nobody here has said that police should be able to stop and question someone based on their skin color. The law specifically prohibits this. So, what exactly says that “cops were supposed to stop someone just on the basis of suspecting they might be an illegal”?

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 4/30/2010 @ 10:21 am

  22. 14, JEA, straw argument. Try this: http://bigjournalism.com/aliciacolon/2010/04/29/from-one-hispanic-to-others-re-arizona-youre-being-had-by-the-media/

    Comment by PCD (1d8b6d) — 4/30/2010 @ 10:31 am

  23. Also, note that there is a difference between what was arguably “allowed” (which has now been tightened up) and what was “directed”. Saying the police were “supposed to” means the law directs them to stop people just for suspecting they were illegal. People can talk about bad or corrupt police all they like… that doesn’t affect the law (because they’re breaking it). Get it?

    Your claim says that the law required bad actions from good people. That’s different than claiming that the law allows bad people to pretend they’re performing good actions.

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 4/30/2010 @ 10:35 am

  24. While I can see where you are coming from (and it actually made me reconsider my position) ultimately there is a flaw or at least inconsistency in your argument.

    ” In addition to being a moral wrong, prison rape gives a benefit to the prison rapist. When hard-liners chuckle and approve of prison rape, they often forget that while prison rape does harshly punish some prisoners, it rewards others.”

    I too think it is wrong, and while I don’t chuckle, I also don’t feel the same level of outrage that I would if the victim were not a convicted felon. Even so, my main issue with the statement is the notion that “it rewards others.” My opinion doesn’t have any effect on the reward/punishment scale. It is solely up to the perpetrator to commit the crime, the victim to report the crime and prosecutors to prosecute the crime. In essence you seem to be absolving those who are directly involved of any responsibility for their own decisions, while simultaneously assigning said responsibility to the opinions of so-called “hard liners.”

    The second point you make about illegal aliens is similar, but with a significant difference. They are the same in that each of those directly involved is responsible for his own decisions and actions. The difference is that the witnesses and/or victims may be unduly intimidated by the possibility of deportation, possibly resulting in a dangerous criminal escaping justice. This would constitute a threat to society as a whole. As a result, the possible threat to society posed by the accused criminal must be weighed against the threat to society posed by the illegal alien.

    Comment by Onus (8b343b) — 4/30/2010 @ 11:46 am

  25. My problem with this was always that cops were supposed to stop someone just on the basis of suspecting they might be an illegal

    That was never the law, and it’s a mistake to believe the sort of people who made that charge.

    Comment by Subotai (313c24) — 4/30/2010 @ 11:54 am

  26. My one brother, who is darker skinned than the rest of us, made the mistake of moving to TX. I told him he should be on his guard, and sure enough, he was stopped driving his boss’ car to the repair shop.

    The horror! The horror!

    Comment by Subotai (313c24) — 4/30/2010 @ 11:57 am

  27. I’d rather be a black man in Texas than be a black man in Baltimore, Detroit, LA (either), Chicago, etc etc etc bla bla bla.

    Indeed, I am from East Texas and I won’t deny that racism exists in Texas (not even remotely as bad as it is in Baltimore, Detroit, etc etc etc). But Texas is generally a place where the racism is muted and not tolerated by good folks, and everyone gets a fair shake if they work hard. Anyone can have a great life, a job, a nice house, and the ability to protect themselves.

    I don’t think that’s the case in many places that are crushed with democrat rule. Particularly racism that runs in reverse, and the ability to rise above circumstances without moving away.

    It’s not a mistake for a black man to move to Texas, and anyone who says it is a mistake is probably a total nutjob. Also, I see minorities drive nice cars all the time here. It’s 2010, and having a flashy car is very easy and not the marker of financial success or criminal activity it might have been in the 1960s… a time of hatred the democrats sorely wish they could return to.

    No, that guy with the 4 year old 7 series is not rich, and the cops know it. However, if he’s got the bass cranked up and wears his hat sideways, he is going to raise some eyebrows from cops. White or black.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/30/2010 @ 12:05 pm

  28. For those interested in stopping sexual abuse behind bars, the Attorney General is currently reviewing proposed national standards mandated by the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. More info here: http://bit.ly/c6ixmE

    Comment by Just Detention International (7e882b) — 4/30/2010 @ 12:09 pm

  29. JEA, now that you are claiming that that law does something it explicitly does not do, it becomes obvious that you are not arguing in good faith.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/30/2010 @ 12:10 pm

  30. These changes significantly improve the law. Bravo to the state of Arizona.

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/30/2010 @ 12:14 pm

  31. These changes significantly improve the law.

    If assuaging your paranoid racist fears counts as a significant improvement, sure.

    Comment by Subotai (313c24) — 4/30/2010 @ 12:26 pm

  32. I told him he should be on his guard, and sure enough, he was stopped driving his boss’ car to the repair shop.

    I really dislike this kind of strawman argument. Someone gets stopped for something – so it logically follows that you DON’T MOVE THERE IF YOU’RE BLACK! And I’m sure your paranoid warnings “to be on his guard” didn’t affect his behavior in the least. I’ve been stopped twice by hick cops out in the hinterlands of IL just because my car at one time was favored by drug runners (Nissan Maxima, Black – huge trunk). Neither were pleasant experiences, but that didn’t cause me to lose my sh-t over living here.

    Comment by Dmac (21311c) — 4/30/2010 @ 12:52 pm

  33. I had my car searched for drugs in Kilgore, Texas because I was out late at night. I’m white, like lots of drug dealers in the area (I was dumb enough to submit to a search, which found nothing of course, but I would have refused today).

    If I were black and paranoid, I’m sure I would have thought it was racist. Sadly, blacks constantly are told everything bad that happens to them is because of racism, and they are understandably paranoid about it. You tell some man he is making a mistake to move to Texas, and he’s going to be alienated from his new home. That’s the democrat argument: destroy the bonds, freeze the melting pot, demand votes.

    One big reason why they claim anyone asking for English to be a national language is a nutjob racist, dumb and lazy. It’s impossible to assimilate if you can’t even communicate, playing right into the race hustle. People who demand we never have a national language hate immigrants deeply.

    Comment by Dustin (b54cdc) — 4/30/2010 @ 1:02 pm

  34. I find the faux outrage at the supposed need for people in Arizona to carry ID amusing. The current draft in Congress of the Democrats’ immigration bill creates a national biometric ID card that everyone would have to carry.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 4/30/2010 @ 1:13 pm

  35. Linda Chavez is a vocal critic of the Arizona law over at NRO’s Corner.

    From her wiki bio:

    Chavez is a Director of two Fortune 1000 companies, Pilgrim’s Pride and ABM Industries. Pilgrims Pride is the largest poultry producer in the United States, and ABM Industries is the 2nd largest property management company in the United States.

    Poultry, hmm? The poultry industry just so happens to be a huge employer of illegals. Property management (janitors) is another big one. Can you say “conflict of interest”?

    Comment by Subotai (313c24) — 4/30/2010 @ 1:32 pm

  36. A cartoon on the Arizona bill that uses absolutely no cliches, demagoguery or hysteria!

    Comment by Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 4/30/2010 @ 1:33 pm

  37. Good video of Sheriff Joe smacking down Al Sharpton who was getting his imdw on over this law:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeE3DfXTe5k&feature=player_embedded

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/30/2010 @ 1:36 pm

  38. Reading Andy McCarty’s words at The Corner, I have to wonder if he’s not a lurker at this site. Or else, great minds think alike!

    Comment by Subotai (313c24) — 4/30/2010 @ 1:38 pm

  39. SPQR: I don’t like that draft, either. Requiring people to carry identification with them at all times is not an indicator of a free society.

    Comment by aphrael (e0cdc9) — 4/30/2010 @ 2:09 pm

  40. BroBrad either forgot the sarc tag or is fishing to see if people actually click his links. ;)

    Comment by Stashiu3 (44da70) — 4/30/2010 @ 2:10 pm

  41. Stashiu3,

    I thought the /sarc was so heavily implied it didn’t need a tag.

    I denounce JD.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (e5faef) — 4/30/2010 @ 2:18 pm

  42. Court: This is the case of People vs. A. Hole. The defendant is charged with kidnapping, rape, and heinous battery. Are the People ready to proceed?
    Prosecutor: No, we are not, Your Honor.
    Court: Why not?
    Prosecutor: Our complaining witness has not shown up yet.
    Court: Have you tried to contact her and see what the problem is?
    Courtroom deputy: I know where she is, Judge.
    Court: Where?
    Courtroom Deputy: In the lockup.
    Court: What the …? Why?
    Courtroom deputy: She didn’t have any papers when she tried to get into the courthouse this morning.
    Court: Go get her and bring her here right now. There will be a short recess.

    (Court reconvenes)

    Court: Where is the victim?
    Courtroom deputy: I was too late, Judge. Sheriff Arpaio had already ordered her transported to the BCIS detention center.

    (Court and Prosecutor start pulling out their hair)

    Comment by nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 2:27 pm

  43. nk – There you go again.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/30/2010 @ 2:41 pm

  44. Just illustrating Patterico’s point, daleyrocks, because not everybody seems to have read his post.

    Comment by nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 2:45 pm

  45. nk – Patterico’s post states that your hypothetical will not happen due to the fact that the state of Arizona has specifically forbiden it. (And note that it would not have happened under the original bill except in the paranoid ravings of loons.)

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/30/2010 @ 2:50 pm

  46. All good changes that tighten up the legislation.

    Again… the status quo is not sustainable. We need not apologize for supporting enforcement of the law.

    Comment by GeneralMalaise (53ce9e) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:04 pm

  47. I make it a point to carry my driver’s license with me whenever I leave the immediate vicinity of my house. I figure if I get hit by a car or drop over with a heart attack it would be nice for someone to know who I was.

    That said, I am not in favor, as said before, of every abuelita being stopped for no reason other than “looking Hispanic”. I agree with aphrael that Patterico explains an addendum that corrects what could have been an otherwise very unfortunate inadvertant consequence, which nk dramatizes for us.

    Up at #21 is a link to another view from a “Latina” that is happy with the law. (Thanks, PCD)

    My white son was also pulled over once because he was “the wrong color” driving through a part of town known for selling drugs, that and having a tail-light out.

    A completely “free” society is impossible on this earth. We need to make compromises between freedom and security. We agree that we don’t want a society with checkpoints on every block.

    But the current problem is the result of in effect being too free. We have given freedom to anybody who can find a way to make it into our country. Allowing that inappropriate freedom costs some balancing toward more security. If it doesn’t, more freedom doesn’t become a utopia, it becomes anarchy, and the majority of people under anarchy will eagerly through their lot in with a strong man who will bring some order. We don’t want that.

    Comment by MD in Philly (0f793a) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:10 pm

  48. “Stop, detention or arrest” versus “lawful contact” is a very substantive difference, I think.

    Comment by nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:28 pm

  49. “Just illustrating Patterico’s point, daleyrocks, because not everybody seems to have read his post.”

    nk – Seems to me you were illustrating the exact opposite of his point, but whatever.

    Officer – (After pulling over van and walking up to driver’s side) Sir, may I see your license, proof of insurance and registration.

    Driver – Let me see if I have them with me officer.

    Officer – Sir, do you have any idea how fast you were going back there?

    Driver – I’m afraid I might not have been paying that close attention. Was I going too fast officer?

    Officer – I clocked you at 100 mph sir. That’s a minimum $300 fine. I didn’t know you could even get these old VW Microbuses to go that fast. Now how about that license, proof of insurance and registration, sir.

    Driver – Officer, I must have taken them out of the glove compartment when I cleaned the car earlier.

    Officer – Sir, could I ask you and your 13 companions to step out of the vehicle for a moment. I notice that you all have tattoos that members of the MS-13 gang frequently have………

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:39 pm

  50. The are provisions in immigration law for witnesses and victims of crime to receive parole or a visa so that they can testify. That usually includes employment authorization. It sometimes also includes status for immediate family, such as spouse and minor children. It is inappropriate for any local official to make their own immigration policy by ignoring the violation of federal law. Members of the bar and an official who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution should know better. It is for the proper official to decide if the illegal alien to stay.

    And before you through this back at Arizona for having their own immigration policy, in fact, they are just acting to support federal law rather than ignoring or violating federal law.

    But in any event it is also arguable that by ignoring immigration law violations you are in fact encouraging more illegal immigration. They will be encouraged to come here when they hear that they have nothing to fear from law enforcement. In Mexico all local law enforcement officers must support and enforce federal law. This has a force multiplier effect that discourges illegal immigration.

    Comment by Federale (1e08da) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:39 pm

  51. My wife is an American of Mexican descent, as are my in-laws (who live in Tucson). All support this law.

    For what that’s worth.

    Comment by GeneralMalaise (53ce9e) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:48 pm

  52. Federale – If the witness is a drug smuggler testifying against two Border Agents he’ll recieve a lot more than a temp visa to testify.

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:49 pm

  53. “Stop, detention or arrest” versus “lawful contact” is a very substantive difference, I think.

    Comment by nk

    and a very positive change.

    Comment by GeneralMalaise (53ce9e) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:49 pm

  54. Comment by Federale — 4/30/2010 @ 3:39 pm

    We found that out with the other A-D ;) in the Ramos-Compean case.

    Comment by nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 3:52 pm

  55. Daley, your story is a lot more believable than nk’s, in my part of the country anyway.

    Comment by PatAz (9d1bb3) — 4/30/2010 @ 4:04 pm

  56. I have defended a client who thought the victim would be too afraid to testify in court because he was an illegal alien. (He was wrong.) I have also been on a ride-along in Cabrini Green where all her neighbors told the victim not to come to the station with us to make a report. Not because of a no-snitch rule but because they were afraid of the police.

    Comment by nk (db4a41) — 4/30/2010 @ 4:13 pm

  57. Court: Have you tried to contact her and see what the problem is?
    Courtroom deputy: I know where she is, Judge.
    Court: Where?
    Courtroom Deputy: In the lockup.
    Court: What the …? Why?
    Courtroom deputy: She didn’t have any papers when she tried to get into the courthouse this morning.

    Sounds like the courtroom deputy, and you, badly need to learn what the law says.

    Or you can continue to engage in making baseless accusations based on nothing but your own feelings. Are you related to imadimwit by any chance?

    Comment by Subotai (313c24) — 4/30/2010 @ 4:31 pm

  58. I have also been on a ride-along in Cabrini Green where all her neighbors told the victim not to come to the station with us to make a report. Not because of a no-snitch rule but because they were afraid of the police.

    I’m not seeing why that’s supposed to be our problem. If the people of Cabrini Green choose to believe that they are in greater danager from the police than from the criminals in their midst, that’s a choice they are entitled to make. A dumb choice, to be sure, but there is no law yet prohibiting people from doing dumb things. They make the choice and live with the consequences.

    Comment by Subotai (313c24) — 4/30/2010 @ 4:35 pm

  59. “If assuaging your paranoid racist fears counts as a significant improvement, sure.”

    This is a good example of a rude attack with no content behind it. It does not contribute to the discussion, Subotai.

    Comment by Patterico (2d23d6) — 4/30/2010 @ 4:51 pm

  60. There is much irony in the pro-illegal immigration protesters’ claims that Arizona has become a “Nazi state”. If that were true, those protesters would not be on the streets — they would be in concentration camps…or dead.

    Comment by navyvet (206534) — 4/30/2010 @ 4:53 pm

  61. Those who operate outside the law deny themselves the protection of the law. I hate that crimes are committed against any decent folks. But, if one consciously chooses to trespass, one cannot then expect any sense of security.

    These are fine changes/amendments to the law. I would not want sworn officers to waste their time seeking out illegals. However….once reasonable cause exists for a stop, the proscriptions of the 4th amendment are all but gone. No officer worth a damn would strictly limit her inquiries to the specifics of the cause for the stop.

    Is there a PD anywhere that does not demand that wants and warrants be asked by a detaining officer of ALL subjects involved in a stop (most typically a traffic stop)? Why would it then be wrong to add a check of citizenship?

    Comment by Ed from SFV (f0e1cb) — 4/30/2010 @ 5:10 pm

  62. Thanks, Stashiu. I am not nice enough to say it the same way you do. I notice JEA scooted once called upon its asspulls.

    Comment by JD (c1a2b8) — 4/30/2010 @ 5:34 pm

  63. This is a good example of a rude attack with no content behind it.

    The content behind it is that his fears are based on racism and paranoia and not on anything in the bill itself, as evidenced by his notable inability to show how the bill would have EVER led to his fantasy of white jackbooted stormtroopers picking on poor colored people.

    I find his view of this country to be repulsive. Not to mention rude and without content.

    Comment by Subotai (313c24) — 4/30/2010 @ 5:38 pm

  64. Subotai

    Aphrael never mentioned jack booted thugs – stormtroopers

    He was possibly arguing on the principal that the ability to grant a suspension of the bill of rights in certain cases was not a good thing

    thats how I took it

    Comment by EricPWJohnson (9bfe1a) — 4/30/2010 @ 6:15 pm

  65. Bradley #10,

    I don’t know why the reporters picked the period they did, although the 2008 cutoff was probably selected because the FBI has only released preliminary data for 2009. (Here are the numbers for January-June 2009 for Arizona.) It could also be because the West saw bigger declines in property crimes in 2008, but I suspect data availability was the reason. I’m not sure why they started with 2005. It could be a coincidence but it’s reminiscent of global warming data manipulation.

    Of course, not everyone agrees crime has decreased in Arizona and there are links/downloads here regarding reports of problems with the FBI crime statistics. I don’t know how reliable they are.

    As for me, I can’t help but wonder if the decline in illegal immigrants and Arizona’s more aggressive law enforcement — including its partnership in the 287(g) program — contributed to a decline in crime. In other words, instead of saying this data shows illegal immigrants aren’t dangerous, maybe it shows fewer illegal immigrants and more immigration enforcement reduces crime.

    Comment by DRJ (d15e92) — 4/30/2010 @ 6:23 pm

  66. Actually the laws are for the weak and stupid. The strong and smart don’t need them.

    Comment by nk (81dcc1) — 4/30/2010 @ 6:53 pm

  67. DRJ – Remember the classic headline – Prison Population Increases In Spite Of Drop In Crime Rate?

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 4/30/2010 @ 6:54 pm

  68. And how come my site signature works from my Crackberry and not from my PC?

    Comment by nk (81dcc1) — 4/30/2010 @ 6:56 pm

  69. DRJ,
    Thank you for that detailed look. That was prompted by a San Diego border issues reporter tweeting that the story’s crime stats “tests rationale” for the AZ illegal immigration law.

    I asked the reporter about the source for two other tweets.
    The first:
    FactCheck: Not only does AZ law compel police to check all suspected immigrants’ docs, it says citizens can sue if they think police aren’t.
    The reply:
    SB1070 Article 8.G talks about how people can sue

    The second
    FactCheck: SB1070 compels AZ police to ask people for their documents if police have any suspicion the person might be in the US illegally.
    The reply:
    SB1070 Section 2.B talks about how police must attempt to determine a person’s immigration status

    How accurate are these?

    Comment by Bradley J. Fikes, C. O.R. (a18ddc) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:27 pm

  70. #66 nk:

    Actually the laws are for the weak and stupid. The strong and smart don’t need them.

    But it is the strong and smart that need to keep them for the weak and stupid.

    Ultimately, the job of the soldier is to protect the weak and defend the innocent.

    Comment by EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:47 pm

  71. They are not even remotely accurate, Brother Bradley. Notice how his response to the first one ignores the assertion that the law compels police to check all suspected immigrants docs. It does no such thing, and this is a similar asspull to what JEA did earlier. The second is a variation of the first, but a reading of the language of the law, and the accompanying Executive Order, and the amendments passed today suggest that this is an asspull too. The law clearly laid out the scenarios where this is appropriate, and the amended version makes it even more clear after the waves of manufactured outrage.

    Comment by JD (c1a2b8) — 4/30/2010 @ 7:50 pm

  72. Bradley:

    How accurate are these?

    I’ll start with the second item and look at the first one later if I have time:

    #2 — “FactCheck: SB1070 compels AZ police to ask people for their documents if police have any suspicion the person might be in the US illegally.”

    Section 2.B of the original law provides (emphasis supplied; caps in original):

    “B. 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 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.”

    The use of the term “shall be made” is mandatory, not permissive, but IMO the qualifiers (“reasonable attempt” and “when practicable” and “except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation”) make this largely a matter of law enforcement discretion.

    The following text occurs immediately after the above quote:

    “ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).”

    These sentences contain mandatory language with no qualifiers, however it seems to me the reasonable interpretation is that the persons whose immigration status must be checked are those who have been arrested and are, presumably, in jail. If so, and again IMO, this would require all law enforcement who make arrests to participate in the 287(g) program.

    For comparison, here is the corresponding text of the amended law (strikeouts and capitalized words are revisions):

    “B. For any lawful contact STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST 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 IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who AND 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. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c).”

    I don’t see any material difference caused by these revisions to what I said above, but perhaps other attorneys will weigh in.

    Comment by DRJ (d15e92) — 4/30/2010 @ 8:11 pm

  73. Thanks, JD and DRJ.

    This is what I thought, but it’s always safer to have an attorney’s perspective.

    If a reporter presumes to do a “fact check”, the facts had better be unquestionably right.

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/30/2010 @ 8:36 pm

  74. And here’s another claim from a San Diego journalists’ roundtable on the Arizona law:

    (CALLER) ” . . .However, walking down the street or speaking Spanish or being in a store speaking Spanish, my understanding of the law is anyone – this law allows Arizonans, citizens, to essentially do a citizen arrest, to call the police to check your ID based on your racial descent or if you’re speaking Spanish.

    PENNER: Let me ask Alisa what she knows about that.

    BARBA: I don’t know whether they can do a citizen’s arrest but what the law does allow, which is just fascinating, is it allows citizens to sue law enforcement if they feel that law enforcement is not enforcing this law. So it does empower local citizens and the citizenry to make sure that the police are actually going after the people that the law wants the police to go after. So it’s not exactly the way you described it but it’s not too far off.”

    Comment by Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (9eb641) — 4/30/2010 @ 8:41 pm

  75. Bradley:

    FactCheck: Not only does AZ law compel police to check all suspected immigrants’ docs, it says citizens can sue if they think police aren’t.

    The reply: SB1070 Article 8.G talks about how people can sue.

    Article 8.G. of the original law (page 3) provides (caps in original; emphasis supplied):

    “G. A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS SUBSECTION.”

    As shown above, the law authorizes Arizona residents to sue if individuals or entities adopt of implement “a policy or practice” that limits or restricts enforcement of immigration laws. That’s vague and, as written, I doubt many lawsuits would be successful in compelling police to arrest, detain or deport a specific person. Instead, it is a process to compel a change in policies and practices.

    Here is the completely new provision in the amended law (also on page 3):

    “G. Any person who is a resident of this state has standing in any court of record to bring suit against any agent or agency of this state or its political subdivisions to remedy any violation of any provision of this section, including an action for mandamus. Courts shall give preference to actions brought under this section over other civil actions or proceedings pending in the court.”

    This is a very different provision than the original law and, frankly, I need to think about it before commenting. My first impression was that it now works both ways — allowing residents who want more enforcement to sue but possibly also allowing lawsuits by citizens who believe they were wronged by the law. But I’m not sure so I’m interested in how others read this provision.

    Comment by DRJ (d15e92) — 4/30/2010 @ 9:02 pm

  76. Patrick–

    Can’t think of a time I’ve disagreed w/you, but I disagree here. If you work in the criminal justice system, and you come across criminals (that’s what ILLEGAL immigrants are) you have in my view the moral and legal obligation to see them prosecuted. I am so sick and tired of ILLEGALS stealing my tax dollars and then blocking public streets to express their rage at me because they havenn’t been able to rip me off for quite as much as they would like. DEPORT THEM ALL! And charge them for the fucking gas.

    Comment by Kevin Stafford (abdb87) — 4/30/2010 @ 11:25 pm

  77. I’ve read the law and the changes.

    The changes do lessen the room for racial profiling, by taking out the word “solely” when it comes to race. But then another change makes violation of local city ordinances a trigger for cops to check into immigration status.

    The law is still awful and puts officers in a very bad position. It shifts responsibility of dealing with immigration from politicians and the feds to local police. Reporting of crimes in Latino communities will go down and, as I understand it, it’s not that great already.

    I am glad the Major League Baseball players union has made the decision to stand up for its 30 percent foreign-born players and all Americans. I think the all-star game will be pulled and maybe the Cactus League, too, if this is not resolved. The league simply can’t subject players and players’ families to this potentially abusive law. It makes no business sense, for one thing, and it’s just wrong.

    I’m frankly still surprised any conservative can support this heavy-handed, police state response to the problem of illegal immigration. I don’t want to hear any more bitchin’ about Obama’s supposed impinging on freedom. I always suspected it was crap to begin with and now the embrace of this law by some of the same critics of Obama confirms my view. It’s just talk.

    When there’s a real threat to freedom, a number of alleged conservatives just fall in line like the rest of the frightened lemmings.

    We saw the same thing with the Henry Louis Gates situation. Alleged conservatives who rail against the threat of big government had no problem with the police arresting a man at his home for talking. It is incidents like these that show minorities that Repubs are just jawin’ when it comes to issues like freedom.

    I should point out that the GOP is not uniform in support of the AZ law, and many of them have come out against the law (Jeb Bush, Rubio, Karl Rove, etc.). But not enough, IMO.

    Comment by Myron (102c5d) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:07 am

  78. Again, what has effectively been an “open borders” policy is not sustainable. Americans need not apologize for enforcing the law and it’s damn well time leftwing moonbats understood that.

    Comment by GeneralMalaise (53ce9e) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:16 am

  79. Hey, Myroon,… how ’bout this?… if you and your moonbat tribe agree not to support racial profiling in public employment, college admissions, government contract awards, or in your descriptions of the Tea Party folks, critics of Obama’s health-care reform, talk-radio hosts, and the police in Cambridge, MA., those who support this Arizona law will agree to insert a provision explicitly prohibiting racial profiling.

    Oh, wait — that provision is already in there.

    Comment by GeneralMalaise (53ce9e) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:34 am

  80. Myron,

    then another change makes violation of local city ordinances a trigger for cops to check into immigration status

    That change seems to me to reduce the situations in which cops are supposed to check into immigration status. “lawful contact” was incredibly broad; the new wording is much narrower.

    Before, a reasonable cop could interpret the law as authorizing him to check into the immigration status of crime victims; now he couldn’t.

    That’s a significant improvement in the law, and it ought to be acknowledged as such.

    GeneralMalaise,

    who bears the burden of proof? Does the person stopped have to prove that it was done for reasons of racial profiling, or does the person conducting the stop have to prove that it wasn’t?

    If the burden of proof is on the person stopped, the provision prohibiting racial profiling has no teeth; the cop can racially profile and invent pretexts.

    If the burden of proof is on the cop, the cops likely can’t do their job as they can never prove absence of racial profiling beyond a reasonable doubt.

    All of which is to say: yeah, it’s prohibited, but as a practical matter, the prohibition is unenforceable except in blatant cases, and the blatant cases won’t happen anyway.

    Comment by aphrael (73ebe9) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:57 am

  81. aphrael – If you are arrested for commiting a crime does the state have to prove you are guilty or do you have to prove that you are innocent?

    But if an Officer is accused of a violation he should have to prove his innocence? While the accuser is presumed to be factually correct and ethically pristine in his accusations??

    Comment by Have Blue (854a6e) — 5/1/2010 @ 10:08 am

  82. “who bears the burden of proof? Does the person stopped have to prove that it was done for reasons of racial profiling, or does the person conducting the stop have to prove that it wasn’t?”

    … an expired registration, broken tail light, speeding, etc., etc., are all legal reasons to stop ANYONE. As I understand the law, if the person stopped – illegal immigrant or not – presents a valid driver’s license (for example), that person is cited and sent along his/her merry way.

    In other words, there must be an infraction of existing law to warrant being “stopped”.

    Comment by GeneralMalaise (53ce9e) — 5/1/2010 @ 10:32 am

  83. The plaintiff has the burden of proof in civil cases as well. But, I agree, that police officers should not have to be under this kind of pressure. Further, I expect either the courts or the legislature to narrow it down to the official policies of sanctuary cities.

    Comment by nk (db4a41) — 5/1/2010 @ 10:34 am

  84. … and I’m not a lawyer… but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.

    Comment by GeneralMalaise (53ce9e) — 5/1/2010 @ 10:41 am

  85. Myron – Please just have the testicular fortitude to day you favor selective enforcement of our laws. Even though the Democrat version of immigration reform outlined to Congress this week included a national biometric identification card, by your comments, that would create a police state environment. Please just say you do not favor enforcing existing immigration laws, fair elections, drug laws, fair taxation, free speech, and the like so that we can have an honest debate. Otherwise, provide alternative suggestions to the Arizona law please. Repeating talking points you’ve read elsewhere but don’t understand does not create much value here.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 11:32 am

  86. Have Blue – I understand that this was subtle, but: I did not say that the officer should have to prove his innocence. I posited two options for burden of proof, and found both to be problematic. How does that equate to expressing a preference for one over the other?

    Of course the officer shouldn’t have to prove his innocence. If he did, it would turn the presumption of innocence on its head, and it would make it impossible for him to do his job.

    My point was that neither burden of proof really works. It’s next to impossible to prove that racial profiling is the reason the cop let the white guy speeding in the honda accord go buy without stopping him, but then stopped the mexican guy driving the mitsubishi lancer at the same speed. So a prohibition on racial profiling is basically unenforceable, because cops have a very, very, very wide discretion in stopping people, and because there are all sorts of technical infractions which many people commit every day.

    Daleyrocks: traffic laws are selectively enforced and probably always have been. So too jaywalking and drug possession. The issue is what critiera will we use as the basis for our selectiv enforcement, not will we selectively enforce.

    Maybe things were different when we had fewer laws.

    Comment by aphrael (73ebe9) — 5/1/2010 @ 4:29 pm

  87. “what critiera will we use as the basis for our selectiv enforcement”

    aphrael – If we had criteria then we could not call it selective enforcement, could we?

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 5:08 pm

  88. an “open borders” policy is not sustainable.

    There are more choices than “open borders” and “unconstitutional law.” False choice. Try again.

    Comment by Myron (102c5d) — 5/1/2010 @ 6:12 pm

  89. GeneralMalaise:

    So you believe it’s fine to be flat wrong b/c you think others are flat wrong? How very adult of you.

    Comment by Myron (102c5d) — 5/1/2010 @ 6:13 pm

  90. That’s a significant improvement in the law, and it ought to be acknowledged as such.

    aphrael: We’ll agree to disagree. In practice, local law officers can demand papers if a business owner says, violates a local sign ordinance or neighbor puts up a front yard fence in a town where it’s prohibited. This is an expansion of police power.

    Comment by Myron (102c5d) — 5/1/2010 @ 6:17 pm

  91. Daley: More false equivalence from you: Your forte, apparently. Issuing everyone a national ID card is not the same as cops stopping someone on random “reasonable suspicion” and demanding they produce papers. Have you even read the law?

    Comment by Myron (102c5d) — 5/1/2010 @ 6:18 pm

  92. Myron – Not a false equivalence at all. How would the government determine when it had completed the job of handing out national identification cards without determining who is an illegal immigrant? Or would they just settle for doing a half-assed slave-ocrat party job of it?

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 6:22 pm

  93. “cops stopping someone on random “reasonable suspicion””

    Myron – Please tell me if the above is what the new law says or if it just another one of your asspulls. Please cite the section of the law.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 6:27 pm

  94. “There are more choices than “open borders” and “unconstitutional law.” False choice.”

    Myron – Give us some of those workable choices in your opinion.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 6:29 pm

  95. Issuing everyone a national ID card is not the same as cops stopping someone on random “reasonable suspicion” and demanding they produce papers

    I have read the law, and it doesn’t say what you claim.

    The relevant section is 11-1051 B:

    B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON’S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

    This does NOT empower police to randomly stop people they suspect of being illegal aliens.

    Comment by Some chump (9eaefb) — 5/1/2010 @ 6:45 pm

  96. Myron, we’ve noticed that all of your arguments involve false statements about the law. And above, you follow up a false statement of the law with a smart aleck remark about others reading the law.

    That’s gall.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/1/2010 @ 7:12 pm

  97. “Myron, we’ve noticed that all of your arguments involve false statements about the law.”

    SPQR – Myron claims his record of accuracy is good on this blog regarding facts. Maybe he is just stating his opinion of what the law says instead of what it actually says.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 7:26 pm

  98. daleyrocks, I’d say that Myron’s record on facts has been consistent…

    But not “good”.

    Comment by SPQR (26be8b) — 5/1/2010 @ 7:38 pm

  99. “daleyrocks, I’d say that Myron’s record on facts has been consistent…”

    SPQR – Myron took exception to my characterization of his accuracy here as being poor. He claimed I may have been confusing opinion with fact. He is bearing out my assessment just fine.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 7:51 pm

  100. I’m frankly still surprised any conservative can support this heavy-handed, police state response to the problem of illegal immigration. I don’t want to hear any more bitchin’ about Obama’s supposed impinging on freedom.

    So sayeth the typical liberal, who likely also sheds tears for a convicted murderer — and shouts “capital punishment is cruel, it’s unjust!!” — while giving about 2 seconds of time and consideration to his victims and the survivors of his victims. IOW, if you can’t be trusted to judge people and situations correctly in cases like that, your judgment and wisdom will be null and void in other circumstances. But I guess foolishness is sweet and lovely in the name of supposed compassion and humaneness.

    Moreover, you’re very likely a limousine liberal too — and one does not have to be wealthy to be guilty of that — in that I bet you eventually will be among the people who pack their bags when the community around them becomes too much of a variation of a society like Mexico, with all its interminable downward mobility, dysfunction and never-ending mediocrity.

    Talk is cheap when the services of a moving van are always an easy phone call away.

    Comment by Mark (411533) — 5/1/2010 @ 8:36 pm

  101. It is interesting, but not surprising, that Moron parrots the wrongful thinking of MLB that their foreign-born players would be at risk playing in AZ.
    I know that Moron doesn’t have the ability to read and understand law, but I would have thought that the spokesholes for the Player’s Union and/or MLB would have thought to research the applicable immigration statutes before commenting.
    If they had, they would realize that those they are talking about (the players) have been required for seventy years to keep copies of their immigration documents with them at all times to veryify their status in this country.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (334ea3) — 5/1/2010 @ 8:41 pm

  102. #100 Mark, apparently quoting from upthread:

    … surprised any conservative can support this heavy-handed, police state response to the problem of illegal immigration. …

    Did Moron really say that? Yup, he did din’t he.

    Apparently, he don’t got a lot synaptic activity happening upstairs in order to be surprised by conservatives respecting the rule of law and expecting police to enforce such as a part of their duty.

    Comment by EW1(SG) (edc268) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:04 pm

  103. How would the government determine when it had completed the job of handing out national identification cards …

    Daley: As I’m sure you know, a national ID card program would be part of comprehensive reform, which would involve raising the number of work visas, which would help bring the shadow economy into the light and help us get a better handle on who’s here.

    But none of that addresses the issue with local officers figuring out who’s illegal based on “reasonable suspicion.” NO ONE, I repeat no one has been able to tell me what an illegal immigrant looks like. Care to take a whack at it?

    Comment by Myron (3d5c6b) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:48 pm

  104. Some chump: You interpret the section differently, and that is all.

    Comment by Myron (3d5c6b) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:48 pm

  105. SPQR: You are the king of weighing in with nothing to say.

    Comment by Myron (3d5c6b) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:50 pm

  106. Mark: Rather than making silly assumptions and ranting about someone you don’t know, how about doing something that takes real skill: Defend the freedom-loving “conservative” position on a law that most agree will be overturned as unconstitutional? I’m waiting … Does anyone have the sack to even try?

    Comment by Myron (3d5c6b) — 5/1/2010 @ 9:52 pm

  107. “Daley: As I’m sure you know, a national ID card program would be part of comprehensive reform, which would involve raising the number of work visas, which would help bring the shadow economy into the light and help us get a better handle on who’s here.”

    Myron – Please enlighten me. Does the proposal include granting work visas to all illegal immigrants who are already here, including the flood of illegal immigrants who would cross the border if such a program were announced? Details please. Would the slave-ocrat party actually cave in and require such an ID card to be presented for voting? Details please.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 10:03 pm

  108. “Defend the freedom-loving “conservative” position on a law that most agree will be overturned as unconstitutional? I’m waiting … Does anyone have the sack to even try?”

    Myron – Please see the piece I linked by Andy McCarthy ( http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU= ). Why don’t you post an analysis of why you believe it is unconstitutional instead of just getting your panties in a wad?

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 10:06 pm

  109. Daley: You don’t care about details. If you know anything about this issue at all, and by your presence here on this thread, you want us to believe you do — you know the basic outlines of comprehensive reform as proposed by Bush and McCain-Kennedy.

    As for 108: Why don’t you post original ideas that might indicate you can think for yourself?

    Comment by Myron (3d5c6b) — 5/1/2010 @ 10:19 pm

  110. Myron – Stop dodging. Either you have something or you don’t. It’s pretty clear that you don’t and are just taking knee jerk uninformed potshots at the Arizona law. You can’t articulate why it’s unconstitutional, you just have feelings. If you believe Harry Reid is reintroducing McCain-Kennedy, good luck in November.

    You are behaving just like you did in the debate over health care reform. You had no interest or capacity for details, just feelings.

    Comment by daleyrocks (1d0d98) — 5/1/2010 @ 10:31 pm

  111. Some chump: You interpret the section differently, and that is all.

    No, Myron: I am capable of reading English, a talent you appear to lack. A “lawful contact” is not a random stop of a person on the street. Never has been. Under this wording, the officer must come into contact with the individual for some reason other than to question him.

    Besides, it will be moot once the wording of the section is changed. And you will be left with no cover for your assertion.

    Comment by Some chump (9eaefb) — 5/1/2010 @ 11:24 pm

  112. This law is a legal tool for local and state law enforcement Officers to stop any person with none white features. I have been in law enforcement for over 25 years and I see it everyday. The following are some of the reasons Officers use to make either traffic stops or stop a person: 1- if your look Hispanic/Latino or none white.2-You are driving an old car. The Offciers will use any reason, from duty linces plates to broken light. I am sure that in Arizona, the Officers have been using the same reasons, but now they do not have to make any escuses beacuse now they are legal to make the stop with consequences. The Boarder Patrol Officers at check points spent their time patrolling the fwys instead of doing their job at the check points. They profile and stop vehicles based it on the color of the driver. The problem with boarder patrol and some law enforcement Offciers is that they want to be the police of the country without jurisdiction. THere is no reason for the boarder patrol to be taken the HWY ptrolmen’s job or law enforcement doing boarder patrol. Each agency have thier own jurisdiction and each should do their job in their jurisdiction. In California some municipalities allowed their Officers to take the police vehicle home. I seen Officers stopping cars in the HWY in a different county 60 or 80 miles away from their jurisdiction. This is stupid because it is tax payers dollars. If states going to have their law enforcement do the Boarder patrol’s job, than make one geneal law enforcemnt agency for the entire country and disband every sheriffs, state and local law enforcement agencies in entire ecountry. Sence Boarder Patrol and state and local law enforcement want to do each otthers job.

    Comment by Jhon Smith (18d3c4) — 5/2/2010 @ 10:38 pm

  113. If you are going to paint with such a wide brush, could you use one that knows how to spell “non”?
    And perhaps dip it a few times in some syntax thinner?

    We are certainly getting a poor class of moby’s recently.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (45c403) — 5/2/2010 @ 10:59 pm

  114. Jhon,

    Are you in a hurry to comment or are you something other than you say you are? Because typically LEOs can spell and write words like “licenses,” “excuses” and “Border Patrol.”

    Comment by DRJ (d43dcd) — 5/2/2010 @ 11:09 pm

  115. Or, he could be self-medicating from the same pharmacy that supplies EPWJ.

    Comment by AD - RtR/OS! (45c403) — 5/2/2010 @ 11:11 pm

  116. Myopic, the Cactus League is going nowhere.

    Comment by Icy Texan (ad8815) — 5/3/2010 @ 3:07 am

  117. If one were to stick “Jhon”‘s rant into a search engine, any bets on where it would show up?

    Personally, I’m thinking not only “conservative” blog comment sections, but the letters to the editor pages …

    /Man, you gotta be in an awful hurry to misspell your own name. Kind of like all those “active duty with 20 years or better military” that all came out in support of the O!ne during his campaign and promptly disappeared again after.

    Comment by EW1(SG) (edc268) — 5/3/2010 @ 6:54 am

  118. If you do not oppose this law, you cannot call yourself a conservative. Myron deemed it so.

    Comment by JD (d55760) — 5/3/2010 @ 7:09 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3940 secs.