Arizona Police State

[prole]

Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law Draws Strong Opposition

 

The toughest anti-illegal-immigrant measure in a generation passed the Arizona legislature this week. If signed, as expected, by Republican governor Jan Brewer, the law will give local police sweeping new powers in regard to undocumented workers. Currently, immigration offenses are violations of federal, not state, law, and local police officers only can inquire about a person's immigration status if that person is suspected of another crime. Under SB1070, however, Arizona police will have the right to stop anyone on "reasonable suspicion" that they may be an illegal immigrant and can arrest them if they are not carrying a valid driver's license or identity papers.

 

Passions about illegal immigration run high in Arizona, a point of entry for thousands of undocumented workers going to the U.S. from Mexico, and tensions were heightened by the recent murder of a rancher in a remote border area where illegal crossings are rampant. With 6.6 million residents, Arizona's illegal-immigrant population is estimated to be half a million people. (See the great wall of America on the Mexico border.)

 

Both proponents and opponents of the law are vociferous. "This criminalizes undocumented status and turns dishwashers, janitors, landscapers and our neighbors into criminals," says Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling." But state senator Russell Pearce, a Republican, says his bill "will not change a thing for lawful citizens. It simply takes the handcuffs off law enforcement and allows them to do their job. Our legal citizens have a constitutional right to expect protection of federal law against noncitizens. When those laws are not enforced, our citizens are denied equal protection." (Will a biometric Social Security card help the immigration crisis?)

 

All 35 Republicans in the lower Arizona house voted for the bill, while 21 Democrats voted against it. The bill passed the state senate earlier. Law enforcement in the state is split over the legislation, with rank and file supporting the measure and the Association of Chiefs of Police in opposition, saying it could hinder investigations by making the immigrant community hesitant to speak with police.

 

Appalled at the bill's harsh sweep, immigrant advocates are promising court challenges. "This is the most far-reaching anti-immigration bill in memory and it turns the presumption of innocence on its head," says Alessandra Meetze, executive director of the ACLU of Arizona. "It singles out the failure to carry ID as a reason to believe you are an undocumented alien. What this means is that citizens will need to carry papers with them at all times. It means people like my mother, who has brown skin and an accent, can be arrested and detained until it is confirmed that they are legally in the country."

 

"This is the most anti-immigrant legislation the U.S. has seen since the House bill of 2005 which set off huge demonstrations across the country," says Newman. "The sheer breadth of this bill is going to alter the national discussion." He says the bill does four things: criminalizes undocumented status, enlists local police in illegal-immigration enforcement, allows citizens to sue police departments if citizens think the police are not being sufficiently vigilant in enforcement and forbids any city from ignoring the state law and becoming a so-called sanctuary zone. "That's before you get to racial profiling," says Newman, "because anyone who looks Latino or has an accent can be swept up, arrested and detained while their immigration status is verified."

 

Can the law stand up to scrutiny? "There are some things that states can do and some that states can't do, but this law threads the needle perfectly," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law professor who helped write the legislation. He believes it will withstand constitutional challenge. "In the bill, Arizona only penalizes what is already a crime under federal law," says Kobach, a Yale Law School graduate and onetime counsel to former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. "That constitutes concurrent enforcement in legal terms, which the courts have said is permissible." Says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank in Washington: "The rhetoric that this bill will create a police state is ridiculous. What this does is give police officers an extra tool in their tool kit."

 

"Enough is enough," says state senator Pearce, speaking about the increased violence along the Arizona border with Mexico. "One family has been burglarized 18 times and a number of officers have been killed and maimed in the line of duty dealing with illegal immigrants who are criminals. Our message is very clear," says Pearce. "Illegal aliens should find another state besides Arizona to visit."--from here.

[kevbone]

Patriot Act Part II

[Nitrox]

Landmines are cheaper.

 

 

[olyclimber]

 

IHRE PAPIERE, BITTE!

 

[billcoe]

"Hey man, I was born in East LA!!!!!"

 

 

Cheech: "Hey man, I forgot my Id it's in my wallet"

 

The man: "Sure: then tell me, who's the President of the United States"?

 

Cheech: "Uhhh, Hey man, ...uhhh...it's that cowboy dude....uhhhh ...John Wayne!"

 

The man: "Get in the truck with the rest of the wets' Mex"

[tvashtarkatena]

Arizona just made a some litigators very, very happy.

[Fairweather]

Those pesky Westphalian principles at work. If only from an environmental standpoint, this type of action makes sense.

[prole]

Please elaborate...

[Fairweather]

Re borders: We won, er, I mean purchased the Southwest fair 'n square.

 

Re environment: Ed Abbey.

[prole]

This is still pretty meek, FW. It seems like you have something to say, could you be a bit more direct in laying out the argument here?

[Fairweather]

If you'd read any Abbey you would know exactly what I mean. Give it a shot. As for the rest, well, nation-states have a right to control their borders. If the feds (read: Dems) are derelict, then the states have that right. It seems like a no-brainer--which may explain why you're having such a difficult time with the concept.

[prole]

From Abbey's standpoint, the world would probably be a better place if the human race were extinct. But that's neither here nor there... What is always interesting however is a ridiculous justification for what is an egregious violation of American's civil rights. As usual, you faux-libertarians prefer fantastical claims of constitutional violation (wahhh, my contract with my insurer!) to the real thing (getting shaken down because you look Mexican). You're a sick puppy.

[tvashtarkatena]

I've read Abbey and I don't have a clue what you're on about.

 

And this is anything but a no brainer. It's oneathemthar big, complex issues.

[Off_White]

If the feds (read: Dems) are derelict

 

Yeah, what the hell ever happened to all that border security we had under Bush? (or Clinton, or Bush, or Reagan, or Carter, blah blah blah).

 

I thought the workings of the invisible hand defied trivial constructs like national borders?

[olyclimber]

What we need are fences 100 feet tall between us and them....the whole border, including underwater fences.

[Fairweather]

I've read Abbey and I don't have a clue what you're on about.

 

 

Then you don't read good.

[eldiente]

If you'd read any Abbey you would know exactly what I mean. Give it a shot. As for the rest, well, nation-states have a right to control their borders. If the feds (read: Dems) are derelict, then the states have that right. It seems like a no-brainer--which may explain why you're having such a difficult time with the concept.

 

Why on Earth would read anything form Abby? You're aware that he liked the natural environment right? You might have to hand over your GOP card for reading that as his work runs contrary to just about everything the GOP advocates. (Well except the guns)

[Fairweather]

If you'd read any Abbey you would know exactly what I mean. Give it a shot. As for the rest, well, nation-states have a right to control their borders. If the feds (read: Dems) are derelict, then the states have that right. It seems like a no-brainer--which may explain why you're having such a difficult time with the concept.

 

Why on Earth would read anything form Abby? You're aware that he liked the natural environment right? You might have to hand over your GOP card for reading that as his work runs contrary to just about everything the GOP advocates. (Well except the guns)

 

A-B-B-E-Y. I like the natural environment too. So what? Abbey believed that unchecked immigration was a huge environmental downside--to put it mildly. (Not sure how TTK missed it. It's in almost every work of non-fiction the guy wrote.) How unfortunate that your political blinders prevent you from seeing the manner in which you pigeonhole.

[prole]

If you'd read any Abbey you would know exactly what I mean. Give it a shot. As for the rest, well, nation-states have a right to control their borders. If the feds (read: Dems) are derelict, then the states have that right. It seems like a no-brainer--which may explain why you're having such a difficult time with the concept.

 

Why on Earth would read anything form Abby? You're aware that he liked the natural environment right? You might have to hand over your GOP card for reading that as his work runs contrary to just about everything the GOP advocates. (Well except the guns)

 

A-B-B-E-Y. I like the natural environment too. So what? Abbey believed that unchecked immigration was a huge environmental downside--to put it mildly. (Not sure how TTK missed it. It's in almost every work of non-fiction the guy wrote.) How unfortunate that your political blinders prevent you from seeing the manner in which you pigeonhole.

 

Yeah, you like it so much you want to hug it, and squeeze it, and rape it til it's dead.

 

Abbey was also a misogynist, which also appeals to conservatives...

[Fairweather]

Weird reply from a weird dude. Admit it: you just don't like Abbey because he mocks Thoreau.

 

As for the random checking of people's ID on the streets; no, I don't think it's a good idea. You, of course, believe it's ok for the govt to force people to buy health insurance. Go figure. But if a cop stops someone for an otherwise legitimate reason he ought to have the right to know if he's dealing with a legal resident/citizen. Don't you think?

[Stonehead]

But if a cop stops someone for a legitimate reason he ought to have the right to know if he's dealing with a legal resident/citizen.

 

Any suspicion is a legitimate reason for Border Patrol agents to detain you and that suspicion can extend to any action or inaction by you that is not sufficient to allay their suspicion. The agent just might have a hair up his ass that day and detain for that reason alone.

 

Also if he does not believe you are a legal citizen (despite your skin color, etc) then you are not entitled to legal defense or other customary rights accorded to US citizens. You can be detained indefinitely withough outside contact.

 

Border Patrol Harass Military Field Grade Officer At Internal Checkpoint

 

Check out the constitution free zone map:

Constitution Free Zone - Map

[Fairweather]

Good points. Maybe I should have bee a little more clear: If you are detained, stopped, pulled over for observed illegal behavior and are subsequently determined to be here illegally, you should be deported. I also agree that indefinite detention is unconstitutional, but are you seriously suggesting we hold a deportation trial for every illegal here? Habeas Corpus doesn't apply if the offender is simply deported (aka, released.).

[Stonehead]

Good points. Maybe I should have bee a little more clear: If you are detained, stopped, pulled over for observed illegal behavior and are subsequently determined to be here illegally, you should be deported. I also agree that indefinite detention is unconstitutional, but are you seriously suggesting we hold a deportation trial for every illegal here? Habeas Corpus doesn't apply if the offender is simply deported (aka, released.).

 

I'm still pondering your question since it involves the perennial issue of expediency versus due process. In the meantime, here's some other thoughts:

 

Have we ever seen anything along the lines of a cost-benefit analysis that examines the illegal immigrants’ economic impact on our country? Their influence may actually have a net positive effect. Here’s the rub: The problem appears to be not so much immigration per se especially in light of our gradually aging population. For a domestic economy to remain vital and for those social programs that we’ve come to rely on, we must maintain a relatively young demographic profile. Otherwise, we must rely on a global system.

 

I do oppose illegal immigration on principle. That principle has to do with the sociological makeup of the immigrant population and how their assimilation will influence our ongoing and future political and legal framework. For instance, will the immigrant’s dearth of cultural history steeped in the traditions of the Western liberal democratic experience dilute such things as the current interpretation of our individual rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights? We can look across the pond and see that Europe (Switzerland—minarets; France—burkas) has already taken preemptive steps to limit the transformative potential of the high influx of Muslim immigrants, an influx which could constitute a quiet revolution in values.

 

Regarding the immigration problem simplistically as presented by the MSM, I’m just at a bit of unease when hearing some of the solutions that have been offered by government officials, elected or otherwise. The key idea that underlies these solutions is the question of identity: how do we identify someone with a high degree of confidence and how secure is that information? If we stick with any type of document then one could easily see the problem of intentional fraud despite the potential safeguards underwriting the stored information. The only authoritative (I hesitate to call it truly secure) database would be to compile a bank consisting of actual genetic samples, in effect, your body is your identification. That solution to the identity problem and by extension the answer to the question of control appears to be the primary driver for a revolutionary change that will be instituted by government.

 

This may sound conspiratorial but it appears that we’re walking the dialectical steps to formulate a brave new world where the epitome of the world system will be an image of Chinese capitalism. Here, free market globalism is supported by one party rule and enforced through a police state by technological means.

[Nitrox]

Its pretty awesome to allow a large block of foreign nationals to vote in our elections. I mean, what could possibly go wrong with that.

[prole]

WE HAVE ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!! LOOKS WHAT HAPPENED!!!