Not everyone in Arizona likes the new Illegal Immigration law in Arizona. One sheriff refuses to enforce the law. He further states that it is some of the worst legislation he has seen in all his years in law enforcement.
Sheriff Clarence Dupnik feels the law will make racial profiling almost mandetory. According to ABC15.com:
PHOENIX — An Arizona sheriff is the latest person to speak out about the state’s new immigration legislation, saying he does not plan to enforce the divisive law.
Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls Senate Bill 1070 a “stupid law” that will force officers to start profiling. He is one of the first local law enforcement officials to rebel against the law.
“We don’t need to enforce it. It would be irresponsible in my opinion to put people in the Pima County Jail at the taxpayers expense when i can give them to the Border Patrol,” Dupnik said.
The Sheriff admits he could get sued for failing to obey the law, but says that’s a risk he’s willing to take.
The sheriff who is from around the Tucson area sure isn’t the only official who doesn’t like this legislation. The mayor of Phoenix is also suing the state of Arizona over its constitutionality. The mayor does not have the full support of the city council with his lawsuit.
get sued for not implementing the law, get sued for racial profiling…hmmmmm, is there a third choice?
What? You mean these grandstanding local jurisdictions are challenging the constitutionality of what is now the “law of the land” in Arizona? How dare they! They are no better than the VA Attorney General, who is frivolously challenging the constitutionality of the new federal healthcare law (also the law of the land)! I’m shocked by this!
Good on Sherrif Dupnik and the mayor of Phoenix for standing up for the Constitution of the United States.
Ah, the Charlie Deane of Pima County.
So he doesn’t like THE LAW, thinks it’s “stupid”. Would rather be free to eat more doughnuts than to uphold THE LAW.
That’s no hero … perhaps he needs to seek out new employment.
Knew that was coming “food for thought” đ Difference is, there has been no vetting of this legislation, this language is right out of FAIR’s playbook. The reality is that racial profiling is, without question, against the law, and I believe you know that đ
Some state senator claims you can tell an “illegal” by their shoes, or maybe its the shoelaces, not sure what stupidity he was espousing. The “probable cause” mandate was removed from our resolution and we all know why. It is impossible, just by looking at someone, or listening to someone, to know if they are properly documented. The mandate to buy health insurance, has PLENTY of current law to support this “fee” imposed by the Federal government. It’s a loser of lawsuit. Racial profiling is NOT a loser of a lawsuit and anyone who says you can tell and “illegal” just by eyeballin’ them is a fool.
Damn that leftist liberal Jeb Bush!
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36427.html
“Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is speaking out against the new hard-line immigration law in Arizona, becoming the first prominent national Republican to do so.
“I think it creates unintended consequences,” he said in a telephone interview with POLITICO Tuesday. “It’s difficult for me to imagine how you’re going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well.” “
Thanks for your comments Elena. It sure is a good thing that we have a system of government that allows states and local jurisdictions a venue to oppose what they deem a constitutional over-reach, huh? đ Otherwise, we might just be stuck with whatever law is passed (be it good or bad).
“The reality is that racial profiling is, without question, against the law, and I believe you know that ”
I don’t believe that this statement is true (not that I believe the Arizona law implies any racial profiling). I remember vividly that during the 2000 election both Bush and Gore each stated that they intended to sign executive orders forbidding racial profiling. And in fact Bush had Ashcroft working on it, when 9/11 happened. After that, the effort was scrapped – as America realized that there is a time and place for racial profiling, and it might be a bad idea to hamstring law enforcement from using this technique to more effectively use their limited resources in times of crisis.
Arizona is in crisis … and law enforcement is stretched thin … even at that, the Arizona law isn’t racial profiling. We can’t keep abrogating responsibilities for fear of someone’s civil rights being violated.
@food for thought
đ
@Starryflights
Well, Starry, I guess these idiots know which side their politics is buttered on. I kind of resent the idea that a local policeman can refuse to enforce the law. Not the same thing as challenging the law – by a long shot – is it.
I think he is an elected sheriff.
Any woman who has been out later in the evening knows what profiling is. Gender profiling is done all the time. You are pulled over for some ‘indescretion.’ It is generally a faulty equipment charge. “Excuse me man, did you know your license plate is a little crooked?” Its an easy way to issue DUI to women. Teenagers probably have their own set of ‘probable causes.’ Minorities have their own set also.
I’ve been profiled. I was pulled over in Fairfax with my wife for driving white and black.
Nevertheless, I don’t fear potential incidents of racial profiling so much that i want to let illegal immigrants run freely through my country.
I also oppose racism. Nevertheless, I don’t fear it so much that I hesitate to support a law that addresses objective behavior even if it will affect one ethnic group disproportionately (as our drug laws generally do also).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042702741.html
Food for thought from George Will
@Rick Bentley
Great post Rick. Hard analysis. Thanks.
Food, will you please redo that link? I can’t find it or I would fix it for you.
Probably we have all been profiled. It is the human condition actually. However I am tired of people saying on tv that racial profiling won’t happen because it is against the law.
PUH-leeze. I am not even sure I am totally oppposed to profiling. How else to we catch the bad guys.
I suppose, from a quick wikipedia read, the bottom line is that racial profiling cannot be used in and of itself – unlawful search and seziure, 4th Amendment. But it is legal to use it (race) in conjunction with other factors.
Of course, this law is almost a word for word copy of the federal law and the main change is that it allows state officials to enforce immigration law. Legal immigrants have to have their “papers” anyway. Arizona is under literal attack. Something needs to be done, and if the federales don’t enforce the law, Americans tend to do it themselves.
ARTICLE 8. ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAWS
START_STATUTE11-1051. Cooperation and assistance in enforcement of immigration laws; indemnification
A. No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
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 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 personâs immigration status determined before the person is released. The personâs immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). 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. A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
In regards to the Mexican “outrage” and the outcry of the media, instead of this law, Arizona should have just copy and pasted Mexican immigration law. It would have lost its constitutional challenge, but, the media frenzy would have been worth it.
And if the Americans ‘enforce’ the law themselves they go to jail. It is that kind of thinking that gets people in deep trouble.
Probable cause becomes problematic. It invites lawsuits. Broken tail light, out too late, ‘speeding’, are all forms of probably cause for law contact with people.
People often mistakenly think illegal immigrants are deported if captured and turned over to ICE. Only about 20% are deported and that isn’t done right away.
I think law enforcement officers should be going after violent criminals, like drug dealers and murderers, not people washing dishes or mowing laws illegally.
Before Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is inducted into the Moonhowlings.net Hall of Fame, a little background information, if you please. Then, you may cast your votes. Drum roll.
BASIC BIO: Texas-born and in law enforcement for over 50 years. Came up through the police department in Tucson, the major urban area in Pima County. Appointed Sheriff of Pima County in 1980, elected to that position 9 months later and has been re-elected ever since. A Democrat in a county which supported Gore in 2000, Kerry in 2004, and Obama in 2008. Also a Napolitano gubernatorial stronghold. A fast growing county, the population is about 24% Mexican, 4% other Latino, 3% Native American, and the rest mostly Anglo. The Sheriff’s Office (unlike that in PWC) is a full-service law enforcement organization for the entire county excluding certain urbans areas. (Wyatt Earp was once a deputy there.) The Sheriff’s Office website claims that Dupnik is well-respected nationally for his innovative law enforcement techniques and his involvement in national law enforcement organizations.
INTERESTING NOTES:
(1) The Tucson Weekly endorsed Dupnik for re-election in 2008 while admitting that, during the previous five years, he had consistently come in over budget by millions of dollars. They stated, however, that Dupnik worked well with county officials and community activists when immigration and border issues had gotten ugly. His Republican opponent charged that illegal immigration in the county was up and that 38% of violent crimes in the county were committed by illegal aliens. He pointed to a 2005 statement in which Dupnik said that he would NOT enforce any immigration laws.
(2) Sean Hannity likes this guy (or, at least, did like him). Hannity and Colmes went down to the border to watch this guy at work in July 2007. It appears that Pima County is a serious hotbed of illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Dupnik got so fed up with the ineptitude of the Feds that he started up his own border crime unit to deal with drug and weapons smuggling. During an interview with Hanity and Alan Colmes, Dupnik said the following:
” there are places along the Arizona-Mexico border where you could get a battleship across without anybody noticing.”
In response to Hannity’s mention of the Republican’s 2007 Secure the Border First Act, Dupnik called it a very good first step but added that we needed to do more. We would probably never get it to 100% secure but we have to try to find additional methods. One of our problems, in his opinion, was our inability to talk turkey with the Mexican government on border security. As a result, it is roughly estimated that we intercept only 10-20% of the smuggling traffic. He added: “But trying to implement other facets of immigration without securing the border makes no sense to me.”
(3) In a 2010 interview with the Tucson Weekly Roundtable (TV), Dupnik stated that the problem with the Mexican government is that they focus only on stopping the drug cartel violence and do nothing about the huge acreage in northern Mexico devoted to weed and heroin poppies. As a consequence, the drugs continue to flow in. He cited meth as the biggest current problem. It is cheaper to set up meth labs in Mexico than in the US. Therefore, most of the major meth labs are now in Mexico, and that extremely nasty stuff is flowing across the border into the US along with the other drugs.
(4) In 2006, Dupnik was a staunch supporter of Democrat Gabrielle Giffords for U.S. Congress. In one of her ads, he cited Giffords’ plans for securing the border, going after employers of illegals, and setting up a solid guest worker program to meet Arizona’s specific labor needs. Dupnik averred that Giffords had the correct strategy for “fixing” the Federal government’s failure to crack down on illegal immigration.
(5) This one will get ya. In April 2009, Dupnik proposed a plan for going into Pima County schools and questioning students as to their immigration status. In defending that plan, he stated it was wrong for taxpayers “to spend millions and millions and millions of dollars that we do catering to illegals.” The Left jumped all over him immediately about the “racist” and “unconstitutional” aspects of his plan. The Phoenix New Times blog ran a photo of Dupnik with the caption “Feathered Bastard” and the subtitle “And You Thought Sheriff Joe had a Monopoly on Law Enforcement Nimrodery.” The opening para stated: “doddering Dupnik” suggests that this state needs a good test case to set before the Supreme Court. He proposes to start asking school children about their immigration status. The first two posts read as follows:
“a fat, old, ignorant, racist, hillbilly sheriff with greasy hair and a big schnoz full of gin blossoms…..Arpaio’s been cloned!! And I think the correct spelling of his name is Dumbhick.”
“this dump truck is older than tonka…and his reasoning resembles the grumpy old man that pulls a shotgun on the school kids that walked on his lawn.”
(AUTHOR’S NOTE: I do so love the “Progressive” penchant for polite discourse.)
In May 2009, a group of Tucson-area Democratic elected officials demanded that Dupnik apologize for saying schools should check on the immigration status of students and report that information to Federal authorities. Dupnik’s statements were called hurtful and divisive and were said to cast blame on innocent members of the community. During the current brouhaha over SB 1070, Dupnik refused once again to back down on the April 2009 statement. That’s when he made the reference to millions of dollars, I think.
(6) And, now to the current dustup. It appears that Arizona law enforcement officials are somewhat divided on SB 1070. However, State Senator Russell Pierce of Mesa, the sponsor of the bill, claims that, despite all of Dupnik’s comments, there are nine sheriffs in Arizona who have agreed already to enforce the new law. Some commentators on the situation in Pima County point out that the burden is now on the shoulders of the Pima County Attorney. If she goes along with Dupnik and refuses to prosecute such cases, the new law may be DOA in Pima County at least.
Dupnik’s further comments are interesting. According to the Arizona Daily Star, Dupnik says that he will enforce the new law only if he is forced to do so. The Daily Star also points out that there is a provision in the law which allows citizens to sue any law enforcement officer
who fails to enforce the law. Dupnik’s current argument is that illegal immigrants should NOT be in the state of Arizona. However, he has declared that his department already arrests and refers more illegal imigrants to the Border Patrol than any other law enforcement agency in the state and does not need a “new tool” to keep on doing this. His deputies have enough to do without checking the identification of everybody on the street. Apparently, according to the Daily Star, the Pima County deputies already arrest hundreds of illegal aliens a month. The Sheriff has added that, if Pima County is forced to put those illegal aliens in the jail and the court system instead of turning them over to the Border Patrol as usual, the county is going to need a hefty wad of cash to pay for it.
So, there you have Sheriff Clarence Dupnik in a nutshell. I do have two questions: (1) If the Pima County deputies already arrest hundreds of illegal aliens per month, just how do these deputies identify those illegal aliens? (2) What happens to those same illegal aliens after they are turned over to the Border Patrol? Do they get cut loose just to stroll back into Pima County? Can we see some stats on Sheriff Dupnik’s preferred method? I heard a figure of between 400,000 and 500,000 illegal immigrants in Pima County.
Tom Tancredo says law goes too far:
Anti-illegal immigration zealot says Arizona law too much
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo, a strident anti-illegal immigration advocate who believes President Obama was born in Kenya and should be sent back, says the Arizona immigration law is too much of a government intrusion.
âI do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over,â he told a Denver radio station.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_columnist_mikethomas/2010/04/anti-immigration-zealot-says-arizona-law-too-much.html
It’s comforting to know that the only law for which people can be profiled is one dealing with illegal immigration. Heck, with hundreds of laws on the books it would be a nightmare for all if the police engaged in profiling. Thanks goodness that in the entire nation there has only ever been a few cases where police profiling has been suggested. I can truly relax now as take my morning commute.
He isn’t going to go into the moonhowling’s hall of fame yet. An article on someone doesn’t even help push them into that rogue’s gallery. Plus Chief Deane is already there…being the lead law enforcement guy.
Thanks for all the background information, Wolverine. I just put those 2 up there because I ran across the articles. It seemed like a little bit different story. Actually, I heard the one sheriff being interviewed on TV and hunted him down. I am fairly neutral on him.
Actually, I am fairly neutral on a lot of the back and forth on this topic? Why? Because it isn’t my state. I love AZ. I wouldn’t go there now, however. Too much uproar.
AZ isn’t like Virginia. I got tickled over the battleship analogy. He is very right. There is a great deal of No Man’s Land there.
I agree with the sherriff, it’s a stupid law.
Mrs. W, she of the uber-green thumb, disagrees respectfully with Starryflights in #19. She thinks the immigrants employed by the landscape company to mow the lawns in our development ought, tongue in cheek, to be put in jail for “ecological terrorism” or, at the least, “grass manslaughter.” This applies especially to the guys with the weed whackers. And it doesn’t matter what mowing team shows up. She also says that one of those guys, if he is illegal, doesn’t have to be concerned about self-deportation. He should worry more about self-immolation, primarily because he smokes cigs while operating a gasoline-powered weed whacker. She also thinks that some of them ought to be jailed for endangerment of children, particularly those who just throw the broken blades from the big mowers into the grass where the kids play. Mrs. W literally combs our corner of the neighborhood just to make sure. She does not take kindly to the endangerment of kids.
You should see her out there screaming like an angry mother blue jay when those guys come anywhere near our own grass patch, which now gets mowed by us (or our kids when they come to visit). And she berates the HOA staff on this subject. They plead temporary poverty with regard to contract hiring (true) and tell her to use these special markers which advise the landscaping crew to leave our area alone. Not long ago, in Mrs. W’s absence, I looked out the window and spotted one of the landscaping crew who was standing right in front of that “special marker” and starting to remove sections of Mrs. W’s garden border so he could administer mayhem to her handiwork with a trench shovel. Lucky for him that my Spanglish worked. ” Malo, malo!!! No mas” works pretty good. Otherwise he would not have been able to escape Mrs. W, who has trained many an African gardener from scratch and given them paying livelihoods, even if he was able to make it into the depths of Dismal Swamp.
In reality, Mrs. W doesn’t blame these immigrants as much as she does the American company owners who apparently pick up many of them at day laborer spots around the area, pay them rock bottom wages, and fail to teach them how to do the job properly. She wishes we had the old teams back made up of White and Black guys. They cost the HOA more but at least they knew how to do the job right. So do I wish that. I’m getting tired of worrying about my own pelt because I, for some reason, may have missed the landscaping crew (you never know when they are coming) and wasn’t patrolling the ramparts of our castle. One time I made the mistake of shrugging my shoulders and saying something like: “Well, grass is grass.” Whooeee!!! You’d have thought that I had just put Calvinist graffiti all over the Sistine Chapel ceiling or something.
Seriously. We have become a screwed up nation. We leave our borders all but wide open. A largely uneducated underclass takes advantage of that lapse to seek a better life, either permanently or temporarily. Some of us violate the law by hiring them. They are paid crap without benefits. We fire them at will. We are often too cheap to teach them how to do the job to the best of their ability. If they complain about conditions or just don’t work out satisfactorily, we fire them and hire the innocent and essentially defenseless from the next wave of illegals. About the only thing which ever breaks up this ugly pattern is when we all have to suffer through a very bad economy.
I part here with some of my compatriots on the illegal immigration issue. Try as you might through that new law in Arizona and other mechanisms, you are not going to be able to get rid of illegal immigrants numbering in the multi-millions. It is simply too late to do anything like that. No politician in his right mind from whatever part of the political spectrum is going to want to be seen as the leader when masses of people of color are shepherded to the border and expelled.
In my opinion, the only solution, as I have stated previously, is to first seal that border and stop the continuing waves. Let the Mexican government, for instance, take care of its own people and suffer the international disdain and internal repercussions if they do not. Why do WE have to accept THEIR responsibility beyond allowing the importation of enough temporary or legal immigrant labor to satisfy our own realistic employment needs? Our country’s economic borders are no longer infinite. Just look at the mess California is in.
Once that border is shut tight, we can address a specific rather than an infinite problem. Take the kids who are currently illegal not through their own choice and make them into Americans. The Dream Act would seem to be the common sense way to tackle that. America can grow on you if given the chance. Previous immigrant first generations are witness to that fact. Then you go after the actual illegal immigrant generation. First you use law and zoning enforcement effectively to try to transform their thinking and to weed out the oppositionally defiant from those with true immigrant possibilities. Then, if necessary, you deport the defiant ones beyond that secured border. Finally, you address those who remain. You begin by going hard after the scofflaw Americans who employ these people. This undoubtedly will cause some self-deportation back to the countries of origin, especially for those whose emigration was only a temporary thing . Then what you have left are those with the right stuff to make good immigrants and eventual citizens. Those you help by legalizing their status and placing upon them the demands placed on all citizens with regard to the law and societal behavior. Yo do not just hand them citizenship after a modest fine and a short waiting period. You make them work for it. You importune them. Respect your ethnic heritage as most of us do and contribute the best aspects of it to our overall national mosaic. But decide now to become an American in an American culture and not a permanent stranger in a foreign land. You do that, and I will try to help you in any way I can. I really don’t care what color you are. But I want certain things — like seeing your grandsons out there with my grandsons, if that is sadly necessary, on the battle line in Afghanistan, all serving under the same flag and devoted to the same Constitution. Stop allowing yourselves to be led around by the agitators with an agenda to the point where you walk in a political protest waving the flags of other countries and trying to advocate that this country belongs to you, not to those of other ethnicities who actually built the thing virtually from scratch. And stop all this talk about racism. For an awfully lot us, race only matters when you bring it up and try to make a big deal out of it. Then we get pissed off. It is not about race. It is about economics. It is about fiscal policy. It is about the Constitution and how to interpret it for betterment of all of us. It is about “us” as a national entity, not just “you”.
Great, my comment #22 above went in one ear and out the other. I thought I was brining up a point that might bring further discussion, but oh well.
To add to the fray ‘be careful what you wish for’. Soon will we no longer be able to pass laws in this country, because any law that prevents actions by individuals can be analyzed to statistically show that it affects one group of people more than the others. With that comes the charge of ‘profiling’ and eventually it’s deemed ‘unconstitutional’. This will be the legacy of all those opposing the law in Arizona, mark my words!
Sorry, SA. I haven’t been around much today.
What do you think is more important? Stopping undocumented workers or stopping drug runners, kidnappers and cartel thugs? That is my problem with all of this. I think AZ absolutely has to stop that Mexican violence from coming in to our country. I don’t care if we have to put military on the borders or what. That crap cannot continue to come into our country.
It is a huge matter of priorities as I see it. I don’t see how AZ’s new law is going to fix that one little bit. I see it as placating voters by someone who wants to be re-elected. I don’t see it stopping the drug cartels.
Hello everyone. Well, it’s been quite a long time since I’ve visited here. The latest news: I moved to Phoenix, AZ two months ago from Pennsylvania. I’m absolutely loving it here.
And, as I’m sure many will not find surprising, I am VEHEMENTLY against the anti-immigrant legislation that Governor Brewer signed into law last Friday.
Yes. I said it is “anti-immigrant.” Because that’s exactly what it is.
Here’s the problem: the major complaint of those who support the new law is that Arizona has a serious issue at the border, and the state had to act because the federal government has failed to. And yes. There ARE serious issues at the border, and the federal government certainly needs to do more. However, the new law in Arizona (SB-1070) HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ADDRESSING THE BORDER ISSUE!!
Instead the new law, which is being explained as an attempt to weed out violent criminals, goes after undocumented individuals already here, most of whom I must add are peaceful and hardworking people. Cry all you want about their legal/illegal status in the country, they are not violent criminals. They contribute massively to the community.
The new law gives outrageously broad discretion to AZ police officers to exercise “reasonable suspicion” (as the text of the law puts it; see Article 8, Section 2, Paragraph B) in determining whether or not to inquire into a person’s residency status in the country. This is a central problem with this law, and why people out here (like myself) are so up in arms about it. It allows for racial profiling, notwithstanding Governor Brewer’s reiteration that racial profiling is illegal in Arizona.
To quote the lawsuit filed yesterday by Tucson police officer Martin H. Escobar against Governor Brewer, there is “no race neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United states.”
That’s right. The question every reasonable person out here is asking is, “What constitutes reasonable suspicion? Skin color? Accent? Not speaking English?”
Being here in Phoenix and directly witnessing the fallout, I can tell you that this new law has done nothing but foment division and fear, and outrage. Even the police unions are divided over this. Why? Because it is ultimately an attack on basic human liberty and dignity.
If there is one good thing to come from this stupid AZ law, it may be the impetus for Congress to act on comprehensive immigration reform. It seems to have sparked something of a backlash among Latinos, libertarians and the liberal base of the Dem party.
Hey Wolverine, why don’t you mow your own lawn instead of whining about illegals doing such a bad job? I’m sure you could use the exercise.
Starryflights — Check para 2 of #25. I DO mow the lawn. So does Mrs. W. The problem is that the landscape guys simply ignore those special markers and do it again, cutting it too short and gouging holes in the turf with those big machines they do not know how to operate efficiently and correctly. Even so, we still have to pay the condo fees which cover payments to the landscaping company. Why don’t you learn how to comprehend what you are reading?
As for the exercise, I do both foot and mobile Neighborhood Watch patrols of a community with over 800 homes. I assume you couldn’t understand those posts either. Give me your address. Ill send those landscape guys over to ruin your lawn. You can watch out the window as you exercise your finger sending out your asinine posts.
(NOTE: This is a re-post. I posted earlier under my sign-on but is still stuck in “waiting for moderation” for some reason.)
Hello everyone. Well, itâs been quite a long time since Iâve visited here. The latest news: I moved to Phoenix, AZ two months ago from Pennsylvania. Iâm absolutely loving it here.
And, as Iâm sure many will not find surprising, I am VEHEMENTLY against the anti-immigrant legislation that Governor Brewer signed into law last Friday.
Yes. I said it is âanti-immigrant.â Because thatâs exactly what it is.
Hereâs the problem: the major complaint of those who support the new law is that Arizona has a serious issue at the border, and the state had to act because the federal government has failed to. And yes. There ARE serious issues at the border, and the federal government certainly needs to do more. However, the new law in Arizona (SB-1070) HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ADDRESSING THE BORDER ISSUE!!
Instead the new law, which is being explained as an attempt to weed out violent criminals, goes after undocumented individuals already here, most of whom I must add are peaceful and hardworking people. Cry all you want about their legal/illegal status in the country, they are not violent criminals. They contribute massively to the community.
The new law gives outrageously broad discretion to AZ police officers to exercise âreasonable suspicionâ (as the text of the law puts it; see Article 8, Section 2, Paragraph B) in determining whether or not to inquire into a personâs residency status in the country. This is a central problem with this law, and why people out here (like myself) are so up in arms about it. It allows for racial profiling, notwithstanding Governor Brewerâs reiteration that racial profiling is illegal in Arizona.
To quote the lawsuit filed yesterday by Tucson police officer Martin H. Escobar against Governor Brewer, there is âno race neutral criteria or basis to suspect or identify who is lawfully in the United states.â
Thatâs right. The question every reasonable person out here is asking is, âWhat constitutes reasonable suspicion? Skin color? Accent? Not speaking English?â
Being here in Phoenix and directly witnessing the fallout, I can tell you that this new law has done nothing but foment division and fear, and outrage. Even the police unions are divided over this. Why? Because it is ultimately an attack on basic human liberty and dignity.
Since when is it stupid to uphold the Federal Laws? Was it not mandated that a fence to secure the border be erected. What happened to the money that was supposed to be given to the States along the southern border for that fence? How much of the fence was actually erected versus an electronic one? Shouldn’t the citizens of AZ have the right to feel protected in their own homes? Since when does America allow it’s citizens to be used as pawns in a one-way battle against human and drug trafficking? Why shouldn’t the citizens of AZ be secure from kidnapping in their own homes? I say it’s time for the AZ citizens (and all Americans), to begin to protect themselves by following and using the law. It is not always necessary to turn to guns. When criminals use weapons to break the law, it’s time to retaliate in kind.
Starry, reminder: While some of us might not agree with Wolverine on every issue, he is always polite on this blog. ALWAYS. I insist that he be treated respectfully. I have never known him to whine.
Jay, welcome back. I am glad you confirmed what I have been saying. There are 2 separate issues. Please keep us apprised from the front lines.
Do I have your correct email?