“You aren’t going to be asked for ID unless you first commit a crime,” said Arizona Governor Brewer in defense of Arizona’s new immigration law. Really? Arizona SB1070, as amended by HB2162, applies the “papers please” requirement to any “lawful STOP, detention or arrest.” People can be lawfully stopped to ask if they witnessed a crime. Or, if they are at a house with a car up on blocks.
Wouldn’t happen, you say? That’s not what the law intended, you say? This passage from an email from the Kansas lawyer who actually wrote the law to the legislator who put his name on it makes clear that papers please applies to anyone encountered in any way by the government:
“When we drop out ‘lawful contact’ and replace it with ‘a stop, detention, or rest, [sic.] in the enforcement a violation of any title or section of the Arizona code’ we need to add ‘or any county or municipal ordinance.’ This will allow police to use violations of property codes (ie, cars on blocks in the yard) or rental codes (too many occupants of a rental accommodation) to initiate queries as well.”
Yes, these were the very amendments made by HB2162.
Governor Brewer, you signed the law and its amendments. Don’t you think it’s time you found out what is really in there?
Isn’t this law basically a copy of existing federal law? Obviously the people of Arizona are alarmed at the rate of illegal immigrants that are spilling over their border with Mexico into the state. So what are they to do? Just sit back while the whole state implodes? It is clear the feds have no intention of honoring their duty to secure the border. So Arizona has to take these measures. It is a sad situation all around.
David,
To respectfully disagree, the problem with the law is that it is the straw that has broken the camel’s back. At the roots of this state immigration law madness, you will find FAIR’s anti-immigration agenda. In its war on immigration, legal and illegal, state laws represent a battlefront. In many states, they have prohibited unauthorized immigrants from receiving public benefits and conditioned payment of public funds to businesses upon use of E-Verify. The problem is that Arizona’s law goes beyond these areas of the state’s interest and exceeds the scope of powers granted by INA 287(g)* (see: http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/factsheets/070906factsheet287gprogover.htm).
In addition, the state’s law in essence sanctions the actions of the Sheriff Joe’s of the world, which he writes off as consequences of doing police work (see: http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/03/joe_arpaio_on_false_mcdonalds.php).
One of the primary reasons many state legislators have voted for state immigration laws is to force the federal government to take action. With SB 1070, the call for action could not be clearer.
I do not trust every member of local law enforcement to do more than engage in an exercise of targeting those who look or sound foreign. It has happened too many times in Arizona, Missouri and elsewhere to harbor the level of faith you possess.
I do expect that courts will review the question of federal pre-emption and decide whether there is a valid basis for SB 1070, or if it is mere sophistry (Kobach’s specialty). Beyond the legal arguments, I think one has to decide if he or she favors FAIR’s agenda, or favors immigrants and immigration to the U.S. I don’t believe there is a middle ground in today’s policy debate.
* What is the program not designed to do? – The 287(g) program is not designed to allow state and local agencies to perform random street operations. It is not designed to impact issues such as excessive occupancy and day laborer activities. In outlining the program, ICE representatives have repeatedly emphasized that it is designed to identify individuals for potential removal, who pose a threat to public safety, as a result of an arrest and /or conviction for state crimes. It does not impact traffic offenses such as driving without a license unless the offense leads to an arrest.
I should correct my post–“The power is already their to ask” should read “The power is already there to ask.”
To Timothy Herrick:
I was going to add your very insightful comment in my own response. In ND the police already ask. The power is already their to ask. There is no difference and like NJ the police in ND turn over the unlawfully present individual to ICE. Good comment.
Maybe the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and others complaining about the law should also read it. Conveniently the terms “reasonable suspicion” are excluded from most criticisms and statements of fear about the law. There must be a “lawful contact” and there must be “reasonable suspicion” the person is in the U.S. illegally. So walking up to someone in the street for taking their child out for ice cream when there is no other reason to walk up to them other than that they look foreign would not be considered a situation where there was a lawful contact with reasonable suspicion of illegal status. Maybe the President should read the law. The President is the one who alleged that taking your child out for ice cream could lead to your being asked for your papers, which is highly misleading and especially from a lawyer who is touted as being so brilliant and who served as a law school faculty member. It is simply ridiculous to assert that somehow we should give a cloak of invisibility to those who have lawful contact with law enforcement and the law enforcement officer has reasonable suspicion to believe they are unlawfully present. We need to have some faith in the professionalism of our law enforcement officers and the ability of our courts to sift through those cases where an officer either inadvertently or overtly oversteps their bounds. We should have some faith in our system–it has worked for over 200 years. As for SB1070, I have read it (unlike the US AG).
I’m a bit surprised at the uproar over this law in Arizona. In fact, in N.J., the police already turn over those people that they stop and whom they don’t believe are legally here to ICE. Is there any meaningful difference??