Let's tone down the hyperbole on Senate Bill 1070, the Arizona immigration legislation. Those on the right claim this statute is now the panacea for illegal immigration and those on the left claim it is, well, the end of American civilization as we know it. Neither side is correct. On the news, in the blogosphere, and on talk radio Arizona is being razed over an issue that should concern all Americans concerned with the national security of this country.
Reverend Al Sharpton claims SB1070 is profiling and then calls for Freedom Marchers to descend on Arizona ala Martin Luther King's Selma marchers. The comparison doesn't hold. Those brave freedom fighters marched on behalf of American citizens seeking the right to vote. Sharpton's claim that SB1070 institutionalizes profiling doesn't withstand scrutiny. But playing the race card helps inflame those incensed by injustice without the need to read the bill, let alone understand its plain language.
To see how surreal the criticism of the bill gets, consider this from Muddy Waters Guitars' posting on the democraticunderground.com website:
Arizona will very soon be a Blue State. . .It's sweet historical justice-- Arizona, after all, was one of the states seized in the Mexican-American War in 1848 (a war fought to extend slavery into the Southwest, since Mexico had banned it well before the United States had). And despite numerous treaties, laws and guarantees that would supposedly safeguard the rights of the indigenous Latinos and native Americans who long preceded settlement by the pro-slavery Anglos who eventually took over the state, those promises were broken one after another. That's one of the reasons that Arizona is in the hands of wingnuts today-- the wingnuts' predecessors have been especially aggressive in their imperialistic BS in Arizona since 1848.President Lincoln signed the Arizona Organic Act establishing the territory as free. New Mexico, on the other hand, was the slave-territory, although the slaves were essentially Native American on Native American or Hispanic-owned slaves. But history is apparently immaterial, since the only conclusion the author makes is that wingnuts descended from settlers in Arizona and that is why SB1070 was passed and it's apparently all about making Arizona a Blue State and has nothing to do with the crime of illegal immigration or national security.
I doubt Reverend Sharpton has actually read the legislation. That's probably asking too much. I actually doubt that most of those screaming racism, Nazism, racial profiling, have actually read the bill.
In case you haven't, you can read or download the entire text of Senate Bill 1070 here.
Consider just one paragraph of the bill:
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.Article 8, Section 11-1051, Paragraph B., lines 20-25
Consider that language again: a law enforcement office must first have "lawful contact." "Reasonable suspicion" must exist that the person is here illegally. A "reasonable attempt" is all the officer can make to determine the immigration status of the person and then, only when "practicable."
That's racist, Reverend Sharpton? Sounds like sound law enforcement to me.
Lost in all of the discussion surrounding SB1070 is the underlying criminal problem of gangs, drug dealing, kidnapping and the crime of being here illegally. After all, the term "illegal alien" denotes illegality. Those here without proper visas, work permits or student visas are here illegally. Arizona is attempting to address a criminal problem, which the federal government has been unwilling and unable to address.
Finally, and most importantly, a porous border and all that comes with that -- drug smuggling, human smuggling, and illegal workers -- shows a blatant disregard for the national security aspects of this issue. A porous, open border enables and actually encourages those enemies abroad to use those borders to enter this country. Or at least enables them to smuggle weapons and other contraband into the United States.
Stop razing Arizona and hold accountable those in Congress who fail to secure the borders, north and south, on land and sea, and in cyberspace and air.
Follow Michael D. Brown on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mikebrowntoday
Thank you for personally responding to comments on your entry.
The justification of this law which you mentioned in your article assumes that undocumented immigrants are a source of criminal activity other than the fact they are not in the US lawfully. However this is not supported by the evidence. Research has shown immigration (regardless of legal status) is associated with lower rates of crime and incarceration, despite the fact that most immigrants are socio-economically disadvantaged. In fact the evidence actually suggests immigration reduces crime.
http://www.bibdaily.com/pdfs/Rumbaut%20-%20Undocumented%20Immigration%20Crime%20and%20Imprisonment.pdf
(These two links are abstracts. A subscription is required for the full text.)
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123341598/abstract
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.447
In addition, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Arizona has seen a decrease in both violent (23%) and property crime (40%) rates from 1998-2008.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm
However you and many other supporters of Arizona’s new immigrations law contextualize the law amid rising crimes rates and undocumented immigration as a primary source when these claims appear to be little more than popularized myths. Would you mind explaining why the justifications for the law and the realities are so at odds with one another?
_"The federal government did not even know about the convention center people until today (Thursday). ... And I - my heart goes out to every - even if they chose not to evacuate, my heart still goes out to them, because they now find themselves in this catastrophic disaster. Now is not the time to be blaming."
_"I think the other thing that really caught me by surprise was the fact that there were so many people, and I'm not laying blame, but either chose not to evacuate or could not evacuate. And as we began to do the evacuations from the Superdome, all of a sudden, literally thousands of other people started showing up in other places, and we were not prepared for that. We were, we were surprised by that."
You opened the door on this discussion and plainly think your reactions to Katrina are reasonable and justified. So what other media myths are there?
Second, I would like to point out that prohibitions against hiring undocument workers have been in place in every border state for some time and INS raids are common. And yet the practice continues because it is economically appealing despite fines and other inconveniences.
Consider: US citizens are required to have on their person their lawfully-issued drivers license. What do cops ask for when they stop you?
Consider: Illegal aliens, undocumented workers, whatever the hell is politically correct these days to refer to people who, for whatever unfortunate or criminal reason have entered this country illegally, will not have any of the above (unless they have obtained an illegitimate drivers license or other document). So, with probable cause and a reasonable suspicion, why shouldn't law enforcement be permitted to ask for immigration documents IF THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE AND A REASONABLE SUSPICION to make such an inquiry.
People are woefully ignorant of EXISTING law in this country. Your beloved FEDERAL GOVERNMENT already requires the carrying of papers for foreign nationals.
And, unlike other countries, WE HAVE LEGAL REDRESS if a rogue cop abuses this law. So don't make comparisons to Jews or pre-Holocaust Germany under Hitler (see Congressman Jared Polis' remarks). The Jews were lawful citizens of Germany BUT HAD NO LEGAL recourse against the evil tactics of Nazi Germany.
This is not true. You only need a drivers license when you are driving. And a drivers license does not prove legal status. What if your visa is expired? Further, there are actually many people who do not have drivers licenses, even natual born citizens.
I know many people who have traveled to places other than Europe (including myself) and it is also not true that we carry our passports with us. Again, it is a valuable document and you are in a host of trouble if it is lost or stolen.
If there is a rule now requiring that one carry one's papers with them, besides this AZ statute, please point to it. I admittedly was not aware of it.
While you emphasize "reasonable suspicion," I have yet to have articulated any specific criteria that makes one look like an illegal immigrant. Shifty eyes? nervousness? I am well aware of Terry v. Ohio--like you I studied it in law school. It has its weaknesses and critics. But I would like to see some specifics. PS. The governor already said she doesn't know. Do you?
Take a Liberals advice, give Mexicans whatever they want.
Basic economics teaches us that unless we end the disparity in wages, Mexicans will continue to come across our border. So I propose that we give illegals preferential rights to Arizonans. We let them create powerful unions with high wages, employer paid free health care, early retirement with employer funded pensions, and make it very difficult to fire or control them. In a few years, they will be as hated and useless as auto workers.
The Mexicans already employed will make sure that all new Mexicans to our country join the union and pay union dues, then wait for the golden jobs that never come. Eventually the majority will go back across the border poorer than when they came.
Yer doin a heckuva job Brownie!!
You're about to do for the GOP's r@cist message what you did for the good people of New Orleans a few years back...
If you can show me how an unconstitutional law mandating racial profiling authored by a well known white supremacist is moral, ethical, or worthy of any respect whatsoever, then I'll support your discredited idea to turn Hurricane Katrina into an excuse to federally subsidize the Cruising industry...
The fact that this law was passed -- lawfully if disgracefully -- by the entire AZ legislature does not belie its racist nature.
Don't let the Post people put you down. The arguments you make should be weighed on their merits, not your reputation or personal history.
I haven't read the law yet, but I would guess that the people who drafted it are not so foolish as to not consider its constitutionality beforehand. We all know about previous challenges to similar immigration measures.
Of course, we need to be wary of government harassment of law-abiding citizens, but more can be done to control our borders.
Perhaps if we had had this type of legislation before 9/11, the events of that horrific day could have been prevented.
Bush was given a PDB titled, "bin Laden Determined To Strike Within The U.S.". He laughed and said, you covered your a**, then went on vacation without any investigation or follow up.
The person who authored it is a white supremacist with ties to the skinhead movement...
The AZ GOP took the bait, hook, line, and sinker...
Kiss your A$$es goodbye in November!
Please don't buy into the media inaccuracies about my background. I spent more than 10 years in municipal government and emergency services, and almost three years at DHS/FEMA before becoming Under Secretary. While it may not be your husband's 20 years, it is more than the liberal media portrayed irrespective of the facts.
But then hypocrisy really knows no truth or equal does it?