Karl Rove's June 21 column in Newsweek attacks President Obama's concerns about Arizona's recently passed immigration law. The president, writes Rove, "willingly mischaracterizes the Arizona law because doing so benefits his party and himself." He sneers at Obama's assertion that the law will turn "Latinos into subjects of suspicion and abuse." George W. Bush's former adviser is either (a) woefully misinformed and naive about the new law, or (b) back to his familiar pattern of prevarication.
Rove calls the Arizona statute a "tight and reasonable standard." So not so. Read it. It's loose, sloppy, and probably unconstitutional--even under a Roberts court. (One can hope.)
Look at what Rove calls a "narrowly drawn" set of conditions that police officers must meet, requirements he believes will prevent Latinos from being "routinely tormented" in the state of Arizona (or in copycat states): Cops must first make a "lawful stop, detention or arrest" in order to enforce the new immigration law. Second, they must have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an "alien." And, third, they "may not consider race, color, or national origin" in their decision to stop a person.
Let's examine these conditions in reverse order. Laws and written police policies from Maine to California, already explicitly ban discrimination based on "race, color, or national origin." Shall we take a poll of young African-American men or Latinos, ask them how that's working for them?
Next, what constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" that a Latino is an "alien"? His car? His height? Dress? Language? Accent? His presence, along with a dozen other men, outside a Home Depot? Perhaps it's his homelessness, the fact that he's camping out in an arroyo or behind a dumpster? Laws don't get any looser, or un-American than this one.
Finally, let's examine what constitutes a lawful stop.
It's July 29, the new law is now in effect in Arizona. You're a beat cop driving down Camelback Road in Phoenix, just after dark. You spot a '95 Chevy (sorry, Chevrolet) Malibu ahead, driven by a young Latina. You pull in behind, follow the vehicle for three quarters of a mile. The driver seems to be obeying all traffic laws. But she's aroused your suspicion; in fact you're certain she's an "illegal": a person caught in the act of not being an American.
And because an "immigration" bust in the Grand Canyon State has now become as significant as a burglary arrest, you decide to pull her over. (Scoring you extra points if you happen to be a deputy working for Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. "America's Toughest [Self-Proclaimed] Sheriff" announced yesterday that the new law's implementation will be celebrated by yet another of his infamous immigration sweeps, a storm-trooping tactic that terrifies immigrants, legal and otherwise, rips families apart, and brings a big smile to the face of Arpaio.)
But before you can stop the Malibu you must first establish a "reasonable suspicion." What's your justification for a traffic stop? Well, if you've been a cop for more than five minutes you have a plethora of options: a tail light or license plate light out (or working only "intermittently"), the driver having drifted over the broken white line (a DUI?), or having driven three miles an hour over the limit, or six miles an hour under...
They're called "pretext" stops. Some courts frown on them (here in Washington State, for example), but they've led to splendid arrests: robbers, rapists, murderers. Terrorists. There is a place for pretext stops in police work. But conducted indiscriminately or with malice, they are a primary source of police misconduct, charges of racial profiling, and severely strained community relations. Look for much more of the latter if Arizona's law is not stopped. (The Justice Department seems poised to take action against the state this week or next.)
Is there a problem with immigration-related crime? Of course. U.S. cops in border cities (think San Diego-Tijuana; Calexico-Mexicali; Nogales [Arizona]-Nogales [Sonora]; El Paso-Ciudad Juarez; Brownsville-Matamoros) are intimately familiar with the real-world stories behind the headlines, as are police far away from the Mexican border: crime attributable to undocumented immigrants. It's a fact, and we can't wish it away.
This fact (and distortions of it) fuels anti-immigrant sentiment, especially if one happens to live in a neighborhood fraught with crimes committed by undocumented persons. But we must find the national nerve, maturity, and wisdom to frame the crime issue more comprehensively, and helpfully.
Undocumented immigrants, for example, are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of crimes. Because of their status, they fly below the radar, stashing the cash they make from their backbreaking labors, then praying it won't get stolen. Undocumented immigrant women, in particular, are more likely than U.S. citizens to be the victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. But they rarely call the cops to report a crime. Especially in cities or states whose leaders lack compassion, or who pander to the inflamed passions of immigration critics.
Further, many if not most "immigrant" crimes are directly related to the U.S.-led global "war on drugs." This includes property crime, e.g., stealing to finance one's next fix, as well as violent offenses. With Mexican drug cartels having made deep incursions into the U.S., and homegrown drug gangs continuing to capitalize on illicit, untaxed profits, it's no wonder, for example, that Phoenix has become the "kidnapping capital" of the country, if not the world. The sooner we realize the fundamental folly of American drug laws -- and change them -- the sooner we'll enjoy dramatically improved public safety.
Comprehensive immigration reform is imperative. But as political hot potatoes go, this one's a scorcher. Rove's boss learned that the hard way. In his eight years in office, W., who the last time I checked was a Republican, didn't come close to achieving even a modicum of reform. Yet Rove writes that Obama, with only a year and a half in office (a busy one at that), would rather see a "racial wedge to inflame tensions between Latinos and Republicans" than "do... the hard work needed to pass comprehensive immigration reform."
So, when it comes to Arizona's immigration law, is Rove being dumb or deceitful? Since he's given to whoppers (denying his role in the firing of U.S. Attorneys; lying until threatened with indictment in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, to cite just two instances), I'm going with disingenuousness.
Obama clearly needs to exercise more leadership on immigration reform, but Rove ridiculously labels the president's handling of the issue "shameful." That's an apt description of his own behavior.
Follow Norm Stamper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CopsSayLegalize
Lisa Sharon Harper: Immigration, the Bible, and the Lawsuit
The Anti-Loitering provision:
The section that states it is a crime to publicly solicit employment if you are an illegal immigrant. A 1999 Supreme Court decision (Chicago v Morales 547 U.S. 41) struck down by a 6-3 margin, a Chicago ordinance against loitering because the law was sufficiently vague. In concurring opinions, three members of the Court stated that loitering was not a protected activity but this particular statute was unconstitutional because it did not identify a particular illegal activity in the Statute. This ruling could prove problematic for the Federal Government’s case.
The Lawful Contact Provsion:
Under current Supreme Court rulings (Whren v United States 517 US 806), the court has determined that a police officer may make a warrantless arrest if the Officer has a subjective belief that the individual may have been engaged in a crime. If, after arrest it is determined that the only crime committed by the individual was the crime of being an illegal immigrant the arrest is deemed to be constitutional as long as the Officer does not base his or her arrest on the belief that the individual is an illegal immigrant.
Relative to your point of view, I would think that before the law can be declared discriminatory a case would have to made that it is being applied in a discriminatory manner.
Maybe CA has seen the light San Diego & Orange counties have gone blue. I't the rural, inland areas (big farm, etc) that still carry on for Repub's
Meg has blown a lot of her own money trying to buy the Governor's seat with endless vile, untrue, non issues messaging.
Jerry Brown will carry the election. He was a good gov in past, as was his father "Pat"
Our family and friends want to send a message of support to Governor Brewer for her courage in the Illegal immigration debate. We along with over 70% of the American people agree with the Arizona Immigration Law. Obama lacks the courage to secure our borders or protect law abiding American citizens. But Governor Brewer cares about the security of our Nation and safety of our families. Just ignore the liberal media and Democrats that demonize your efforts we will vote them out in November.
A nation that doesn't maintain it's boarders or enforce its laws (Or only enforces them when it is expediant to do so) won't last long.
I suggest all of those in favor of amnesty agree to double their taxes to cover the health care, education, food stamps, EIC, Section 8 housing, and college for the 30 million likely to apply. Either the massive social programs or the illegals have to go. The country can't afford both. Denying the citizens of Arizona protection from the drug dealers,
murderers. rapists, kidnappers invading the state is an outrage. What law gives criminal
illegals more rights than citizens? If Obama wants to double the population of the unskilled,
low wage, undereducated, he can pay for them himself.
Arizona will be lucky if it can afford a police department after the multiple boycotts, the deterioration of it's tax base from illegals and legals alike taking their business elsewhere.
This law is racist and an abomination and you should be ashamed of yourself for lying about it and being an apologist for apartheid and racial abuse.
murderers. rapists, kidnappers invading the state is an outrage."
This law guarantees the only ones we'll be protected from are the Hispanic ones. Where's the laws that will arbitrarily target the WHITE drug dealers, murderers, rapists, and kidnappers? My guess is more of them will be slipping through the cracks while we're busy looking for ghosts under every bed.