Nate Silver dissects the Rasmussen poll showing that 70 percent of Arizonans favor the immigration measure signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer last week:
But Rasmussen’s portrayal of the law is very gentle. There’s no mention of the provisions that liberals and civil libertarians find most odious: that the law would charge legal immigrants with trespassing for failure to carry documentation papers (although — note — this is already required under federal law); that it would give law enforcement officers new powers of detention (rather than mere “verification”); that it would allow officers, without a warrant, to arrest people who they suspected might be guilty of offenses that could lead to deportation, and that it would prohibit certain types of work-for-hire involving moving vehicles.
The Rasmussen poll says that 60 percent of Americans (and 70 percent of Arizonans) favor the new law, but how would those numbers change if people were read a longer or more complete description of the measure? Since there’s been no other polling on the subject, we have no idea. It wouldn’t shock me if the law indeed proved to be popular, especially in Arizona, if a fuller description were read. (Liberals, who uniformly seem to think that the law will be unpopular with certain key demographic groups, are a bit too sanguine about this). But this poll is so simplistic as to provide very little informational value.
This article appears in Apr 22-28, 2010.
To all who criticize the action of the legislature and Governor Brewer regarding local enforcement of immigration law in Arizona by state and local law enforcement, chew on this for a moment.
Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens.
One consequence of the Jan Brewer/Maricopaland fund raiser that Jim Nintzel hasn’t explored is the problem of where to put all them dang aliens and how much is that gonna cost? Do we put them in city jails, county jails, state prison? What? Thing is, Maricopaland wants to push state imprisonment and costs down to the county level (for some mysterious reason…). Aren’t we playing righty Maricopaland $huffleboard, Jim Nintzel?