So here’s the situation in Southern Arizona.
The Arizona Legislature approves, and Gov. Jan Brewer signs into law, Senate Bill 1070, which was primarily pushed by state Sen. Russell Pearce, who is a racist (or at least someone comfortable with throwing terms like “wetback” around).
This all happened even though SB 1070 is blatantly unconstitutional (equal protection, due process, etc.) and may just cause an entire segment of Arizonans (the “not white” segment) to fear having anything to do with law enforcement, ever.
Then Congressman Raúl Grijalva came along and encouraged an economic boycott of Arizona, even though 1) he represents Arizona, whether he likes it or not (and at times, we can understand why he might not like it), 2) such a boycott would harm a whole lot of people who are opposed to SB 1070, and 3) there is no good that could possibly come from Grijalva calling for a boycott.
Meanwhile, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon—one of those all-too-rare Maricopa County Democrats—raised holy hell while criticizing SB 1070. He wrote a piece for The Washington Post that concluded:
The Arizona I’ve known since moving here from Chicago as a boy is the birthplace of César Chávez; it’s a free-thinking, hospitable state capable of balancing great natural beauty and cultures of all sorts. This place we’ve heard about lately, the Arizona willing to risk economic boycotts and international ridicule in the pursuit of an ugly, discriminatory law? I don’t recognize it.
But I do recognize those responsible for this humiliating moment. They are bitter, small-minded and full of hate, and they in no way speak for Arizona.
Amen, brother.
What did Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup do? His office sent out a statement saying, basically, that the law won’t take effect until 90 days after the session. He said nothing about opposing or supporting the bill.
Sigh.
This article appears in Apr 29 – May 5, 2010.
When I read the bill, I didn’t see a single word that could be even construed to refer to race. I did see that it is probable cause (such as not having a drivers license) that is to trigger further investigation, which is completely within the constitution. So I don’t get all this racial stuff. I think it’s just an excuse for what seems to be the REAL reason to ignore illegal workers here – so we can continue to exploit them.
I wonder, if Danehy put together a quiz on SB1070, how many of the protesters have actually even read it?
Good point, Corvi. Jimmy should re-write his piece, citing actual wording of the law to show he has read it. Betcha he hasn’t, and can’t find the phrases to justify his k-j (that’s knee-jerk, for those of us who remember Agnew) reaction.
I have read it. Nowhere does it mention race or skin color, of course. But when it says “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,” let’s be real: race is gonna come in to play. What else will lead to “reasonable suspicion”? Look at the sponsor of this. Look at the harm that can come from this. Get real.
The wording could also be “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 brown skin is spotted, a reasonable attempt shall be made when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person….” and even if that person is legal but has brown skin and doesn’t carry papers proving citizenship, it’s jail. Sure, that’s fair.
Haven’t you seen the movies…”show me your papers” is featured in lots of them. And all of us who don’t have brown skin always have our citizenship papers, right?
The way I figure, there are only about 6 reasons most people enter the US illegally.
1) To flea the punishment for crimes committed in another country.
2) For work that pays more than where they and their family live.
3) To drop a baby citizenship anchor.
4) Other medical purposes.
5) Education.
6) Other government handout and programs.
Solution that takes race out of the equation 100%.
6) In order to qualify for any government program, EVERY applicant MUST prove they are a LEGAL US of A citizen.
5) In order to enroll in ANY school in the US of A, EVERY parent or guardian MUST prove they are a citizen of the US of A.
4 & 3) In all non-emergency cases EVERY patient MUST prove they are a US of A citizen. In emergency situations, every patient shall receive stabilizing care to get them out of danger; at which time EVERY patient MUST prove they are a US of A citizen.
2) EVERY person or business that hires ANYONE to do work for them MUST require the worker to prove they are a US of A citizen.
1) Tough, but solvable. EVERYONE not able to prove they are not a US of A citizen shall receive a speedy trial by an impartial jury. If found guilty of being in the US of A illegally, that person is sentenced to a THREE years in government-operated labor-camps with other law-breaker. If found guilty of other crimes, the sentence for each other crime shall start when the previous sentence for another crime ends.
This solution is legal according to US Constitution 1787, Amendments #8 and #13; so long as the labor forced upon the convicts is of the type and hours that FREE Citizens works LEGALLY for hire or as a volunteer.
I agree with the bill, People that are here illegally need to go wherever they came from.There are alot of US Citizens with papers Legal looking for work that are now filled by people that will work for low pay ,They use our system to their advantage at our expense ,
health care , drive without license,reg,insurance and the cops let them go free , and Us Citizen are held responsible why not them??? They are a burden on this country. Go home get legal papers then come here.
If you’re here illegally, everything you do or have done is illegal.
Since when does anyone NOT a U.S. citizen gain protection under the U.S. Constitution?????????????????????????????????????????
The best immigration reform for all would be to:
1. Make it illegal to hire ANYONE proven to be inside our borders illegally, and
2. Make it illegal to provide ANY FORM of PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.
Having done that, these people will go back where they came from at their own expense.
The subsequent relief to U.S. citizens will amount to BILLIONS EVERY YEAR!
Sorry, Jimmy, but your quotation does not justify your tirade. Did you just gloss over ‘lawful contact’? To stop anyone, citizen or not, for no reason except a whim, is and should be unlawful. However, if the ‘contact’ is ‘lawful’ – i.e. the person observed conducting himself unlawfully – I see absolutely no reason to fear being labeled politically incorrect as you would prefer, simply because there is reasonable suspicion of the person having ALSO broken the federal law upon which this is based.
Sounds reasonable to me, and hardly worth the anger.
AnAmericanForSovereignty,
The answer to the query in your first post would be July 9th, 1868. That would be the date that the 14th amendment to the U.S. constitution was ratified.
This amendment deals with citizenship, post civil war, and the first of five provisions talks about what a state can and cannot do, mostly to citizens; but then the last sentence reads as follows:
, nor deny to “any” person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The quotation marks of course, were my device, added to emphasize the word any.
I guess I could respond to a second one of your 50 question marks by stating the answer in another way; that would be as follows:
The exact second that “any person” sets foot on U.S. soil, they would gain protection under the U.S. constitution.
Isn’t this truly a great country?
Robert Alexander Dumas
Put that other shoe that’s about to drop back on. If any legal citizen of the US were in Mexico and couldn’t produce proper identification if asked, what do you think the ramnifications would be? Goose vs gander.
chuckj–I stand by my “tirade.” And if you can’t see how this is wrong and very, very subject to racial profiling, abuse, you name it, then I just don’t know what to say.
Geezjane,
Doesn’t matter what I think, about ramifications nor anything else.
What matters is that SB1070 will live or die based upon a Federal District Judge’s interpretation of how the U.S. constitution applies in this instance. It isn’t going to cross this judge’s mind what might or might not happen in Mexico, and there most likely will not be any geese present while the case is argued.
Robert Alexander Dumas
Jimmy, for the first time since you became editor, I have to conclude that you are the south end of a horse walking north. Jees, man, read your own sniveling.
You disagree with me and you resort to name-calling? Nice, dude.
Talk about not reading SB 1070…Many people who want to talk about Anchor Babies should read Re: Lozada and the Immigration and Nationality Act. There is no such thing as an “anchor baby.” I know people who have children with down syndrome and heart defects so severe that the children stop breathing at times. Yet the U.S. government does not find this extreme and unusual hardship and will still remove the parents.
If a white chicken lays an egg, chances are it will produce a white chicken.
If a group of racists like FAIR, Kris Kobach and Russell Pearce get together and hatch a bill, the chances of it’s having a racial intent is extremely high.
Aside from the racial intention, the law is a disaster for crime fighting. Austin, Texas Police Chief Art Acevedo took the editorial page of the Statesman to say the bill “killed community policing” and “essentially declared open season for criminals to target illegal immigrants” by making immigration – not crime prevention – priority No. 1, noting in the process that execrable Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has seen “a marked increase in crime, especially violent crime” since initiating his anti-immigrant crusade.
The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police remains in opposition to Senate Bill 1070,” the release said. “The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.” “Gascon, who was the top cop in the Phoenix suburb
Jimmy, You said, “lets be real, race is going to come into play.” The only reason you play the race card, is that you have no other defense for not arresting and deporting criminal illegals who break our laws. Anyone, white, black, brown, etc., are subject to this law.
Please tell us, in detail, how you would “strictly enforce our immigration laws!”