PDA

View Full Version : Arizona's Immigration Law: Police State or State of Emergency?




FrankRep
04-28-2010, 08:41 PM
To answer the question as to whether Arizona's controversial immigration law creates a police state or is a reasonable response to a growing immigration crisis, one should first look at what the legislation actually says. By Joe Wolverton, II


Arizona's Immigration Law: Police State or State of Emergency? (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3436-arizonas-immigration-law-police-state-or-state-of-emergency)


Joe Wolverton, II | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Wednesday, 28 April 2010


Tony Estrada is a cop’s cop. For 43 years he has protected and served the citizens of Santa Cruz County and Nogales, Arizona. For 25 years he was a Nogales City police officer, and for the past 18 years, he has served as sheriff of Santa Cruz County. Sheriff Estrada proudly claims to be the state’s only Hispanic sheriff, but he quickly asserts that his ethnicity is not the reason he opposes Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, SB 1070 (http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf).

“They [the federal government] are making us [local law enforcement] do their job and they are making us pay for doing their job out of our own pocket,” Sheriff Estrada told The New American. The weariness and decades of exasperation come through clearly in his tone of voice. It is obvious that the national government’s unapologetic apathy is the real key to Sheriff Estrada’s frustration with the new law.

Throughout his over 40-year career, the Sheriff has witnessed firsthand the federal government’s lassitude when it comes to enforcing the laws prohibiting undocumented immigration into the United States. “The feds motto has always been ‘you got ‘em, you keep ‘em,’ ” Estrada says. This attitude, he adds, has cost his county millions of dollars and he fears that under the new law the feds’ tab will get bigger and bigger and will go unpaid, robbing his county of valuable resources that currently must be allocated to make up for federal ineptitude.

Governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070 into law on April 23. The act, officially styled the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, passed both houses of the Arizona legislature after weeks of vigorous debate. In her remarks (http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_042310_StatementByGovernorOnSB1070.pdf) on the occasion of the bill signing, Governor Brewer echoed Sheriff Estrada’s indictment of the federal immigration and border patrol bureaucracy: “The bill I’m about to sign into law — Senate Bill 1070 — represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix,” she said. Governor Brewer continued, “We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act. But decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

In the rest of her statement, Governor Brewer recognized the controversy surrounding the bill and her decision to endorse it. Rarely is a new law so vociferously and viciously assailed as is SB 1070. Various provisions of the new law, which will go into effect in July or August, have come under intense scrutiny by activists on the Right and Left of the political spectrum. Recriminations abound with opponents signaling toward the specter of “racial profiling” and “police state” tactics that they predict will accompany the law. While such careful examination of the new law is laudable and recommendable, there is a vacuum of disinterested dissection that this article will attempt to fill.

In light of the recent battle (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/3287-the-states-respond-to-obamacare) between the states and the federal government with regard to the noxious ObamaCare mandates, this law and the observations of Sheriff Estrada and Governor Brewer demonstrate a curious nuance of the state/federal relationship that contrasts sharply with that of the ObamaCare law.

In the ObamaCare statutes, several states have accused the federal government of legislating in an area outside of its clearly established constitutional boundaries, and as a result, they [the states] have begun the process of officially rejecting the federal overreach by enacting their own statutes nullifying the federal law.

If nullification is defined as the refusal of a state to enforce federal law it deems unconstitutional, then the Arizona law may be seen as reverse nullification, that is to say, it is the positive action by a state to legislate in an area where the federal government is constitutionally authorized to act, but has steadfastly refused to do so. Proponents ascribe this lackadaisical behavior that is so contrary to the typical federal propensity to grab for power and assume the right to act where none exists. A spokesman for the Americans for Legal Immigration PAC praised the bill: “It is incumbent upon our states to protect the jobs, wages, health, taxes, and lives of American citizens, when Presidents fail to honor their oaths of office and Constitutional requirements to enforce the laws of Congress and protect all states from invasion,” said William Gheen. “Bush and now Obama refuse to secure our borders and adequately enforce our existing immigration laws, despite the mass casualties of innocent Americans each year,” Gheen added.

Anticipating the resistance to the law on the part of civil rights organizations, the Governor and the Arizona legislature (in the preamble to the bill) reminded citizens that this act neither creates new nor abridges established civil rights of anyone legally present in their state. In fact, the law merely “enforces federal immigration laws” already enacted by Congress. It would seem, then, that enforcement of existing law is per se lawful and not something liable to certain of the accusations being made by its foes. If there is any “profiling” in the law, it is the underlying federal law that is suspect, not Arizona’s specific intent to carry them out within its own sovereign borders.

Of course, for decades the national government has assailed the ramparts of state sovereignty, repeatedly thrusting the sharp but hollow battering ram of supremacy against them. To wit, current Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, issued the following statement (http://vivirlatino.com/2010/04/28/napolitano-releases-a-statement-on-sb1070-and-promises-more-military-drones-on-the-frontera.php) regarding S.B. 1070:



The Arizona immigration law will likely hinder federal law enforcement from carrying out its priorities of detaining and removing dangerous criminal aliens. With the strong support of state and local law enforcement, I vetoed several similar pieces of legislation as Governor of Arizona because they would have diverted critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermined the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve. I support and am actively working with bipartisan members of Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level because this issue cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws.


Actually, Madam Secretary, a “patchwork of inconsistent state laws” is exactly the way issues will be solved and be solved most effectively. States are more capable than the national government of identifying and rectifying problems that affect them directly, particularly the continued physical and fiscal well-being of its citizens. This is the arrangement anticipated by our Founding Fathers in establishing our federal system of government, that is to say, a government comprised of a national government endowed with an enumerated slate of limited powers, and state governments empowered by the people themselves to carry out other governmental functions not delegated to the national government.

Much of the most sustained criticism of the Arizona legislation points to the supposed vagaries of the law’s terms. Detractors fear that the lack of clear and coherent definitions of various crucial strictures in the law’s text will lead to overly broad interpretation by local police officers and will result in a concomitant denial of basic civil rights.

Of paramount concern to those who attack the law for being too vague is the phrase “lawful contact.” The section of the law in question reads:



For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of 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, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.


Obviously, a clear understanding of the requirements for a “lawful contact” is fundamental to the faithful execution of this law. As stated in this section (Title 11, Chapter 7, Article 8, Paragraph B), law enforcement officials will be the one’s interpreting this restriction on the police’s power to stop and question a suspected illegal alien.

Larry Dever is the sheriff of Cochise County, Arizona, and in an interview with The New American he confirmed that his officers (and officers throughout Arizona) will interpret the “lawful contact” element of the law in the same manner that that identical phrase is interpreted in other parts of the Arizona Code. “We will only ask for proof of legal status if we have some other reason to stop that person, such as if he is believed to be a witness, victim, or violator [of another law],” Sheriff Dever said.

Sheriff Dever clarified the point by stressing that the requirements for detaining an individual established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio) (392 US 1) will be observed and that only in the case of a valid “Terry Stop” with the existence of additional “reasonable suspicion” of illegal status would a person be required to produce some official document verifying his right to be in Arizona. “Reasonable suspicion of being an illegal alien is not reason enough to question a person,” said Dever.

Per the provisions of the statute, the documents that qualify as prima facie proof of legal residency include a valid Arizona driver’s license; a valid Arizona non-operating identification license; and a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

Understandably, though, the power of law enforcement to require presentation of documents sends chills down the spine of enemies of totalitarianism and that fearsome phrase: “Show me your papers, please.” This bugaboo is the most pernicious of all the attacks on the new law because it is made by opponents who otherwise are in favor of deporting illegal aliens and the securing of our Southern border.

Such concern is appropriate, and zealous opposition to any law that would give the police power to demand demonstration of documents is well founded. However, such a sinister scenario is not the situation anticipated by the legislature of Arizona and not the modus operandi of the majority of the hardworking men and women serving diligently in the police and sheriff’s departments in Arizona and the United States.

Perhaps an analogy would serve to buttress the point and allay fears. Consider, every time you are pulled over by a policeman and asked to see your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance; are you not in effect being asked to “see your papers”? And for the same purpose — to produce evidence of your legal right to enjoy a privilege that could be revoked for your failure to comply with the laws governing that privilege? In one instance it is driving a car on a public road, in another it is living and working in Arizona.

Finally, as with any law, good intentions and narrow tailoring notwithstanding, SB 1070 has loopholes. There will be thousands of illegal immigrants who will still escape detection and thus deportation. Likewise, however, many guilty murderers go free everyday, yet no one cries for the repeal of laws against murder. These loopholes, no matter how spacious, will be smaller than the porous border through which thousands of aliens are invading Arizona.

Regardless of the foregoing explanations, there are a few critical points of analysis that must be observed. First, is the language of the law overly vague? Second, is the law narrowly tailored to achieve the ends for which it was enacted? Third, has the statute been enacted in furtherance of lawful power? Fourth, can the provisions of the law be executed without violating personal liberty? Fifth, does the law create or eliminate any rights, obligations, or duties not consistent with well-established constitutional principles of individual freedom, limited government, and federalism? These questions represent the starting point for an appropriate examination of SB 1070 or any law, especially one with such far-reaching implications.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/immigration/3436-arizonas-immigration-law-police-state-or-state-of-emergency

FrankRep
04-28-2010, 08:46 PM
Lets not forget:

70% of Arizona Voters Favor New State Measure Cracking Down On Illegal Immigration (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_crack ing_down_on_illegal_immigration)

Rasmussen Reports
April 21, 2010

---

JBS Speakers Tour - Stealing the American Dream: How Illegal Immigration Affects You
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=237554


John McManus on the Illegal Immigration Invasion


John McManus, President of the John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/), explains our current open borders policy and how continued unrestricted immigration threatens our nations future and independence.

Jack McManus on the Immigration Invasion (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8777665565344843988&hl=en#)

FrankRep
04-28-2010, 09:19 PM
State of Emergency?


Justice Department: Three Border Patrol Agents Assaulted Per Day; Someone Kidnapped Every 35 Hours in Phoenix, AZ; One-in-Five Teens Use Drugs—With Mexican Traffickers ‘Predominant’ Supplier (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64910)


CNS News
April 28, 2010


http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64910

FrankRep
04-29-2010, 07:16 AM
Major Mexican drug smuggling ring is broken up in Arizona (http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/apr/28/major-drug-smuggling-ring-is-broken-up/)
‘Vaqueros’ was legendary for its criminal creativity

Go San Angelo
April 28, 2010

http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2010/apr/28/major-drug-smuggling-ring-is-broken-up/

Carson
05-04-2010, 06:53 AM
It looks likes the shooting of the Sheriff's Deputy and the riots in Santa Cruz are starting to pay off for the government.

On Monday, a couple of days after, the local morning news was about the rioting.

Today the local morning news was about all of the cities planning boycotts of Arizona's new immigration law.

libertygrl
05-04-2010, 07:21 AM
If You Cross the U.S. Border…

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com

In Paul Joseph Watson’s article, "Corporate Media Plays Down Pro-Illegal Immigration Thugs Who Terrorized Santa Cruz", a reader of Infowars posted today on Prison Planet, a comment which pointed out the insanity of illegal immigration as it relates to the policies of other countries:


If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 years hard labor.

If you cross the Iranian border illegally, you are detained indefinitely.
If you cross the Afghan border illegally, you get shot.

If you cross the Saudi Arabian border illegally, you will be jailed.
If you cross the Chinese border illegally, you may never be heard from again.

If you cross the Venezuelan border illegally, you will be branded a spy and your fate will be sealed.

If you cross the Mexican border illegally, you will be thrown into a political prison to rot.


If you cross the U.S. border illegally, you get:
1. The right to carry your country’s flag while you protest that you don’t get enough respect.

2. A job,

3. a drivers license,

4. a social security card,

5. welfare,

6. food stamps,

7. credit cards,

8. subsidized rent or a loan to buy a house,
9. free education,
10. free health care,

11. a lobbyist in Washington,

12. billions of dollars worth of public documents printed in your language.

Of course, North Korea, China, and the others are dictatorships, but the fact remains that our immigration policy is destructive. It encourages illegal immigration and the bankruptcy of the states. It creates social and racial tensions.

Once upon a time, legal immigrants flocked to America to escape authoritarian government and persecution. The huddled masses cited on the Statue of Liberty were in search of liberty, independence, and prosperity.

Most illegal immigrants are not in search of liberty. They are looking for economic opportunity and in many instances the social freebies handed out by the state at the expense of the producers. Mexico is a third world cesspool lorded over by a small financial and hereditary elite that has held the people of Mexico in poverty and slavery for hundreds of years. It is human nature to escape this sort of brutality. However, no nation can survive with an unchecked and unrestrained tidal wave of poverty-stricken foreigners flowing over its borders.

Once upon a time, immigration policies ensured that immigrants arriving on our shores were not only free of disease, but had marketable skills and would not impose an economic burden on the country. Immigrants were expected to accept American culture and speak the language. Now the exact opposite is the case. “An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide,” wrote the famed British historian Arnold Toynbee. America — through its immigration and economic policies — is well on its way to committing suicide. This is no mistake. It was planned that way.

In order to destroy the United States and establish world government, the elite plan to not only take America to her knees economically, but splinter the nation into a half dozen or more antagonistic pieces (a process known as Balkanization). The British did this as they set about conquering the world (as a glance at a map of the Middle East reveals). It is also called divide and conquer. The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy,” writes historical scholar Seymour Lipset.

Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon have all faced crises of national existence as minorities have pushed for autonomy and independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. France confronts recurring problems with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans, and most recently a growing Muslim minority that has resulted in violence.

Globalism is the religion of the New World order. In order for it to work, borders and nation sovereignty must be eradicated. “Globalization is defined by cross-border connectivity, including porous borders, which serve to expedite flows of goods while at the same time increase the level of immigration – both legal and illegal,” explains Paul A. Harris, Assistant Professor of Public Administration, International Studies and Philosophy at Augusta State University.

Former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm explains how the process of destroying America works. “Turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country,” he says. “History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.”

The most effective weapon in this process of destruction, Lamm explains, is multiculturalism — the demand that all arriving people retain their culture at the expense of the prevailing culture. “Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentrically and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together,” writes Benjamin Schwarz.

“In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another,” writes Louise Beam. “The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state…. The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today.”

Beam explains how an interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with corporate media outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism. La Raza — Spanish for “The Race” — an organization at the forefront of the effort to flood America with illegal immigrants and institute “amnesty,” is a creature of the Ford Foundation. La Raza is lavishly funded by the bankers at Citigroup and multinational corporations such as Wal-Mart. To date, the Ford Foundation has showered $12.9 million on the National Council of La Raza.


It is not coincidental the immigration issue has reached a breaking point at the same time as much of the world is wracked by economic crisis. In response to this manufactured crisis, the elite through their appointed minions have called for “global governance” (world government) and a “unified global approach” to economic and social issues. Immigration is part of the effort to merge nations into a union designed by the bankers.

In the streets of Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and elsewhere, thousands of pro-illegal immigration demonstrators last weekend called for “amnesty” and demanded the tidal wave of illegal immigrants continue it destructive course. Arizona’s attempt to control its border — in lieu of the federal government refusing to do so — is the lightning rod that has catapulted to the point of violence (that remains largely unreported by the globalist controlled corporate media).

This is the beginning of national suicide, as Toynbee has suggested. It will eventually result in the dissolution of the United States if not addressed in the near future.

http://www.infowars.com/from-an-infowars-reader-if-you-cross-the-u-s-border/

constituent
05-04-2010, 07:27 AM
Arizona: Immigration? Police! Emergency!

The JBS on why minding your own damn business is suddenly a bad thing.

constituent
05-04-2010, 07:31 AM
In the streets of Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and elsewhere, thousands of pro-illegal immigration demonstrators last weekend called for “amnesty” and demanded the tidal wave of illegal immigrants continue it destructive course.

:D

Elwar
05-04-2010, 08:03 AM
law doesn't go into affect for 90 days

Inflation
05-04-2010, 01:17 PM
Arizona: Immigration? Police! Emergency!

The JBS on why minding your own damn business is suddenly a bad thing.

http://angrywhitedude.com/wp-content/uploads2/2010/03/robert-krentz.jpg

http://infidelsarecool.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/rob-krentz.jpg

Tell it to Robert Krentz, the latest rancher to die from Mexican Border Exposure Syndrome while minding his "own damn business."

Too bad you love your borderless Libertopia fantasy world more than your fellow Citizens of the USA.

How many ranchers need to die before you wake up?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_uQt7YfFGA3U/S7LF_3q4I-I/AAAAAAAAFug/NTiCNm-tJR4/s1600/rancher03.jpg


http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/Gallery/27/border_dees.jpg

How many heads have to roll before you admit the Mexican Border is a dangerous War Zone?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45603000/gif/_45603634_mexico_cartels_466map.gif


http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/t021dh01.jpg

constituent
05-04-2010, 03:35 PM
Oh look a whole load of propaganda pics and mischaracterizations of your opponents position. Imagine my surprise!

This one right here just really destroys any point you think you're trying to make.


]http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/Gallery/27/border_dees.jpg


Pitiful... but fortunately it exposes you for the frightened bigot that you are.

I love it when you folks make my case for me. :)

Live_Free_Or_Die
05-04-2010, 03:48 PM
Yes, lets not forget that we live in a Democracy where 70% of a vote is all that matters.

You got to love the predictability of JBS that mirrors SCOTUS. Pick your desired result then find anything to back up your position.

And I thought states were supposed to honor the privileges and immunities from all other states:


Per the provisions of the statute, the documents that qualify as prima facie proof of legal residency include a valid Arizona driver’s license; a valid Arizona non-operating identification license; and a valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.

And I thought the constitution prevented government from compelling you to be a witness against yourself.

And I thought a proper constitutional response to a border emergency is to raise a state militia.

What happened to the term invasion? Are you all ditching that one because you are tired of getting criticized for implying undeclared war?

Lord Xar
05-04-2010, 04:28 PM
http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Archive/Gallery/27/border_dees.jpg


Actually, this sums it up rather nicely & appropriately. Nothing inappropriate here.
Personally, I would have painted in a few preggies.

John Taylor
05-04-2010, 04:31 PM
Actually, this sums it up rather nicely & appropriately. Nothing inappropriate here.
Personally, I would have painted in a few preggies.

Indeed, this is accurate. Have any of you SEEN the people who are crossing the desert? Shouldn't a sketched depiction capture reality? I invite any of you to come on down to AZ and I'll drive you down to Bob Krentz's place near Douglas, and we'll watch for ourselves.

John Taylor
05-04-2010, 04:35 PM
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/t021dh01.jpg

Come on down here, and see what happens when you request these people to not cross your land on their way north...

phill4paul
05-04-2010, 06:53 PM
Lets not forget:

A polled majority does not define a Republic with Constitutional limitations on the power of government.

constituent
05-05-2010, 07:32 AM
Come on down here, and see what happens when you request these people to not cross your land on their way north...

Is that what the people in the picture you quoted did?

No...

and btw, I'm from "here" already.

constituent
05-05-2010, 07:33 AM
oh look a whole load of propaganda pics and mischaracterizations of your opponents position. Imagine my surprise!

This one right here just really destroys any point you think you're trying to make.



Pitiful... But fortunately it exposes you for the frightened bigot that you are.

I love it when you folks make my case for me. :)


actually, this sums it up rather nicely & appropriately. Nothing inappropriate here.
Personally, i would have painted in a few preggies.


+1776 ;)