sb 1070

Alabama Does What Arizona Won’t: Uphold Immigration Law

Alabama now has the toughest immigration law in the nation. Leave it to a state some 1, 200 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border to show Arizona how it’s done.

What’s next — saguaro-care tips from Wisconsin?

Regardless from whence we get our cactus-care guidelines, we do know the Arizona judge’s decisions that quashed large sections of our version of the law rendered it basically useless. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton only upheld a few portions of the highly controversial law, also known as big, bad SB 1070. One was stiffer penalties if you are caught crossing the border with illegal immigrants stuffed in the back of a piñata truck or hiding them in an unfinished Phoenix garage.

CLICK HERE to help build the U.S.-Mexico border fence: AZ begging for dollars with new donation website

When all else fails – beg. Those wise words are blazoned on one of my refrigerator magnets to remind of the successful tactic. Granted, the magnet is in the shape of a bone as the tactic works best for dogs, but the Arizona state government is also giving it a whirl.

To raise funds to help build a border fence, a new donation website is set to launch July 20. With the click of a mouse, folks from around the globe will be able to send money our way to help pay for the construction of more fencing along Arizona’s stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Since the federal government doesn’t give Arizona much help with the immigration issue, a fact exemplified by the deflation of good ole SB 1070, state lawmakers decided once again to attempt to do something on their own with SB 1406.

The fence legislation, introduced by Maricopa Republican State Sen. Steve Smith, was approved in April, giving an A-OK to build additional fencing using donated funds and inmate labor. Inmates will be paid 50 cents per hour, along with the priceless dose of fresh desert air that comes with the job.

To spur folks to donate online, one of the proposed incentives is a contributor certificate that will proclaim something like: “I helped build the Arizona fence” – although T-shirts would be much more fun.

SB 1070 injunction 'ridiculous' – Babeu says it best

While I am somewhat loath to even bring up a SB 1070 discussion, a statement on the injunction from Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu is too good not to share. And I may as well add my two pesos while I’m at it.

Unlike many who automatically jumped to one side of the issue or the other when SB 1070 was first introduced, I sat idle on the fence.

Then a number of factors began to change my mind and push me off the fence and onto one side.

One was reports of illegals fleeing Arizona, even before the measure became law.

Another was watching folks suddenly start obeying other laws. A case in point was a car with a Mexico license plate that was about to blast out of the left turn lane to cut off all traffic at an intersection of Miracle Mile – until he saw a cop car pulling into the intersection across from him.

The driver then instead stayed in the lane and turned left. Sure, he may have just made an illegal turn farther down the road and sure, it was only a minor traffic violation, but at least he didn’t break the law for a moment or two.

A third were the sob stories. My mom mentioned one that aired in Michigan about the sad fate of one illegal alien and his family who had been living in Arizona for years. The brood had to sadly uproot – to move to a different state. Never mind leaving the country or trying to get legal status to stay here – he just went on to live illegally somewhere else. Oh, the inhumanity.

The fourth, and perhaps most decisive factor, was the uproar against the measure. I’ll agree SB 1070 first struck me has having some murky issues, but after attending the AzPOST training session with Pima County Sheriff Department deputies, rereading the text 62 times to make sure I didn’t miss any hidden clauses that said racial profiling was OK, and hearing how the law would be enforced, I had confidence all hell would not break loose.

Besides, receiving gads of press releases against the measure crying, “NO ONE IS ILLEGAL,” and seeing all those protests planned, was more than enough to push anyone off the fence.

It’s best to be on the opposite side of such anger, faulty arguments, ridiculous statements and misplaced sympathy.

If people really wanted to support illegal aliens, as folks like reader AZMouse have pointed out, why don’t they help them obtain legal status rather than yell and scream in the streets?

Then I read Babeu’s statement and I had to chime in, even though the headache from my stolen debit card has barely subsided and I suspect such a post will bring a new one.

Statement Regarding SB1070 Decision from Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu

Incredibly, even though there is not one person who can legitimately claim to be harmed by a law that has not even taken effect, the result of an injunction is de facto amnesty through non-enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.

The federal government refuses to secure the border and leaves it to states like Arizona to bear the costs of its inaction. Yet, when we try to do the job they won’t do, in a manner consistent with federal law, they stop us. You couldn’t make up something this ridiculous.

It’s a sad day in America when our own president has directed his attorney general to provide terrorist Miranda rights, yet fights to deny law enforcement the very tools needed to determine if an illegal is in America legally. Why has the President not come to Arizona to personally inspect the threat that our citizens face?

This is our most serious public safety issue and a national security threat to America. President Obama seems to have won the initial legal battle on the basis of the supremacy clause, saying it is inherently his job to enforce immigration law. We in Arizona could not agree more that is it his job and we demand that he do his job and protect our state, rather that continuing to fight us in court.

Go, Babeu, go!

What do you think?

Are you still on the fence about SB 1070 or have you jumped to one side or the other?

Do you agree with Babeu’s statement? Why or why not?

Arizona SB 1070 training enforces dangers of racial profiling, factors of reasonable suspicion

Arizona’s new SB 1070 law has surely generated more excitement in the past few months in the media than it did during the Pima County Sheriff’s Department training session on Wednesday.

sb1070train2 — Pima County sheriff deputies take in the SB 1070 training session Wednesday/Ryn Gargulinski

Rather than chills and thrills, we were instead treated to a two-hour video, courtesy of the AzPOST Digital Training Series, hosted by a blond woman who concluded by reminding law enforcement members to “always wear your safety vests.”

The “we” in this case were about a dozen sheriff deputies – “a small group this time” – and a handful of media types who accepted the invitation to attend the afternoon session.

Perhaps the media presence explained the “small group” of deputies this time around.

Media may have outnumbered deputies, complete with folks from a TV station from as far away as Germany.

Having German TV on hand proves how far this law is reaching, as well as a major point brought up in the video:

“The scrutiny (Arizona law enforcement) will be placed under over the next few months will be unlike any you’ve ever seen.”

Deputies were warned they would likely be audio-taped, videotaped, provoked and baited during the early weeks of the law, which goes into effect July 29.

While the world is swirling over SB 1070, which already has a federal lawsuit lodged against it, the deputies took the new measure more as a matter of course, just another new law. They get trained on new laws all the time.

“All this is blown out of proportion,” said Deputy Scott Woodworth of the controversy and brouhaha surrounding the measure. He was kind enough to share a word following the video.

sb1070train3 — Deputy Trevor Tuminello/Ryn Gargulinski

Deputy Trevor Tuminello, who was also willing to chat, added, “I think people are just afraid we’re going to go out and say, ‘Hey you! Hey you! Are you here illegally?’”

That’s not what the law says to do. The law doesn’t even begin to apply unless a person is stopped or detained for another reason, the video reminded us.

Even if a person who appears suspicious makes “consensual contact” with an officer, the officer cannot ask about immigration status. Nor can a deputy ask immigration status of a victim or witness, only a person who “committed a crime, is in the midst of committing a crime or is about to commit a crime.”

And law enforcement officers can only inquire about immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion.” Reasonable suspicion does not include racial profiling, a fact bludgeoned into the brain by one of the video’s mantras:

No racial profiling. No racial profiling. Racial profiling is a violation of civil rights.

“Hispanic appearance is not enough for reasonable suspicion,” said the video. “Imagine the suspect was white, black or any other color – would you still have the reasonable suspicion?” If not, you are engaging in racial profiling.

“Race and ethnicity is not a crime.”

Reasonable suspicion, thus, relies instead on the “totality of the circumstances.” None of the factors is a red flag on its own, but several can raise the flag when taken as a whole.

Singular factors that can work together “in totality” to form reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country unlawfully:

No ID, especially in situations, like driving, where ID is needed
A foreign ID or foreign registered vehicle
A heavy vehicle packed with people trying to hide
Fleeing
Not being able to give a home address or answer how long they’ve lived there
An evasive manner, nervousness, no eye contact
Being around other illegal aliens or in location illegal aliens are known to frequent (i.e. places they hang around and wait for work)
Pretending not to know all the other illegal aliens around them or in the vehicle with them
Looking out of place, lost or uncomfortable
Not being able to explain where or how they got their Visa
Dress – if wearing layers, long sleeves or other clothes not consistent with climate or having bags of clothing and other articles that appears they have been carrying

And as wacky as it sounds, the video also noted that some people will actually come out and readily admit to law enforcement they are in the country illegally.

That one also works as a factor in reasonable suspicion.

Not being proficient in English – or even able to speak it at all – may work as a small factor, as long as deputies remember many legal citizens are not proficient in the language.

Deputies were also warned to fully document the reasons behind their reasonable suspicion in detailed reports. Detailed and solid enough to hold up in a court of law.

If reasonable suspicion exists, officers are to call ICE or Border Patrol to check on immigration status and, if the person is here unlawfully, to take the illegal entrants away. Homeland Security also has a law enforcement helpline.

Although law enforcement officers are obligated to ask about immigration status, this obligation only holds “when practicable.”

This means they can opt not to ask if it will impede their investigation in any way, such as messing up a major bust on a drug or human smuggling ring, or if other issues take priority.

“If we get a call where Wal-Mart has a shoplifter and only five deputies are available,” said Tuminello, “and then we get a call of someone breaking into a house, we’re going to go for the more critical situation. This is the way this law will work out, too.”

In other words, deputies will not be ignoring mayhem, bloodshed and murder because they are too busy asking someone about their immigration status.

The video also went on and on about the types of identification non-immigrants who are in the country legally may carry – as well as the fact that a green card had not been green for about 70 years until recently revised.

sb1070train — The media was invited to the sheriff's SB 1070 training on Wednesday/Ryn Gargulinski

The loads of information may have been overwhelming for a civilian, yet the deputies appeared to take it in stride. They are used to all the legalese and nuances of many laws. They are sworn to uphold them.

As the video also mentioned, we need to give them the credit they deserve, especially when it comes to sound practices with things like SB 1070.

“I trust my officers,” said the bill’s sponsor, Arizona State Sen. Russell Pearce during the video’s long-awaited conclusion. “In this bill I have given them discretion.”

Perhaps we all need to trust they will do the right thing. Racial profiling is not only unethical, but it can ruin a career.

The best vote of confidence for our local law enforcement, however, may have come during the media Q and A. I got a chance to ask the room full of deputies to respond with a show of hands to two questions: how many absolutely hated the new law, found it a pain in the butt, and then how many absolutely loved it.

All were smart enough not to raise their hands in response to either inquiry.

Add’l notes:

ARS 11-1051 is where you’ll find SB 1070 (and HB 2162).

ARS 13-2928 and ARS 13-2929 also contain new info. The first deals with hiring illegal aliens off the street or stopping to pick them up and take them to a workplace. The second pertains to transporting, concealing or inviting aliens to come to Arizona.

In addition to the friendly blond host, the video featured a handful of speakers from the AzPOST Training Board. They included Attorney Beverly Ginn from Edwards and Ginn; Hipolito Acosta, United States Customs (Ret.); Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu; Arizona Police Association Executive Director and retired Phoenix police officer Brian Livingston. Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor was also on the video, making it perfectly clear SB 1070 was not much favored but making it equally clear his department would enforce it as prescribed.

[tnipoll]

What do you think?

Do you have any concerns about how SB 1070 will be enforced?

Do you have faith Arizona peace officers will follow the law to the letter?

Illegal alien fun keeps coming: Proposal denies automatic citizenship to kids

Illegal alien fun just keeps on coming – this time targeting the illegals’ kids.

A proposal by Arizona Sen. Russell Pearce aims to deny automatic citizenship from kids of undocumented immigrants. And why not?

Since the illegal immigrant* issue has been disregarded for so long, the floodgates may as well burst open with a deluge of measures meant to drown all angles at once.

See what happens when things are perpetually ignored?

Pearce, a Mesa-area Republican, is the same guy who sponsored the controversial SB 1070, which was signed into law in April and goes into effect July 29. The measure gives local law enforcement the authority to question immigration status with “reasonable suspicion” if a person is stopped for another infraction.

Denying automatic citizenship to the offspring of two undocumented immigrants – or anyone born here – goes against the U.S. Constitution, some cry.

And perhaps it does.

The 14th Amendment says “All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

But isn’t such stuff passé? After all, as a Time magazine article points out, the 14th Amendment was adopted back in 1868 and meant to help freed slaves. It took the citizenship decision-making away from the states and put in the hands of the federal government.

Yet today’s federal government has pretty much proved through longtime lack of action that its hands are incredibly too busy working on things other than some silly border woes.

Pearce wants to give back some power to the state, by only doling out birth certificates to offspring who have at least one documented parent, according to Associated Press.

“Citizenship as a birthright is rare elsewhere in the world,” AP says. “Many countries require at least one parent to be a citizen or legal resident.”

Homeland Security says nearly 11 million illegal aliens were in the United States as of January 2009, AP reports. As of 2008, AP says the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington estimates the number of illegal aliens with U.S. citizen children at 3.8 million.

Even if the 14th Amendment may seem passé, perhaps it’s just not right to change a longstanding measure. C’mon, it’s not like we redesign the flag every year. Some things should stay the same just because.

Besides, if immigrants have the wherewithal to sneak into the country illegally and stay long enough to have a kid – or several – it only makes sense their children should be privileged with U.S. citizenship status and reap all the benefits that come with it.

Kind of like a door prize.

[tnipoll]

Please note: This piece was written with sarcasm and I remain undecided on Pearce’s proposal to deny automatic citizenship.

*Please also note: The terms illegal immigrant, illegal alien and all variations thereof are not the issue here. We already went through that debate on a previous post.

What do you think?

Is the measure to deny citizenship to children born of illegal/undocumented immigrants right or wrong? Why?

Is it unconstitutional?

Is it about time?

New illegal immigrant bill promotes 'police state' and 'racial profiling,' dissenters say

Many Arizonans – and Americans – would agree that illegal immigration is a tad problematic.

File photo from tractor trailer bust last July

We’d get into some examples of its detriments, but we’re trying to keep write-ups somewhere under 500 pages.

Senate Bill 1070, which passed the House of Representatives by a 35 to 21 vote last week, aims to help correct this mild concern.

The summary says the bill “Requires officials and agencies of the state and political subdivisions to fully comply with and assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and gives county attorneys subpoena power in certain investigations of employers.”

That doesn’t sound too unreasonable. It also:

“Establishes crimes involving trespassing by illegal aliens, stopping to hire or soliciting work under specified circumstances, and transporting, harboring or concealing unlawful aliens, and their respective penalties.”

The bottom line is the bill requires local law enforcement to be obligated to do something other than ignore illegal immigrants if it encounters them. Violators would be slapped with a misdemeanor unless they are in the midst of other criminal activity, in which case the violation would be upped to a felony. Punishment could include jail time and fines.

Those who oppose the bill are already flinging phrases like “police state” and “racial profiling.”

“It’s beyond the pale,” the L.A. Times quoted Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “It appears to mandate racial profiling.”

“That is an unprecedented expansion of police power,” the Detroit Free Press quoted Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. “It’s giving police officers a green light to harass anyone who looks or sounds foreign.”

A letter to Gov. Jan Brewer from Hispanic News says the bill’s passage into law will all but kill tourism and economic development:

“(The Governor signing the bill perpetrates) a movement to spread the message across America that anyone who visits or considers Arizona to expand or start a new business, condones Arizona becoming a police state.”

One more voice of dissent, this one from a Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc., news release:

“If signed into law, this bill would make it a misdemeanor to lack proper immigration paperwork in Arizona. It would also allow police to check a person’s immigration status based on only a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they are undocumented.

“This bill opens the door for racial profiling and blatant discrimination by authorizing police to stop anyone they perceive to appear ‘illegal’ and subject him or her to an immigration status check without the individual having violated any law.”

Sounds like a full-fledged panic attack. But is the panic warranted?

Anyone in the country legally would have the proper documents. Even U.S. citizens should be carrying identification at all times. Folks who have been pulled over without having their driver’s license knows this one all too well. Besides, it also helps identify the body if we happen to be murdered and thrown in a ditch.

As far as “stop(ping) anyone they perceived to appear ‘illegal,’” the bill’s summary says enforcement of the bill:

“Requires a reasonable attempt to be made to determine the immigration status of a person during any legitimate contact made by an official or agency of the state or a county, city, town or political subdivision (political subdivision) if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the U.S.” (Bold emphasis mine.)

Is randomly pulling people over considered legitimate contact?

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Mark Krikorian told the L.A. Times that he does not think such a law would be used extensively. “Obviously, their prosecutors aren’t going to go out and prosecute every illegal alien,” he is quoted as saying. “It gives police and prosecutors another tool should they need it.”

Not sure where I stand on this one. But I do know America’s glorious melting pot is a bubbling cauldron far beyond a full boil.

[tnipoll]

What do you think?

Is this bill ridiculous or warranted?

Do you agree the bill perpetuates “racial profiling” and a “police state”?

Do you usually carry identification, regardless of your immigration status?

sb 1070

Footer

Stay in the loop