Friday, May 21, 2010
#56 – Arizona’s Immigration ENFORCEMENT Law – What You Probably Haven’t Heard
[Please be sure to watch the second part of the presentation, “Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger,” on “The Coral Ridge Hour,” this Sunday, May 23. Again, in Orlando, it airs on station 40.1 at 5-5:30 pm].
[from Stan – (1)Outrage is the only way to describe the visit the past few days by the President of Mexico. First, on Wed, he stands in the Rose Garden of the White House and denounces the recently signed Arizona immigration law, followed by our President who concurs with him. The following day, he stands before a special joint session of Congress and repeats the same unfounded charges, adding an accusation that our lack of an assault gun is what arms criminals in his country. On both counts he receives a standing ovation from the Democrats who are there. Can you imagine a U.S. President going in Iran or North Korea to speak out against their nuclear program and their human rights abuses? Can you imagine any foreign leader going to another country and criticizing THEIR policies about anything? And yet, not only is the Mexican President allowed to do so, but he is supported by our President, applauded by members of our Congress, and is even feted to a state dinner! As someone has correctly said, he should have been immediately deported!
(2) By the way, if you want to know how Mexico’s own immigration policy is even more restrictive and does “racial profiling” unlike even Arizona’s or even our Federal immigration law (which the Arizona law only seeks to enforce as the Federal government itself is not effectively doing so), then please check out the article by Michelle Malkin on April 28 entitled, “How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens,” at > http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/0428/how_mexico_treats_illegal_aliens?page=full&comments=true
Fact Sheet: Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Enforcement Law (from NumbersUSA.com, May 13)
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/fact-sheet-arizonas-sb1070-immigration-enforcement-law.html
A new Pew Research poll reveals that the majority of Americans support most of the provisions offered in Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. Seventy-three percent of Americans believe that individuals should carry proof of legal status, 67% support police being able to detain an individual that can't prove legal status, 62% support police questioning an individual they suspect to be in the country illegally, and 59% support the Arizona law. One of the biggest myths offered by opponents of Arizona's SB1070, including criticism made by Pres. Obama, is that Arizona residents will now have to carry their "immigration papers" wherever they go. Federal law already requires all legal immigrants over the age of 18 to carry proof of legal residence at all times. The Pew poll reveals that this requirement is supported by a large majority of Americans.
Arizona's Gov. Brewer signed SB1070 into law in April of 2010. Combined with HB2162 (which amends SB1070), the new law will:
· Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an "illegal alien" (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
· Allow police to detain people where there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they're illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what "reasonable suspicion" might entail)
· Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction.
70 percent of Arizona voters support the new law. Much of the outcry in the press has stemmed from misinformation about the law that may have originated with the local paper, The Arizona Republic.
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements.
The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official "may not consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien's immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in "solely" considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: "Reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: "Reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures"). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of "reasonable suspicion:"A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver's license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions. The SB1070 provision in question reads: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency 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."
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people. Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do. Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
[By the way, as of 5/21, 17 states are planning to enact laws similar to Arizona’s!]
[from Stan – (1)Outrage is the only way to describe the visit the past few days by the President of Mexico. First, on Wed, he stands in the Rose Garden of the White House and denounces the recently signed Arizona immigration law, followed by our President who concurs with him. The following day, he stands before a special joint session of Congress and repeats the same unfounded charges, adding an accusation that our lack of an assault gun is what arms criminals in his country. On both counts he receives a standing ovation from the Democrats who are there. Can you imagine a U.S. President going in Iran or North Korea to speak out against their nuclear program and their human rights abuses? Can you imagine any foreign leader going to another country and criticizing THEIR policies about anything? And yet, not only is the Mexican President allowed to do so, but he is supported by our President, applauded by members of our Congress, and is even feted to a state dinner! As someone has correctly said, he should have been immediately deported!
(2) By the way, if you want to know how Mexico’s own immigration policy is even more restrictive and does “racial profiling” unlike even Arizona’s or even our Federal immigration law (which the Arizona law only seeks to enforce as the Federal government itself is not effectively doing so), then please check out the article by Michelle Malkin on April 28 entitled, “How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens,” at > http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2010/0428/how_mexico_treats_illegal_aliens?page=full&comments=true
Fact Sheet: Arizona's SB1070 Immigration Enforcement Law (from NumbersUSA.com, May 13)
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/fact-sheet-arizonas-sb1070-immigration-enforcement-law.html
A new Pew Research poll reveals that the majority of Americans support most of the provisions offered in Arizona's new immigration enforcement law. Seventy-three percent of Americans believe that individuals should carry proof of legal status, 67% support police being able to detain an individual that can't prove legal status, 62% support police questioning an individual they suspect to be in the country illegally, and 59% support the Arizona law. One of the biggest myths offered by opponents of Arizona's SB1070, including criticism made by Pres. Obama, is that Arizona residents will now have to carry their "immigration papers" wherever they go. Federal law already requires all legal immigrants over the age of 18 to carry proof of legal residence at all times. The Pew poll reveals that this requirement is supported by a large majority of Americans.
Arizona's Gov. Brewer signed SB1070 into law in April of 2010. Combined with HB2162 (which amends SB1070), the new law will:
· Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an "illegal alien" (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
· Allow police to detain people where there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they're illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what "reasonable suspicion" might entail)
· Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction.
70 percent of Arizona voters support the new law. Much of the outcry in the press has stemmed from misinformation about the law that may have originated with the local paper, The Arizona Republic.
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they weren't already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements.
The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country. (See News Hour clip 3:45 seconds in)
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official "may not consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien's immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in "solely" considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: "Reasonable suspicion" is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: "Reasonable suspicion" has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes "unreasonable searches and seizures"). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of "reasonable suspicion:"A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-driver's license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions. The SB1070 provision in question reads: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency 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."
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people. Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do. Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has “held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment).
[By the way, as of 5/21, 17 states are planning to enact laws similar to Arizona’s!]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Thanks for the comprehensive look at this issue. It helped me to put more of the pieces together!
ReplyDelete