« Sharing. That's What This Is All About. | Main | "This is a new height in fatuousness" »

Who'd Have Thought It Would Be So Simple?

Wow. And they said it would never work. In Rhode Island, the state police have taken on the responsibility of screening everyone they stop for their immigration/citizenship status -- and it's working.

Reading the article is a remarkable education in the reality of the situation, as -- one by one, mostly inadvertently -- so many of the liberal deceptions about immigration enforcement fall apart.

For starters, the Rhode Island State Trooper most prominently featured is himself the son of Cape Verdeans and himself born in Mozambique. Trooper Nuno Vasconcelos doesn't play favorites, doesn't whine about the injustice, doesn't cut breaks -- nor does he single out anyone or any group.

There's the usual whining about how this will lead to racial profiling:

The Rhode Island ACLU and other critics say they are concerned that the State Police's efforts are leading to racial profiling. Steven Brown, ACLU executive director, said police should focus on enforcing state law, not federal law, and questioned why they are singling out immigrants for enforcement.

For instance, he said, if they stop a young white man driving a Porsche for speeding, would they also check with the IRS to see whether he is paying his taxes?

"If everything's in order, why are you pursing anything at all in the absence of the crime?'' he asked.

Hey, that sounds like a bit of racial profiling to me. A young white male in a Porsche is likely to be a tax cheat? For shame, Mr. Brown!

(Then again, most of the tax cheats uncovered in the Obama administration have been wealthy white men, so there might be something to it after all...)

It also fails on the reality check. Driving while a tax cheat isn't illegal. Driving without a license, registration, or (in most states) proof of insurance is. And all three tend to be hallmarks of illegal aliens -- kind of like slurred speech is an indicator of a drunk.

This is one of those circumstances where, in some states, it's actually more advantageous to not be an American citizen. If an American is caught driving without a license in an unregistered, uninspected car, he's looking at some serious charges. Whereas in some states (yes, Massachusetts, I'm looking at you), the "illegal alien" status works to your advantage -- the cops know they can't really do anything of real substance to you, so they often let you walk.

There is something seriously wrong when American citizenship is an actual detriment.

The philosophy behind the Rhode Island Troopers' policy is a simple one: if we encounter a crime being committed, we're going to enforce the law. We're not going to go conducting random roundups of potential illegal aliens, we're not going to start grabbing any Hispanic-looking people and roust them, but if during the course of our regular duties we find reason to think someone is here illegally, we're going to check it out. And if they are, then we're going to enforce the law.

Wow, what a radical concept.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39528.

Comments (60)

Gee, bank robbery is a fede... (Below threshold)
Maggie Mama:

Gee, bank robbery is a federal offense .... do we expect local police to look the other way on this issue, too, and just let the FBI take care of it?

Oh, really? We expect our police to chase the bank robbers, no way! Call the ACLU.

As long as this kind of pro... (Below threshold)
James H:

As long as this kind of program is strictly applied without regard to race or national origin, then Rhode Island, I think, is within its rights to collaborate with federal officials on immigration reform.

I have policy problems that I have outlined before. I think such things are not necessarily the best use of local and state police. I also believe such efforts potentially interfere with investigations and criminal prosecutions.

But those are not constitutional objections. If this kind of program reflects the will of the people of Rhode Island, then let that will be carried out.

Shall we toss in kidnapping... (Below threshold)

Shall we toss in kidnapping and counterfeiting, too, Maggie?

J.

PROBABLE CAUSE. AS stated... (Below threshold)
codekeyguy:

PROBABLE CAUSE. AS stated in the article, no license, no registration, no proof of insurance are infractions/crimes of the Vehicle and Traffic Law. The are ALSO indicators of other potential crimes: stolen car, failuer to identify, etc. It is not a streach to request proof of immigration status in these instances. That's what checkpoints are all about. lineups of cars being checked for drunken drivers, expired registrations, etc. no discrimination there.

OK so what so different bet... (Below threshold)
JAT0:

OK so what so different between the AZ law and what Rhode Island is doing?

OK so what so diff... (Below threshold)
Stan:
OK so what so different between the AZ law and what Rhode Island is doing?

The only difference is that Rhode Island has a Democrat Governor and the Governor of Arizona is a Republican. You can bet your bottom dollar, if the Governor of Rhode Island was a Republican, they would be filing a lawsuit against the state of Rhode Island too.

If there is a warrant out f... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

If there is a warrant out for your arrest for tax evasion and a Policeman stops you, he would take you into custody. If there was a kidnapping in the area and a Policemen stops someone acting suspicious with odd noises coming from the trunk, is he suppose to write a ticket without checking it out further?

It is like the voter intimidation act. This administration doesn't want to enforce the laws when there is a minority involved.

The ACLU's Brown is full of... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

The ACLU's Brown is full of shit, as usual.

How do you write a traffic ticket to someone who cannot prove who they are?

Just take any name, write it down and HOPE the guy will show up in court?

Hey! Maybe we can boost the housing market by just letting people make up an income number that will qualify them for a loan. Couldn't hurt, could it?

New proposal:Any i... (Below threshold)
James H:

New proposal:

Any illegal immigrant can stay in the country if he single-handedly fixes the economy.

How come the ACLU has so mu... (Below threshold)
mag:

How come the ACLU has so much clout? Who gave it to them? Wasn't it founded by some communist? They really should take the American out of their title...I got a good replacement...but can't print here. All about rights/liberites, but nothing about reponsbility.

When we are stopped for any... (Below threshold)

When we are stopped for any reason (ie: a traffic violation) it is standard practice to run our names to see if we have any outstanding warrants.

I fail to see why this is any different (other than it will catch illegals who are BREAKING THE LAW!)

The beauty of all of this i... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

The beauty of all of this is they refer to program 287.
Which is federal program so that local law enforcement can enforce immigration law. Which was created under Clinton.

It so simple enforce the law in all 50 states and you will a have a lot of illegal aliens self deport. Enforce hiring laws at all levels and more will self deport.
In the article it has a great line

to hard-working laborers who drive without licenses because they need to earn money to send home to their families.

No licenses, false insurance papers mostly likely false registration all because they are in the country illegally. This is the snowball affect of illegal immigration which then drives up cost for legal residents in the USA.

Time to set up some detenti... (Below threshold)
sam:

Time to set up some detention centers.................for liberals.

If they prosecuted illegals... (Below threshold)
914:

If they prosecuted illegals for being illegal the lib elites would lose thier labor force of landscapers, housekeepers, drug runners etc. Not to mention a crucial voting block for dem socialites.

Requiring all people involv... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Requiring all people involved in traffic accidents, running red lights, speeding tickets, ect., to provide proof of citizenship does not ensure the law is being uniformly enforced.

The Arizona law gives police the broad power to stop people solely on the suspision of being here illegally. The article does not touch on this much broader aspect of the Arizona law.

In addition, the article did not address what happens after a person is unable to provide proof of citizenship. For instance if a hispanic person is stopped for jaywalking and they are not carrying their ID, will the police arrest/detain the jaywalker until proof of citizenship can be established. If they do detain hispanic jaywalkers, than will a caucasian jaywalker who leaves his/her ID at home also be arrested/detained. Under the AZ law both have to be treated the same.

Tina S:From a practi... (Below threshold)
CODEKEYGUY:

Tina S:
From a practical point of view, ALL ILLEGAL MEXICANS ARE HISPANIC. MOST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ARE MEXICAN. ILLEGALS should not have any "civil rights" in AMERICA, only privleges. AND A PRIVLEGE CAN B E TAKEN AWAY FOR NO REASON.
Put a band-aid on your bleeding heart, willya.

Tina S wrote:<blockqu... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Tina S wrote:

The Arizona law gives police the broad power to stop people solely on the suspision of being here illegally.

No, it doesn't. It gives the police absolutely no additional power to stop a person than they otherwise have. It merely authorizes police to inquire further, if, during a valid stop, they have reason to suspect that the detainee is here illegally.

Garandfan"Hey! May... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Garandfan

"Hey! Maybe we can boost the housing market by just letting people make up an income number that will qualify them for a loan. Couldn't hurt, could it?'

We have been there and one that. What do you think Acorn was doing.


Tina S.

"The Arizona law gives police the broad power to stop people solely on the suspision of being here illegally."

I would call you a stupid b*tch but that would insult dumb female dogs everywhere.

The law states that IF the police stops someone and IF there is probable cause to investigate their immigration status then they are required to do so.

TRY TO READ THE F*CKING LAW BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR PIEHOLE AND SHOW HOW IGNORANT YOU ARE WITH YOUR OBAMA TALKING POINTS.

Here TINA S.LEARN ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Here TINA S.

LEARN TO READ BEFORE RECITING "DA ONE'S" TALKING POINTS. OF COURSE IT MAY HELP IF HE ACTUALLY READ THE LAW HIMSELF.


STRAIGHT FROM THE LAW MS TALKING POINT.

http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-1/

"A. NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY LIMIT OR RESTRICT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW".

Gee they have to go by FEDERAL LAW


B. 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.

NOTE THE LIBERAL USE OF THE WORD REASONABLE.


ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED.

GEE THAT MEANS IF THEY ARREST A WHITE PERSON THEY HAVE TO DETERMINE THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS AS WELL.

THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(C).


GEE THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO BY US CODE TO DETERMINE IMMIGRATION STATUS.


A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.

THEY CANT GO JUST BY RACE.

A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.

2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.

3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.

4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

GEE YOU MUST SHOW ID LIKE ummm WHEN YOU GET STOPPED BY THE COPS FOR A TRAFFIC STOP.


Tell you what Tina. Instead of commenting on Wizbangblog why dont you start your own blog cand call it DIZBANGBLOG where you can write your Obama talking points all day long.

The FACTS (Obama talking points need not apply) have been out there for over a month and you reply with your BULLSH*T.

Tina S: "The Arizona law... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Tina S: "The Arizona law gives police the broad power to stop people solely on the suspision of being here illegally"

No matter how many times you or Obama or the commies in the media repeat this lie, it will not magically become true. Sure people stupid enough to vote for Obama will believe it, but it will still be a lie. I have a little more respect for you than for most leftist commenters here, but if you keep lying like this you'll end up no better than LeeWard or Obama.

I apologize to the conserva... (Below threshold)
retired military:

I apologize to the conservative commentators and authors on this site for my outburst above.

Sorry but I have a very short fuse for stupidity today and Tina S with her drive by comments (talking point rendition) blew it all to hell.

RM:Is that the ame... (Below threshold)
James H:

RM:

Is that the amended version of the law? I recall that the Arizona legislature amended the law to make it less amenable to charges that it was racially motivated.

As I look at these laws, a lot of whether they pass constitutional muster is going to turn on how they are enforced and whether police officers are given training and/or directives that lead them to apply the law in a non-discriminatory manner.

Color me skeptical on these laws in general ... but for now I'm content to see how they play out.

Of course that white man in... (Below threshold)
OLDPUPPYMAX:

Of course that white man in the Porshe MUST be detained. After all, he's likely to be a republican!!!!

Hopefully, this will begin ... (Below threshold)
Swami:

Hopefully, this will begin to chip away at the liberal dogma that anti-illegal immigration equates to anti-immigration.

Really, it's dopey when you think about it. Illegal immigration is to immigration what rape is to sex.

Yes, it's entirely ethical to consider the first a crime and the second a very positive contribution to the American culture.

Tina SFo... (Below threshold)
Stan:

Tina S

For instance if a hispanic person is stopped for jaywalking and they are not carrying their ID, will the police arrest/detain the jaywalker until proof of citizenship can be established.

Almost everyone carries some form of ID on their persons. It is an absolute requirement now days to even to do any kind of transaction. So the comment that a person being stopped for jaywalking and being asked for ID is a legitimate and lawful interaction by a police officer. Oh yeah, Jaywalking is an ordinance in most towns and cities. Just that a lot them don't enforce it the way that they should. It is a misdemeanor and can carry a fine and/or jail time if the judge says so.

James HPer the art... (Below threshold)
retired military:

James H

Per the article

"This post is part 1 of 5 posts that contain the entire text of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, (aka SB 1070) as as revised by House Bill 2162 (aka HB 2162) on April 30, 2010. The new illegal immigration law / anti-immigrant law becomes law on July 29, 2010. Deletions to text made by HB 2162 are show in red text that is lined out and new language is this color and underlined.

"

"For instance if a hispanic... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"For instance if a hispanic person is stopped for jaywalking and they are not carrying their ID, will the police arrest/detain the jaywalker until proof of citizenship can be established.
"

Oh my. They dont carry their ID because their dog ate it.

Even runners carry ID (generally in their shoe or in a pocket) in case they need it.

This just means that people need to carry ID on them when they go out. I mean we know that is such an inconvenience to carry something that ways 1/4th of an ounce.

I mean we can be inconvenienced to be made to wear seat belts, not talk on cell phones while driving, not jaywalk, pick up our dog's crap when we take them out, not to smoke in public or sometimes in our own homes, and be taxed or fined to pay for healthcare for everyone but heaven forbid that we should be inconvenienced to carry something that weighs 1/4 ounce outside of our home.

I mean we can be inconvenienced in just about every aspect of our life by the laws of the land but having to carry something that weighs 1/4 of an ounce is just too much of an infringement on our personal freedom as to equate to being called racist nazis.

Do you see just how f*cking ridiculous your statement is Tina?


BTW JamesI think t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

BTW James

I think that anytime the police question you regarding a crime that took place they should have (not make it an option) to ask you for ID. For your proection and theirs. Anyone and I mean ANYONE that cant produce ID in a timely manner should be hauled off to jail (again no options) until such time as ID can be established. In short order EVERYOne would be carrying their ID with them (if they are legal).


That means if you are purple and witnessed a crime then you should have to produce ID if a cop questions you about it.

That ends the Rev LEE Ward Wright's cries of racism and the Tina's boo hoo they will be so inconvenienced BULL. No racial profiling whatsoever. If a cop talks to you, you are required to show ID.


tina s - "The Arizona... (Below threshold)
Marc:

tina s - "The Arizona law gives police the broad power to stop people solely on the suspision [sic] of being here illegally."

Really, you mean it may lead to racial profiling and discrimination?

That's the talking point you and other obamaphiles are spewing.

Then puzzle me this, if obummer, and you think that, then WHY the Fed lawsuit just filed against the AZ law is there NO mention of said "Discrimination?"

RM:Just wondering;... (Below threshold)
James H:

RM:

Just wondering; the revised bill actually strengthens your case.

RM:You've touched ... (Below threshold)
James H:

RM:

You've touched on a couple things, one of which GarandFan addressed in an earlier dialogue with me.

First off, there's the issue of WHO gets stopped for a crime and asked for an ID. When I think about my life, I probably commit two or three crimes a day. For example, I drive 45 miles per hour in a 35 mile-per-hour zone. I cross the street despite a "DON'T WALK" sign.

Of course, if I'm stopped while doing this, I'm going to produce my identification upon request. That's just prudent reaction to law enforcement.

But what if a law-enforcement officer watches five people jaywalk at a time ... and always pulls out the African-American? Or lets three speeders go by ... then always pulls over the Irishman?

Above, Marc refers to this as the "talking point that all you obamaphiles are spewing," but it's a very real concern grounded in this country's history. When a law is constitutional on the surface but is applied in an unconstitutional manner, it can lead to an "as applied" challenge that addresses not the law itself, but rather whether its manner of enforcement meets constitutional muster.

But on this point, I am more or less willing to wait and see. It seems to me that with the Arizona law revised to specifically prohibit racial profiling, it is up to Arizona law enforcement (and to the authorities in other state that adopt similar schemes) to enforce those laws in a race-neutral manner.

That means if you are purple and witnessed a crime then you should have to produce ID if a cop questions you about it.

This second point is more nuanced. I worry that in states that aggressively enforce immigration law, members of that community who witness violent crime, or who are the victims of said crime, will be unwilling to report those crimes to the police if they believe they would be hauled away.

Again, this is not an idle worry. Anecdotally, we see the fallout of this sort of phenomenon here. However, GarandFan did point out that in his jurisdiction, prosecutors are willing to accommodate illegal immigrants who witness a crime if they testify.

James H2nd point f... (Below threshold)
retired military:

James H

2nd point first

2 wrongs dont make a right. There are ways to report crimes without giving an ID.

Anonymous letter in the mail, call to tip lines, etc. Especially in serious crimes.

As for your first point.

There will always be idiots who look at race first. I present to you the Rev Lee Ward Wright.

You cant stop that. Are you saying because 1% of the population does something than 99% percent has to accomodate it? 5% 10%?

Lets look at healthcare . 85% of the people in the US are happy with their healthcare. Yet Obama wants to wreck the entire system for the argument of "covering everyone" (when in fact it is just a power grab).

Sorry but anytime you get more than 10 people in a room and 8 of them are happy on just about anything of import than feel lucky. Much less 300 million people.

I am sick and tired of hearing "Oh wait this offends so and so" or "that offends so and so" when I am offended by their being offended. Obama and his ilk dont want to offend anyone and in the process are offending just about everyone by the affront to their common sense. Can't drink sodas, cant smoke cigarettes ( BTW I have never smoked and never will, not one puff). We arent babies and I am offended as hell by being treated as one.

Is the law perfect? nope never is. But FFS lets talk about stuff that really freaking matters. Like Congress spending billions of taxpayer money on bullshit rather than Julio, or Jamal, or Joe think there is a possibility of their being picked on because the cop doesnt like hispanics, blacks, or whites. If Julio, or Jamal or Joe has proper ID than nothing happens and eventually the stupid racist bigot cop who stopped them because he dosnt like hispanics, blacks or whites will get his ass in a sling because his racism will bleed through into areas where it will be noticed.

Ron White says it best "you cant fix stupid. There's not a pill you can take, or an operation you can have. Stupid is foreva"

ka,es h - "When a law... (Below threshold)
Marc:

ka,es h - "When a law is constitutional on the surface but is applied in an unconstitutional manner, it can lead to an "as applied" challenge that addresses not the law itself, but rather whether its manner of enforcement meets constitutional muster. "

When, and if that happens then the courts can step-in, 'til then its all overblown rehetoric and unfortunately led by obama and him minions.

Amd mostly led by nuts who opined without READING the damn thing.

James H.There are ... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

James H.

There are a few points.
Their is difference between immigrant and illegal immigrant. A legal immigrant has had to work with US government officials in their country and in the USA for a few years. During this interaction they learn to be more receptive of LE. They have had to grow through hopes and paid money to go through the process. They are invested in the system.

Depending on the country people come from they can be very distrusting of police.

An illegal immigrant is here illegally and has to scam the system .Frankly I feel feel they should live in constant fear of deportation.
Fear so great that it drives them to go back to their country and come here the legal way. Like my family, my wife millions of others do.

Otherwise we provided an incentive for people to sneak into the country with the idea if you break in and hide here then every thing is fine.

Why is any attempt to enforce immigration law considered " controversial ", While Sanctuary cities which are in violation of Federal Immigration law considered ok?

Illegal aliens are not just Mexican. They can be Black, Asian, Pacific Islander, Latino or 6'2 blond white guy. Which means if you were to apply a profile everyone get stopped.

"Amd mostly led by nuts who... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"Amd mostly led by nuts who opined without READING the damn thing"


Tina S. comes to mind.

Let's talk about the "profi... (Below threshold)
CODEKEYGUY:

Let's talk about the "profiling" angle. If a large majority of illegals are hispanic, (I've heard 20 million) then the MAJORITY OF THOSE "DETAINED" WILL BE HISPANIC. This will be true even if the cops only check 1 hispanic in 10, or 1 in 100. Since (I've heard) the hispanic population of Arizona is around 40%, then it follows that 40% of the stops will be of hispanics. Is that profiling???? Now, if you go up to Kingsbridge Road in the Bronx, New York, probably every 3rd or 4th young white "irish looking" male is an ILLEGAL FROM IRELAND. Go 20 blocks south and hispanics outnumber irish illegals 50 to 1. No matter what a cop does here, the ACLU will accuse him of "profiling".
Back to Rhode Island, the trooper in charge of the operation is "a person of color from Mozambique". I guess he will single out all the white guys, since he will be "PROFILING" those he considers "criminals"?

retired military, iwogisdea... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

retired military, iwogisdead & P. Bunyan,

Read the below passage from the law and try to find a definition of lawful contact that would exclude stopping someone that is just standing in public minding there own business. You won't find any, because lawful contact is not a legal definition. If your in public a police officer can lawfully make contact with you even if they don't suspect you of doing anything wrong.

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 MMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).


Tina S.Lawful Cont... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Tina S.

Lawful Contact means that the police officer is acting in a legal way.
Since profiling was original defined as an illegal mater that made the statement just.

The revision to the bill takes out Lawful Contact and replaces it with stop detain or arrest.

However no matter what the law says, Libs will still pre judge the police as being racist xenophobes.


"Just because the legislation says that racial profiling is not allowed, it does not make it so," American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona legal director Dan Pochoda told AFP.

"The fact that there is some prohibition on paper does not guarantee a change in results. We already know that some law enforcement in Arizona are already using racial profiling as their tactic of choice."

Federal Enforcement of Imm... (Below threshold)
hcddbz:

Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law.

http://www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/british-couple-from-maine?xg_source=activity

Wizbang has had many posting on Wives who immigrated to the US legally where the husband dies and US forces them out.

It seems if you follow the rules you get kicked in the teeth and if you are her illegal you have ll the rights.

hcddbz,I was not a... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

hcddbz,

I was not aware that the language in the law was changed to "stop detain or arrest". The law does not allow for the police to stop people at random and provide proof of citizenship. I was wrong.

You are all wrong. The law... (Below threshold)
James H:

You are all wrong. The law no longer reads "lawful contact." The amended law, HB 2162, changed the standard from "lawful contact" to "lawful stop, detention, or arrest." It also included stipulations inserted in an attempt to make the law race-neutral.

Ah ... that's what I get fo... (Below threshold)
James H:

Ah ... that's what I get for not reading to the end fo the thread. Ah, well.

Tina S"The law doe... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina S

"The law does not allow for the police to stop people at random and provide proof of citizenship. I was wrong.
"

It helps if you actually read but geez you admitted you were wrong. Why did you have to do that. I now place you at least 2000000000 steps ahead of Rev Lee Ward Wright. That is at least a step in the right direction.

-------

James H.

I thought that the link I posted was the latest. I was mistaken. Thanks for the correction.

In my opinion the law as written at the link above was still fine and dandy. The changes IMO were made to address the whining of liberals who seek any avenue to overturn a law that actually seeks to deter illegal immigration.

Oh and Tina. Since... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Oh and Tina.

Since you admitted you were wrong now I have that guilt complex setting in.

I apologize for the stupid b*tch comment earlier. As I stated earlier, today was a bad day, but no excuses.

I would not like to be a LE... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

I would not like to be a LEO in Arizona when the law goes into effect. The buzzards at the ACLU and La Raza will no doubt phony up some incident and start screaming 'racial profiling'.

Just hope the officer in question has a video camera going. Last time an officer sued the ACLU, he walked away with a nice chunk of change.

I apologize to the conse... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

I apologize to the conservative commentators and authors on this site for my outburst above.

Sorry but I have a very short fuse for stupidity today and Tina S with her drive by comments (talking point rendition) blew it all to hell.


Retired Military,

If you want to appologize for being an asshole you should direct your appolgy to the person you dumped on.

We were both wong. You were wrong in 3 ways.
1. You quoted the original language of the bill and used that to back up your view point.
2. After the bill passed, an amendment was made to the original language of bill. The original language woud have required police to stop people solely on the suspision of being here illegally. A police officer sued because the language was so broad that it would require him to ask children he came in contact with if they are in the country legally.
3. The biggest thing your guilty of is being an asshole.

The keyword is "lawfull contact", which was later amended to "stop detain or arrest".

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.
I apologize for the stup... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

I apologize for the stupid b*tch comment earlier. As I stated earlier, today was a bad day, but no excuses.

Appology accepted. Sorry for calling you an asshole. I called you that before reading your appology.

This is my last comment on the subject. I'd like to clarify my point of view but not continue the argument(i.e. this is my last comment on the topic). When I said, "The Arizona law gives police the broad power to stop people solely on the suspision of being here illegally." I meant if you walk past a police officer and he suspects you of being here illegally than he can stop you. Because "lawful contact" doe not have a legal meaning it could even mean being in close enough vicinity to make eye contact. However, its all really a moot point because the law has been clarified and re-written to prohibit police from doing this.


TinaApology accept... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Tina

Apology accepted.

As for my apology to conservative commentators above. I normally try to maintain some decorum and in my posts and keep bad language to a very minimum. Some things bother me to no end. Bruce Henry found out one a few months back. Rev Lee Ward Wright fits into a category all by himself.

You dont post here much and generally you only post one or 2 comments in a thread every now and then. For whatever reason and that is your right and nothing wrong with it. Hence the drive by comment. THe thing is this is a conservative site and most of the drive by commentators are liberals who come in, post something inflamatory and then leave adding nothing to the conversation.

Too many commentators on this subject among others, have made no attempt to educate themselves on what the law (or the subject at hand is). Obama is one of those and is either willfully ignorant or a total liar (or both) on the subject. The bad thing is a LOT of liberals accept what he says as Gospel and mouth his talking points without even bothering to find out the truth.

" However, its all really a moot point because the law has been clarified and re-written to prohibit police from doing this.

You will never hear Obama say this, or ACLU, or ACORN, or Jesse Jackson (who if racism disappeared tomorrow would have no job so it is in his best interest to find racism even if none exists).

Blind faith in govt is what leads to the rise of leaders like Hitler, Stalin, Chavez and Islamic Terrorists. That is a bad situation no matter who is speaking.

BTW, I realize I can be an asshole. At 50, I am not going to change and it has served me pretty well for those 50 years. People have no trouble understanding my views or where I am coming from. I also realize the following is very true.

"I have lived 50 years to learn the mistakes of 49"

tina s - "I was not a... (Below threshold)
Marc:

tina s - "I was not aware that the language in the law was changed to "stop detain or arrest". The law does not allow for the police to stop people at random and provide proof of citizenship. I was wrong."

Gee that was amended just short of 9 weeks ago. Do you often opine on something you know zip about?

Wait we that have watched you oh... these... many... weeks know the answer to that.

im from az.i now live in de... (Below threshold)
donnie:

im from az.i now live in denmark.i immigrated legaly.here if you go to do anything like doctor,license,banking,ect......welfare ect...the first thing ur asked is your cpr.number and your card to prove it.without it u get nothing!and this is one of the most liberal and socialist places to live!!!

Tina S -Opinions a... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Tina S -

Opinions are one thing, but it helps a lot to make sure that those opinions are based on fact, not fiction or what someone else told you the law meant. It's not a long bill, it's certainly not complex - and as far as legal jargon goes it's darn as readable as anything you'll find. It's also equivalent to the federal law, which is not being enforced effectively.

As you're probably noticing (or have already noticed) words are cheap, and professed intentions are pretty much worthless without actions to back them up. And, unfortunately, we're already seeing just what happens when enough people think that eloquent speeches from someone with an empty record of actual accomplishments are the same thing as understanding what needs to be done and taking effective action to get results.

Retired Military,I... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Retired Military,

I do recognize this as a conservative blog and out of respect for that I only particpate in one or two threads at a time. I consider it rude when liberals try to dominate a days worth of posting by leaving comments on every thread.

I gotta go to work now but will check this thread again this evening, in case you want to continue the discussion.

Here's SIMPLE for you:... (Below threshold)
olsoljer:

Here's SIMPLE for you:

Seal the border with Federal Troops.

Require proof of citizenship for all transaction.

No dwelling can be leased/purchased/rented/provided, without proof of citizenship.

No employment of any kind without proof of citizenship.

Prohibit any social services, State or Federal entitlements without proof of citizenship.(to include enrollment in any level of education).

Any offspring of an illegal couple, born in the United States may remain if of legal age OR is legally qualified for emancipation OR may remain in the custody of a legal citizen of the United States who is granted LEGAL CUSTODY of the child/children. Children returning to the parent's country of origin will be presumed to have relinquished any claim of American Citizenship.

Without jobs, shelter, education, "freebies" and the ability to transact any type of business, 12 million illegals will leave the USA without having to round them up.

American Citizens providing illegals with any of the above would have their businesses and personal assetts confiscated and, upon conviction, these would be sold at a public auction by the State where the violation of the law occurred - business/assetts to be sold ONLY to LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZENS.

Hey! Aren't most of these in place? All that remains is to ENFORCE them.

olsoljer,The most ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

olsoljer,

The most simple approach is to crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants. As long as jobs are available, illegal immigrants will find ways around a border fence. Crack down on hiring and we would not need a fence nor would we have to adopt practices that are more similar to a military state than a democracy.

TinaWhich is what is... (Below threshold)
olsoljer:

Tina
Which is what is in the para "American Citizens providing........" says.
By the way, hiring illegals is a FELONY

sorry, by the way, the seal... (Below threshold)
olsoljer:

sorry, by the way, the sealing of the border IS an important aspect - while illegals coming here for work may be severely curtailed, without sealing borders, drug dealers, human trafficing, arms smugglers, and terrorists would have no reason to respect the border

Thanks for admitting your m... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Thanks for admitting your mistake Tina S. That is extremely rare amongst the leftist commenters on this blog. A simple rule of thumb that can prevent you from making similar mistakes in the future would be to realize that 99 out of 100 times, the truth is the exact opposite of what Obama said.

Old:That'd be impr... (Below threshold)
James H:

Old:

That'd be impractical to implement, I think.

It helps if you actually... (Below threshold)
Paul:

It helps if you actually read but geez you admitted you were wrong.

Which is a whole lot more than YOU did, retired military!

What the hell is the matter with you? Tina posted a polite question that was unknowingly based on outdated information. And you brutally berated her based on THE SAME OUTDATED INFORMATION. Turns out she was right; so right that the AZ legislature amended the law to answer exactly the ambiguity that Tina asked about. The same ambiguity that you so forcefully and prickishly insisted didn't exist. The same ambiguity that you called "f*cking ridiculous". And all this after accusing her of not reading what she's talking about.

It's nice you apologized for being such a dick, but hopefully you realize you were additionally guilty of the same ignorance you spewed about so viciously and piously. Reread your comments to Tina with the knowledge that you were completely wrong. Then see how your "very short fuse for stupidity" deals with that.

I also can't help but notice that everyone else was quick to pile on Tina for basing her question on outdated information, but only one person bothered to address retired military's similarly flawed and obscenity filled rant. Apparently the polite lefty gets the vitriol, and the vitriolic righty gets a pass. Though given that he apparently takes pride in having been an unwavering asshole for 50 years, it's probably a lost cause.

Get a freakin' grip.

Paul, in the past there hav... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Paul, in the past there have been conservatives on this site that have chastized other conservatives for making comments against me similar to Retired Military. Sometimes I think there are more that feel as you but just don't speak out. Thanks for coming to my defense.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy