SB 1070 Part Dos

In response to comments left on my previous post (the version which was imported to Facebook), I wrote a response which became long enough that I decided to make it a whole other post because I just love to hear myself talk that much. Bleh.

The comments included (names changed because I didn't ask their permission to post their comments on my blog--and I will gladly remove them if they so request):

Stewy: 'A) Fear of how the police will enforce a law should not be used as argument, such an argument can be used against ANY law. Police are imperfect humans and as such their enforcement of laws will be imperfect. As such, that is why we have courts and internal affairs officers to correct the mistakes made by police in enforcing the law.

B) The police have the right to ask anyone for identification. White, black, American, Slovenian, whatever the police have the right to ask for identification. This is nothing new.

All I feel like typing for now.'


Aloysius: "Actually, if you read the bill, the officer has to pull you over for some other reason, such as reckless driving. THEN they have to have other probably cause, like having a foreign drivers license. Only then can they ask to see proof of the legality of their presence in America. Anyone using this 'Looks Illegal- Show Me Your Papers' rhetoric is either grossly un-informed or hyperbolic."


Stewy: "The Federal Immigration and Nationality act of 1952 reads: 'Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him.'

Those who think the Arizona law is bad, should read up about President Eisenhower's 'Operation Wetback'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback"

My friends are predominantly politically conservative-to-moderate. No lefties have piped in on this yet. My response:



I've read the first two pages of the bill. I only skimmed the rest.

Example, lines 20-24: "FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

Fortunately, you guys are right that they have to have "reasonable suspicion", which I understand to be a stronger legal qualifier than it might appear, so that's great. And Stewy, you're right that police have always had the right to check, but this law is new in that it requires them to, where reasonable. Yes, that's only telling them they HAVE to do what they were always allowed or perhaps implicitly "supposed" to, but it is a change.

I think concerns center around wording such as "any lawful contact", which isn't just stopping people for a crime or violation (that's misinformation) but can apparently include something like questioning witnesses or victims of crimes (as described by Chief Roberto Villasenor of Tucson in an interview on NPR). These aren't just hyperbolic, imaginary fears but--as far as I can tell in my ignorant mind--include some practical, legal concerns.

But I think a lot of concern also comes from social dynamics most of us white bread folks in predominantly white, middle class communities where the police are our championed protectors don't completely relate to. You and I haven't been brown-skinned people living in areas full of illegals where tensions are high, and the police may engage in harassment, including legal citizens, using any excuse to stop someone they might not have stopped otherwise except they have brown skin and look "evasive", so they can find some legal reason for stopping them, which they wouldn't have done if they were white and non-suspicious. BUT I suspect we won't actually see much of that because, as Stewy said, they've been ALLOWED to do basically this very thing all along, so why should it change drastically now just because they're required to check ID, as reasonable, when they're already in legal contact? They're not required to stop more people, just to check when suspicious, and if they fail to do so, they can face consequences for choosing to turn a blind eye. And as my blog entry points out, there are legal immigrants, such as Gabriela Saucedo, who are not afraid of the outcome and have confidence the police will be fair in enforcing it. Oh, and then there are those who are just afraid of and angry about being held accountable for their illegal status...there are surely some of them as well.

So I hope it won't be a crazy witch-hunt, but I also strongly believe we must keep an eye on the police forces to make sure their power doesn't become tyrannical, which, as Stewy pointed out, is all part of the process. Those concerns of police tyranny shouldn't be cause for dismissing the law outright, but they're also not something to dismiss as hysteria, no matter what the righteous crusaders at Fox News say. They're masters of poo-pooing to achieve the following the political right needs to gain and keep power. OK, OK, for you right-wingers, I'll add MSNBC to the masterful poo-pooers list in cases where the left needs to rally the drones for battle. Oh, it's tiresome. But that's another post...