Hey everyone! Hope you all are having a great week. You’ve probably noticed a few new additions to Present Day Patriots home page… a few images, a hit counter, and some general flair! Thank you for returning to the blog… I appreciate all the support. Remember to tell your friends!
The news reels have been teeming with incidents and events this week… the oil spill devastating the Gulf of Mexico, Arizona’s new Immigration Law, and the bill to allow Puerto Rico’s statehood that has now passed the House… (Oh wait, you haven’t heard about that one…because most of the mainstream media has neglected to cover that story…oops).
I have been doing quite a bit of reading on Arizona’s newest immigration law—one that has caused quite a stir in the left and the right of the US. Of course the liberal left is against it, but I have heard quite a few staunch conservatives voice their opposition of the law as well, and this surprised me. I have found quite a bit of information on this topic… and I have quite a bit to say about it. So here goes…
I’ll begin with a few statistics. It has been estimated that “Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008” and the Center for Immigration Studies (a non-partisan research institution) estimated (in 2007) that nearly 12% of workers were illegal. This takes jobs away from legal citizens of Americans… and unsecure borders put citizens of not only Arizona, and other border states in danger of drug cartel violence, but the country as a whole…as Ronald Reagan said, “A nation without borders is not a nation.”
I have family members that live in Arizona, and I asked my cousin for her opinion on the issue…
“I think our state has been suffering from the effects of illegal immigration for so long that we are at point where something must be done. The federal gov't is not solving the problems with their methods. Governor Jan Brewer is a strong Conservative, Republican politician with high moral values and a strong Christian. I trust her judgment and I agree that "racial profiling" is not the method for which the law will be carried out. Over half of Arizona is in favor of this law and I just heard that other states are looking into it. Whatever happens with this law, we are certainly getting the attention this crisis deserves from the nation. I just pray that in the end, we can get closer to securing our country.”
My cousin is not the only one that feels this way… a Rasmussen poll showed that 70% of voters were in favor of AZ’s immigration bill, and only 23% opposed it. May I remind you that, as the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Arizona decided it was time to take action to protect its citizens instead of waiting on federal action that was not going to happen.
From the Center for Immigration Studies, here is a good summary of the law’s provisions… please read it in full… it may debunk conceptions the mainstream media has thrown out there…
-The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
-The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of "lawful contact" with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
-Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have "reasonable suspicion" that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of "reasonable suspicion" is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
-A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
-A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
-A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
-The law specifically states that police, "may not solely consider race, color or national origin" when implementing SB 1070.
-When Arizona's governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute "reasonable suspicion."(13)
(Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/center-for-immigration-studies-on-the-new-arizona-immigration-law-sb1070-92454374.html )
This pretty much sums up the law… Arizona Governor Jan Brewer gave a speech before her signing of the bill into law on April 23. She spoke of the law’s intentions to make Arizona a safer state, and to finally take action on what has been a pressing problem for the state for quite some time. Governor Brewer also vehemently stated that the practices of racial discrimination and profiling will not be tolerated within the carrying-out of this law. One particular section that stood out to me was as follows:
“Despite erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal statute.
I will NOT tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona.
That effort led to new language in the bill, language prohibiting law enforcement officers from “solely considering race, color, or national origin in implementing the requirements of this section…”
The bill already required that it “shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.”
While the general protection was already included, I believe the issue is so important, we needed to make it CRYSTAL clear.
Today I am issuing an executive order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board – AZPOST -- to develop training to appropriately implement SB 1070.
Importantly, this training will include what DOES – and DOES NOT – constitute “reasonable suspicion” that a person is not legally present in the United States.”
(Source: http://janbrewer.com/article/governor-brewer-signs-sb1070-to-fight-illegal-immigration)
Among the cries of racism and discrimination, there have been accusations that this law violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
But the key word here is “UNREASONABLE”.
I hope that, by the sources I have provided here, the point has been made that police officers will not have the power to randomly ask Hispanic people for their identification when passing them on the street. President Obama’s perception of this law appears to be skewed in this direction, or perhaps he was just ignoring this fact when he stated to a crowd in Iowa that… "Now, suddenly, if you don't have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you're going to get harassed -- that's something that could potentially happen ... That's not the right way to go." Actually, Mr. President, the only way someone would be “harassed” when taking their child out for ice cream under this law would be if they a) stole the ice cream and were confronted by police, b) committed a traffic violation or other crime on the way there! Maybe he should actually read the law (though the left has seemed to have difficulty actually reading bills and laws) and he would get his facts straight…
(Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100427/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_15)
The law PROHIBITS officers from confronting people based on their race or color. As stated above in the law’s summary, officers must have REASONABLE suspicion... such as when a police officer stops an individual because of a traffic infraction, and they are unable to provide a drivers license, or when fake identity is seen being purchased, or the like. And as Governor Brewer stated, the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board will train officers of what will “…constitute ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a person is not legally in the United States.”
It’s not racist; it is Constitutional protection of legal residents of the United States. It’s not discriminatory, as officers are forbidden from singling out any suspected illegal simply because of race or color…and I must assume that, in the event an officer did step out of these boundaries, legal action would follow. I think the sources I have provided speak for themselves… and the fact that lawmakers in Texas are considering composing a similar bill to combat illegal immigration illustrates that Americans are ready to take it upon themselves to fight the illegal immigration battle—rather than rely on the federal government.
I find it saddening and despicable that Americans that value citizenship of the United States are labeled as racists. They’re not, and neither are supporters of this law. The citizens of Arizona are taking a stand to protect their families and livelihoods, and God willing, more states will follow suit.
What is even more disgusting is the treatment of this law by the mainstream media. ABC news has repeatedly called this an "anti-immigration" law, and NBC's reports all center around the opposition and both real and possible boycotts.
ReplyDeleteDoing the hard but right thing is becoming increasingly more difficult in this, a postmodern culture blatantly influenced by the liberal thought police. I love the fact that you have included discussions from actual Arizonans who are experiencing the difficulties illegal immigration is causing rather than paying homage to some pseudo-intellectual New Yorker who likes to toss around inflammatory comments while not living the real issue.
So under this law, an American citizen who was pulled over and didn't have her driver's license with her would be subject to arrest? No-- only if she also had brown skin. And that's not racist? I find that a difficult argument to accept.
ReplyDeleteThe key word in your post, Anonymous 1, is "American citizen." Regardless of race or color, if a person is in the country ILLEGALLY, and has committed a crime/traffic violation (as I stated above) or an officer feels there is REASONABLE suspicion for their illegal presence, he or she would be subject to the reprecussions of the law.
ReplyDeleteI'm not seeing what is racist in valuing the citizenship of one's country enough to crack down on illegal immigrants.
And by the way, there ARE consequences for drivers without licenses (legal citizens) in the US.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2006/rpt/2006-R-0072.htm
Anonymous brings up a good point in that very often laws passed aren't upheld in the exact way they are written. However, just because those who are responsible for enforcing the law from time to time misinterpret or abuse it does not mean that the law itself is inherently flawed.
ReplyDeleteI agree... we need to trust our law enforcement officers a little bit more and not just assume they will confront people because of their race.
ReplyDeleteAnd if they do, I'm sure the ACLU will take care of it. :P
If the problem were with illegal immigrants with white skin instead of brown, would you appreciate being required to have your identification papers on you at all times to prove that you were a citizen? (Sure, you might always have your driver's license, but not everyone has or needs one, and such people would now need to carry ID for fear of being arrested under this law.) Isn't that similar to issuing a national ID card, and aren't conservatives against that kind of thing?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, the only reason people would have to "fear...being arrested" under this law would be if they were stopped for a traffic violation or confronted because of reasonable suspicion of their illegal presence and did not have ID to prove they were in the US legally. Just like proof of insurance and a drivers license is required when one is stopped while driving. And no, I wouldn't mind proving my legal presence whatsoever. If I had nothing to hide, I would have nothing to fear.
ReplyDeleteGood answer, spoken like a true privileged majority member. Things are a little scarier when your skin is brown and the police are suddenly openly against you...did you know that New Mexico is providing legal advice to Hispanics who are detained or arrested because of this law? Are you old enough to remember Rodney King?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous, are you of Hispanic descent, or are you too a "true privileged majority member"?
ReplyDeleteEither way, if they are here illegally, I don't think we should be worrying about their level of fear.
Nice blog, Sarah. It shows intelligence and maturity that you draw information from all angles of the subject.
I am the child of an immigrant. (A legal one.)
ReplyDeleteIt's not the illegals' level of fear that I'm worried about so much--it's the American citizens of Hispanic descent, and especially those who are low-income, who may be "reasonably assumed" to be illegal and who might be harassed under this law. I see any law that makes likely the harassment of citizens by police to be a problem.
The people I know who live in states where illegals are a problem are frequently venomous on the subject (even though many of them are Christians), and I don't suppose the police as a group are disposed to be kinder or gentler than my friends with anyone they suspect of being illegal.
Even if the law is not inherently flawed, I worry about the effects of it.
You were misleading about the Puerto Rico Statehood Bill. This is not a bill to grant statehood, but a bill to allow Puerto Rico to determine their political status. They can either : choose to apply for statehood, which requires a completely separate bill to be passed, become a sovereign nation under the US free from the constitutional territory clause, an independent nation, or continue to be a territory. Please fully research before making snarky little quips in your blog.
ReplyDeleteDefinition of snarky: rudely sarcastic or disrespectful; snide. Irritable or short tempered; irascible.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thefreedictionary.com/snarky
Anonymous, you're reading into my comment (or half a sentence, rather) about Puerto Rico. I did not say it would GRANT statehood, but would allow their decision either way. I don't think that qualifies as "snarky". I did not delve into the subject further. Please do not read into my writing in order to make "snarky little quips." :)
I agree with Anonymous. I think you clearly implied that a bill had passed the House that would allow Puerto Rico to become a state. I wondered how on earth I hadn't heard of such big news, so I went and looked it up, and found out what it really is-- a vote to allow the Puerto Ricans to vote to see if they want to ask for statehood, and if they did, there would be a whole new series of bills and so on. So nothing imminent. The MSM probably didn't report on it extensively because it wasn't really much of a story!
ReplyDeleteBut I won't accuse you of being snarky! (Even though I love that word!)
I just love the innumerable amount of people labeled "anonymous" posting on my blog. :)
ReplyDeleteBut if you're having a problem with my comment on Puerto Rico, once again, reread what I wrote. I said it PASSED THE HOUSE and I did not say it would grant statehood.
Though it's rather interesting that your comments are on the tiniest aspects of my grammar rather than the ideals I write about! :)