No, not that kind of roundup. Just a collection of excellent articles on the topic.
First, Got Questions has a good summary of the Bible and illegal immigration.
Here’s the text of Arizona SB 1070. Opponents of it would be wise to actually read it and explain precisely why it is racist, Nazi-like, etc. It mirrors the Federal law and apparently a California law as well.
The speech of the Mexican president is one of the most hypocritical acts I’ve ever seen and the reaction of some of the Democrats was treasonous. This guy sends us his poorest people and criminals and gets money in return. No conflict of interest there, eh? Republicans should make commercials of the Democrats cheering this phony and play them daily until November.
How about if Arizona adopted Mexico’s border policy?
Hey, Cuba opposes the law so the Democrats are in good company there.
James White had a good summary about Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law and its relation to the Ergun Caner topic. Watch which sides focus on facts and logic and which just play to emotions.
SB 1070 is “Senate Bill 1070,” passed a few weeks ago here in Arizona. I am one of the very small percentage of human beings on the planet who has actually read the entirety of the legislation (it is not, like a certain “health care bill” rushed through Congress a few months ago, thousands of pages long). It only took a few minutes to read it. It is not difficult to understand. It says that if you are stopped by the normal actions of police officers (pulled over for traffic violations, apprehended after a crime, trespassing, etc.) and you cannot produce a driver’s license or other official identification (something we are all accustomed to doing), they have the right to inquire as to whether you are legally in the United States or not, and if not, they can begin the legal process leading to deportation.
Now, if I had not read the bill myself, I would never come to the conclusion that SB 1070 says what it says by watching a very wide variety of people on television, from the President of the United States, the Attorney General of the United States (neither of which had taken the time I did to actually read the bill), movie stars, entire sports teams (including the Phoenix Suns, who lost a supporter in yours truly when they injected politics into sport a few weeks ago) etc. and etc. The wild-eyed behavior of people I have observed is simply shocking in its excess, and its ignorance. Not only does California have a similar law on its books already, but the scolding of my home state by the President of Mexico (and the groveling applause he received in so doing) set new records for gross hypocrisy in that Mexico’s laws relating to illegal entrance into their country (combined with the massive corruption of the federal government of Mexico) makes Arizona’s law look like a rule from the local cookie bake off competition.
I got curious and went to the websites for Rick Perry and Bill White who are running for governor of Texas. Rick Perry does include a section on his position about border security. Bill White does not. Immigration and border security are hot topic issues that many running for office probably prefer not to have to take a clear position on. Notice while Rick Perry discusses border control he does NOT discuss what to do with illegal immigrants already in Texas. Bill White does not give his position on either issue on his web site despite the critical discussion happening right now about Arizona’s law.
Immigration is an important topic. As Neil notes above, many words used in this debate are designed to drive an emotional response. Everyone should take time to get informed and learn every candidate’s position about what they think this country should do about immigration, border security, and the role of states and the role of the federal government on both issues. You will need to take the time to write and follow-up. Usually candidate websites will not cover their position on these hot button topics.
Final side note. I work in IT. I find it amazing how candidate websites usually lack the one item that you find on almost every website you visit. What item is that? A means to keyword search that website. Yep, there is usually no search capability on a candidate’s website although there are plenty of ways to contribute.
Great points, Jeff. That is interesting that any candidate’s engine wouldn’t have a search box. That would make me immediately skeptical of him/her.
And while it is bad enough that Perry barely talks about illegal immigration, how telling that White doesn’t mention a word!
You’re right about the search boxes on politician websites. I’ve built several websites for political candidates, and the truth is, they don’t really want you to search their site. They want you to read the most recent thing they said, and nothing more. I’ve had more politicians ask me to remove old statements from their site rather than add them. I have to tell them they can remove what they want, but anything that was on there for more than a few days is in a searchable archive somewhere.
I live in Arizona, and I have a Juris Doctor (law degree) from the University of Houston Law Center. I should note that I do not practice law and have not for quite a number of years. However, I have read the law in question, and I think it is flatly unconstitutional in several aspects. I’m going to pick the simplest one to explain here.
Basically, there is a principle of American law known as preemption. To make this very simple, if our US Constitution gives the power to regulate something to the federal government, then state laws on the same subject are preempted.
The power to regulate immigration is definitely given to the federal government in our Constitution. And, as we know, the feds have made lots of laws about immigration. One way that the Arizona law goes wrong is that it infringes on already-existing federal law.
Example: there is a section of federal immigration law known as 287(g). Under this section, local law enforcement can become certified to enforce federal immigration law. In fact, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Maricopa County was certified to do so up until last year. (The certification was apparently withdrawn but Sheriff Joe says he’s still got it. Confused? Join the club.)
Under SB1070, all law enforcement in Arizona will be trained under AZ POST to enforce federal immigration law. The problem with this is very simple: there is already a federal way of becoming certified to enforce federal immigration law; that is 287(g). The Arizona law is unconstitutional on this account.
As for James White’s statement that all you have to do is present ID, the approved IDs are very limited. Basically, you’d have to show an Arizona Driver’s License, tribal ID or some sort of federal ID. Most people coming from out of Arizona (like our snowbirds) do not carry around those other forms of ID as a matter of course — nor should they have to. Additionally, a change to SB 1070 to try and slightly clean it up had the effect that now the police can question you about your immigration status not merely as part of a police stop, but also if (for example) giving you a ticket for a junky yard or a barking dog.
Consequently, due to the extremely limited number of ways to prove your identity, people are from out of state can be pulled over and challenged to prove their citizenship. I know, for example, that New Mexico has no problem giving driver’s licenses to ANY non-citizen. If I were a resident of New Mexico, and I didn’t look white, I’d be concerned about coming here to Arizona and being profiled as an “illegal immigrant,” merely because I have New Mexico plates on my car. (And if you don’t think the cops don’t know that New Mexico has an open driver’s license policy…well, they do.)
And, let me be blunt. I do have a thing about James White. He thinks he’s an expert on just about everything. He isn’t. He needs to stick to apologetics and stop pontificating about stuff he knows nothing about. In this, he’s worse than even the execrable state senator Russell Pearce–who does know what he’s about and why he’s doing what he’s doing.
Your opinion appears to be based on incorrect facts. I trust that when provided with correct facts you will revise your opinion.
The number and forms of IDs that may be presented are exceptionally broad. Due to the computer systems that all police cars have, any state photo ID will be sufficient.
As in almost all instances of reasonable suspicion, the burden of proof is on the LEO. The absence of proof to the contrary does not itself create probable cause.
One of the reasons that photo IDs are pressed in the law is because many illegal immigrants have, for years, regularly presented mexican national ID cards of various sorts as their photo IDs.
Verifying the identity of an individual is an inherent part of almost all forms of lawful contact, including giving a ticket for a junky yard. Failure to properly verify the identity of the individual in question would itself be a violation of both procedure and law.
Since the number of ways to prove your identity in lawful police contact are exceptionally broad, I trust that you will be revising your opinion so as to ensure that it conforms with the actual facts of the bill.
Fortunately, since you’ve read the bill, you know that racial profiling is strictly prohibited.
I presume your supremacy and pre-emption argument is not intended to be taken seriously since it fails on basic examination. Since there is not specific federal legislation in place that prohibits the many states from engaging in this particular activity, and since 1070 merely repeats an already existing (and long standing) federal law and applies it also to the state, there is clearly neither a supremacy or pre-emption issue to be raised. The state law merely repeats already existing federal legislation, and already existing federal legislation does not prohibit states from enacting such laws.
Since the key aspects of the law repeat federal immigration law word-for-word, pre-emption is simply a non-issue here. Unless you’re going to make the argument that in all cases where states repeat federal law word-for-word (which is rather common), and where the Congress has not otherwise prevented the States from doing so, that the Executive may unilaterially decided which laws it wishes to nullify and which laws it wishes to permit to exist. But I doubt that argument would last 5 minutes in a courtroom, unless we switch to a Constitutional Monarchy at some point soon.
Also, could you please point to me the part of the Constitution where, “The power to regulate immigration is definitely given to the federal government in our Constitution”
Article I section 8 makes no reference to the enforcement of uniform rules, nor is there a specific prohibition against the many states in regards to enforcement. If a state is simply repeating the federal regulation word-for-word, the state can not be said to be contradicting the uniform rules. Unless contradicting now means repeating word-for-word.
And of course… absent specific legislation prohibiting such things from being done by the state… taken in conjunction with the 10th amendment… well, it appears Arizona certainly has the authority to repeat federal law within its own jurisdiction.
I guess you could make an Article IV section 4 argument, but to do so you would need to admit that the federal government has failed to protect against an invasion. So that’s not an argument that will probably turn out well either.
I’m confused about the “extremely limited number of ways to prove your identity.” For the last two years, I prepared taxes through the United Way and VITA program for low-income tax payers. We required a picture ID for the taxpayer and social security cards for all dependents. None of our clients had trouble providing these (well, a few had to make a trip home to get the social security cards).
My state (SC) has an id card that can be used. It’s issued by the DMV, but is clearly stamped “This is not a valid driver’s license”. I saw a lot of those. Also, my mother and mother-in-law proudly retain their driver’s license (we don’t dare let them drive).
I’ve heard about this “preemption” bit, but how does it work with theft? Grand larceny, stealing from banks, kidnapping, aren’t these federal offenses? Are local law enforcement agencies prohibited from acting on these crimes as well? I also have a problem with this angle if it interferes with a state’s notion of how to protect its people, which preemption would surely do here. With all due respect, you may have the education, but so do those who crafted this law and they would obviously disagree. The real question is whether SCOTUS would as well.
Marshall,
Russell Pearce does NOT have the education, but he’s the front for Kris Kobach, who does. However, Kobach is using Arizona and our non-existent state budget as the deep pockets for his attempt to get this before the Supreme Court. Kobach lives in Missouri; I wish he would use his own money or Missouri tax dollars to defend this dreck in court, instead of MY tax dollars.
As for the notion that the state knows better how to protect its people, I don’t think that’s going to pass Constitutional muster. I can’t help but reiterate again that immigration is a basic function of the federal government and there are already laws in place. Arizona cannot trump those laws with its own.
I don’t see how you answered Marshall’s question. AZ did not change Fed. law nor did it preempt it for it has nothing whatever to do with immigration policy… that is unless the immigration policy is to ignore illegal immigration. But if this is true then what of the constitutionality of that federal policy. The fact that those with the loudest megaphones, as opposed to the majority of Americans, never mention the unconstitutionality of deriliction of duty to enforce does not make it constitutional.
No, this is a shell game of words wherein the word law slips out from under the shell of legislating, and under the shell of enforcing, and back again as necessary for the purposes of confusing as many as possible.
Marshall was right. States and municipalities enforce all kinds of federal law, the only difference in this case is that enforcing those other laws do not potentially involve the loss or gain of millions of votes… and everyone except the politically illiterate knows that this fact is at the ultimate core of this silly flap.
I keep hearing from those who oppose SB1070 the words “could” “might” “may” etc. before their stated objections. This is great for the purposes of demagoguery, but of coarse does nothing to solve the core problem of millions of people entering the country illegally.
Of course, the demoagogues fail to mention that the things they object to are barred by the legislation, and would otherwise be illegal anyways.
I guess the politically correct argument now goes “Police might abuse police power, so to be safe we shouldn’t give the police any powers for them to abuse.” Welcome to bizarro world.
Excellent point. Hard to believe hey even offer that. Their argument basically says that the police MIGHT do something illegal when arresting someone for doing something illegal, so we can’t enforce the immigration laws.
Sent from my iPhone
I saw the title “immigration roundup” and I had hopes for this thread, that it would contain breaking news about immigration roundups.
Needless to say, I was disapointed
Hi Neil,
Just posted a video at my blog that is intended to help Dems actually understand this pesky law. It’s worth a look.