Arizona Illegals Law Is An Ugly Solution

To a very real problem.

The worst part about it?  They HAD TO DO SOMETHING.

Indeed, the very worst part of the process which brought about the support of 70% of Arizonans, has been the complete failure of the US government to enforce laws already on the books, and properly secure the borders through proactive means.  So now, there is a possibility of  a new adverse relationship forming between the Hispanic populations, and law enforcement.

Indeed, the difficult decision of Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer, was to place the police in the uncomfortable position of having to ask for documentation more frequently.  A decision she must live with.

And was she right? Yes.

At least 70% of Arizonans thought so.. It is their state..  And they have lives being affected by the problem of a porous border the federal government refuses to properly secure.

I as a Michigander, can hardly claim to have enough perspective as someone who lives so near the southern border, and must endure the growing violence associated with illegals and border crossing gang activity.   But I  support the law, and hope it stands until the illegal immigration problem is once and for all addressed properly by our government.  But my primary support is for the state of Arizona and its courage to demonstrate sovereign authority to manage law enforcement within their borders as they see fit.

OK.. perhaps not all will appreciate in the same manner.. but I certainly do.

Hopefully, this can start a new conversation on how we can bring in more immigrants in a legal and safe manner, but strengthen the safeguards that keep the truly bad guys out.

6 comments for “Arizona Illegals Law Is An Ugly Solution

  1. Bruce Barlond
    April 25, 2010 at 6:47 pm

    Let’s get identical legislation introduced, debated, passed and signed into law here in Michigan. All of America’s states should stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Arizona.

  2. April 26, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Whatever one’s feelings about illegal aliens, there are good and bad ways to do things. The Arizona law is a bad way for several reasons.

    1. This will be an expensive burden on Arizona taxpayers. It is not a crime to be in the United States without proper documentation, contrary to what most people think. It is a civil matter. Making merely being here a crime, as the Arizona law apparently does (fines and up to six months in jail), will result in an overloading of the judicial system if enforcement is to happen. Every illegal immigrant who is charged will have the right to a jury trial and most will be entitled to a court-appointed attorney (as opposed to a simple bus ride back to Mexico under the current law).

    2. There is an element of racism that is sure to result from making it the duty of officers to investigate those whom they suspect of being illegals. Though good police officers say they won’t be racially profiling, I doubt they will stop many white families under suspicion of being here illegally. Brown skin will inevitably be targeted, which is very sad for the millions who are citizens but not white.

    3. One particularly awful consequence will be less public safety. Some think deporting illegals will make Arizona safer – despite evidence that these residents commit crime at a lower rate than those who are here legally. But apart from that argument, there is one that is very important and is the reason many police forces are prohibited from asking people about their immigration status: Those who are not legal residents will no longer cooperate with law enforcement.

    A simple example: A man sees his neighbor assaulted, and the police come to interview witnesses. Previously the police dealt only with crime, and had no interest in the immigration status of the people they dealt with. But now it is their duty to get this witness deported. How often do you think illegals will cooperate with police under these circumstances? The law may stipulate that in these circumstances the police shouldn’t enforce immigration policy, or they may make that the rule internally – but honestly, given the climate created, would you want to have any involvement with the police if you were an undocumented resident?

    Even worse, many immigrants will stop reporting crimes against themselves. Do we want to create a climate where a woman doesn’t report a rapist because she fears deportation?

    I would rather have the police go after criminals (undocumented workers are not criminals and come here with the exact amount of documentation that most of our great grandparents came with), and let the Border Patrol do its job by itself.

  3. jgillman
    April 26, 2010 at 1:03 pm

    Not only Civil…

    8 U.S.C. § 1325 : US Code – Section 1325: Improper entry by alien

    (a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts
    Any alien who
    (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or
    (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or
    (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
    (b) Improper time or place; civil penalties
    Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of –
    (1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or
    attempted entry); or
    (2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.
    Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.
    (c) Marriage fraud
    Any individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or fined not more than $250,000, or both.
    (d) Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise
    for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

    The Feds have a VERY LIMITED scope of responsibility.

    Immigration falls under the constitutional mandate built by our framers. It has failed miserably to enforce existing federal rules, and in some manner may have alternately provided a reverse 10th amendment argument for Arizona to provide for its own enforcement.

    It should be an issue addressed with high walls or the proper deportation of illegals when encountered. Because the color of skin might more easily be an identifier, it does presume to be an uncomfortable situation, which is why the folks who have gone through the process should be up in arms about the lack of enforcement the feds have performed.

    Hopefully the Feds can reach an agreement with the border states to provide adequate facility for fighting illegal entry, and this issue can be resolved. But I encourage Arizona and other border states to stand for their rights to provide for the safety of THEIR citizens.

    Energía a la 10ma enmienda!

  4. jgillman
    April 26, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    FYI I wrote this suggestion for how to deal with illegal immigrants about 6-7 years ago.. It may read as Amnesty, but it has absolutes, and is SIMPLE to understand, without being mere generalities.

    I recommend the following as a solution to our current crisis, and a preventive measure designed to keep at bay further crisis.

    1.Assign English as the national language. This forces new citizens to acclimate, share a common language, and makes cultural assimilation much easier. It also allows government to save money on multi-lingual periodicals, and expenses related to printed materials for speakers of other tongues.

    2.Give a 30-day period for open enrollment for citizenship for those in the country already. No fine, but there should be a fee for processing and proficiency testing, and a community service commitment

    3.The prospective new immigrant should meet the following criteria
    a.Enter a one-year probationary period. Extendable based on some conditions. Not to exceed three years by extensions
    b.Pay an application fee for processing. This fee should fully cover the expenses for evaluations by officials or others assigned to determine applicant’s eligibility.
    c.Contribute 200 hours of community service as an investment within the probationary period.
    d.Demonstrate a proficiency of English within the probationary period.
    e.Cannot have a felony on record.
    f.Should not be found guilty of a misdemeanor within the probationary period. Being charged with a misdemeanor crime extends the probationary period until the matter has been adjudicated.
    g.Receives a social security number and begins paying taxes on wages immediately upon entering the probationary period.
    h.Children born to prospective citizens within the probationary period are not automatically granted citizenship.
    i.Be of good health, and demonstrate ability to work, or attend school.
    j.Pledge allegiance to our flag, and our country and principles of the constitution in English.

    4.Deport ALL persons who do not comply, and restrict future immigration for 5 years.

  5. April 26, 2010 at 2:06 pm

    My last column (here) talked about the law.

    In it, I essentially said that the best way to keep the illegals out is have eyes on every linear inch of the border. This does two things:

    1. It make’s sure we get the people as they hop the border
    2. It helps avoid the nasty civil liberties cliff face
    3. Yes, I’m talking about profiling or whatever the hell you want to call it. Normally I don’t jump on that bandwagon, but let’s see what the law says:

      20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
      21 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
      22 ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF
      23 THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO
      24 IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE
      25 MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON,
      26 EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION.

      According to the SCOTUS ruling in Terry v. Ohio, cops can do a “Terry Stop”. According to Legal Zoom:

      A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:
      1. Appears not to fit the time or place.
      2. Matches the description on a “Wanted” flyer.
      3. Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.
      4. Loitering, or looking for something.
      5. Running away or engaging in furtive movements.
      6. Present in a crime scene area.
      7. Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).

      So we have the fact that illegal immigration is… illegal, and that whe

  6. May 27, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    I have heard a lot more men and women discussing that the law is Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause forbids state and local laws that contradict federal laws in matters where the federal government has authority to act.
    Once again it only applies in situations exactly where the law contradicts the current law. Arizona’s law requires that State/Local authorities hand over suspect illegals to the proper federal authorities. Maybe you’ve forgetten (since we haven’t enforced these laws) but it is still a crime to enter our country illegally.
    But as long as we are talking about Constitutionality let’s talk about the Commerce Clause with the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This clause prohibits states and localities from passing laws that burden interstate or foreign commerce by, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with particular foreign nations.”
    Boycotting Arizona is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so knock it off already. Also to the Arizona government, how about we step up and actually file suit against these cities?

Leave a Reply to Common Sense Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.

Loading Facebook Comments ...