More of this please.

Jason Linkins over at HuffPost points to a story about some sanity bubbling to the surface in Arizona. It seems a local Sheriff is not happy about recent legislation:

Dupnik called the law “racist” and “disgusting” and “stupid” and, in his “nuanced judgment” could not be enforced without mandatory racial profiling. Dupnik’s reckoning of the legal issue is that he’s just as likely to be sued for racial profiling as he is for not doing enough racial profiling, so he’s standing pat, and will not enforce the new law.

But the best part was this (emphasis added):

Asked by local news station KGUN9 what he thought the solution to the law was, Dupnik replied, “The November election.”

He’s right of course, the only way to stop this neo-Confederate Teabaggers of Wingnutopia is to get out and vote.

Cheers

dengre






99 replies
  1. 1
    JK says:

    This sheriff is a guest on Countdown right now.

  2. 2
    Joseph Nobles says:

    So this law was Jan Brewer’s way of endorsing recognizing Hayworth’s lead in the Senate race.

  3. 3
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    He is on now.

  4. 4
    Redshirt says:

    So, it seems pretty obvious the Dems should push forward Immigration Reform forward ASAP, especially since Pres. Graham says don’t.

    But then I heard Reid still wants to push the Climate bill first? Please tell me this is misdirection, or something else other than rank stupidity.

  5. 5
    Cain says:

    uh oh. the sheriff is going to know what “wingnut voltron” is going to mean. This is when they all join together to form a gigantic mouth to a very large teabag.

    cain

  6. 6

    Egads, a law enforcement official who understands the law and uses words like “nuanced.”

    Clearly a LIEberul islahomocommie.

  7. 7
    Cacti says:

    In defense of AZ, accidental governor Brewer is making the whole damn place seem a lot more insane than it actually is.

  8. 8
    KRK says:

    Let’s give some credit to Calliope Jane who linked to and quoted this story in an open thread yesterday evening.

    Who needs HuffPo? Just read the comments at BJ!

  9. 9
    The Bearded Blogger says:

    Wingnut Icarus… flew to close to the confederate sun in wings of hatred…

  10. 10
    gbear says:

    @Joseph Nobles:

    C&L had a story this morning describing how heavily invested Jan Brewer is in the voter suppression movement that got David Iglesias fired.

    Brewer, then Secretary of State, had organized a racially loaded purge of the voter rolls that would have made Katherine Harris blush. Beginning after the 2004 election, under Brewer’s command, no less than 100,000 voters, overwhelmingly Hispanics, were blocked from registering to vote. In 2005, the first year of the Great Brown-Out, one in three Phoenix residents found their registration applications rejected.

    “We took over 100 complaints, we investigated for almost 2 years, I didn’t find one prosecutable voter fraud case.” This prosecutor, David Iglesias, is a prosecutor no more. When he refused to fabricate charges of illegal voting among immigrants, his firing was personally ordered by the President of the United States, George W. Bush, under orders from his boss, Karl Rove.

    I’m not familiar with the source for this story (& I don’t always trust C&L’s sources), but I really have no doubt that, for Brewer, this bill is about suppressing minority voters. There is nothing that will prevent authorities from checking and detaining people outside of polling places.

  11. 11
    Short Bus Bully says:

    Holy shit! Someone in law enforcement who’s not a wingnut and has some balls to go along with it? Color me amazed. And proud.

    Big props to that sheriff, I hope other sane individuals are helping him stand strong out there.

  12. 12
    KRK says:

    @gbear:

    I haven’t checked, but I thought that it had been revealed that Kris Kobach’s organization (Pioneer something?) was at least partly behind the Arizona law. And I seem to recall that Kobach has a history with voter suppression too. Got into trouble in Kansas on behalf of the Republicans over the ’06 or ’08 election? I’ll have to look around to see if I’m remembering that right.

  13. 13
    The Bearded Blogger says:

    @Cain: The Wingnut Voltron is the best metaphor I’ve read all day. I’m getting images of a Ginrich-armed Beck… not pretty…

  14. 14
    AZmando says:

    I’m gonna call Dupnik’s office tomorrow and congratulate him for standing up for common sense – I’m sure he needs to hear from at least one sane person who supports his reasonable approach.

  15. 15
    gbear says:

    @KRK: Yes, I remember reading that too but I can’t remember where.

  16. 16
    Church Lady says:

    I guess I just don’t see what the big deal is. From what I’ve read, the new law just requires enforcement of federal laws. Laws that, by the way, already require non-citizens here legally to always have their green card in their possession.

    I’m asked to show ID anytime I write a check for a purchase, to purchase cigarettes (and, believe me, no one is going to confuse me with an 18 year old), or to board a plane, just to name a few. Recently, I drove through a police check-point and was required to show not only my license, but my car registration as well. My license number was called in to see if I had any outstanding warrants and I was allowed to go on my way. In each of these situations, I might feel slightly inconvenienced, but I don’t feel aggreived and I don’t feel like my civil rights have been violated.

    If you are here legally, why would this be a problem? Show your ID and then get on with your life. The only people this law would seem to pose a problem to are those that should not be here in the first place. While I feel for them (I wouldn’t want to live in Mexico), there is a process for getting here legally and cheating shouldn’t get you a bye. The attitude of some seems to be that if you made it over the fence, across the river or through the desert, you deserve to stay. Tell that to all the people that have been waiting patiently for years for the right to immigrate legally.

  17. 17
    Cacti says:

    @KRK:

    Kris Kobach is the “constitutional scholar” behind this turd. He’s also a special legal advisor to the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.

    Glad my tax dollars are going into the pockets of Kansas bigots. Maybe Fred Phelps can become our consultant on church-state issues.

  18. 18
    Cacti says:

    @Church Lady:

    Perhaps you could ask Manuel Nieto, Jr. what the big deal is.

    He’s a US citizen who was detained and cuffed by Maricopa County Sheriff’s Deputies for

    1. Being Brown

    2. Listening to Ranchero Music

    I guess that’s just the price he should be expected pay for not having the complexion for the protection, ammiright?

  19. 19
    Calouste says:

    Dupnik is not just a “local Sheriff”, he is the Sheriff of Pima county, the second most populous county in Arizona and home of Tucson.

  20. 20
    JK says:

    OT

    Jim DeMint soars to new heights of wingnuttery

    DeMint: “The president is the one who put the kibosh on working together, and now he’s just trying to use the mainstream media to confuse the American people. The fact is I think he thinks Americans are stupid, and he’s going to play this out until he gets a headline in every paper that Republicans are obstructionist. The fact is, he’s the one who’s obstructing real bipartisanship.”

    h/t http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-.....are-stupid

  21. 21
    KRK says:

    As I noted earlier in this thread, I hate to link to HuffPo when there are other sources, but they do have the best headline for this report about Kobach’s 2007 shenanigans: Maybe Kris Kobach Is What’s The Matter With Kansas.

  22. 22

    If you are here legally, why would this be a problem?

    “If you’ve done nothing wrong you’ve got nothing to hide” is SO five minutes ago.

  23. 23
    gbear says:

    @Church Lady: Not all states require the same level of documentation as AZ to receive a drivers license, so some state’s driver’s licenses will not be accepted as adequate ID. Any ID short of a birth certificate could land you in jail. You haven’t been paying much attention to this, have you?

  24. 24
    KRK says:

    @Calouste:

    And largest county on the Arizona-Mexico border.

    But what does he know? I mean there’s a law enforcement and public safety “shitstorm” going on. Arizona had no choice but to DO SOMETHING. A long-time BJ commenter said so!

  25. 25
    Randy P says:

    @KRK:
    Yep. Reported (among other places) on Rachel Maddow’s show Monday night, which I’m watching right now.

    The other dot she’s connecting explains that weird lawsuit provision. A group called FAIR (that’s either Kobach’s or tightly tied to him) claims to have written most of this law if I have this right, and that provision is basically intended to steer business their way. Bringing lawsuits is a big revenue source for them, apparently.

  26. 26
    Comrade Luke says:

    KGUN? The Tuscon TV station is KGUN?! Motto: We’re on your side?!!!

  27. 27
    Calouste says:

    @Church Lady:

    Laws that, by the way, already require non-citizens here legally to always have their green card in their possession.

    A large portion of the non-citizens in the US don’t have a green card but a visa. That you just skip over important distinctions like that shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

  28. 28
    Church Lady says:

    @Cacti: So, as far as you’re concerned, because there is some crazy Sheriff, who has complaints about him on a myriad of matters, that might have infringed on the civil rights of one, or a few persons, the over 400K illegal immigrants residing in Arizona should get a free pass? How is having local and state law enforcement enforcing immigration laws any different than waiting on INS to do it? My understanding of the law is that if local/state law enforcement determine that someone is here illegally, they are then turned over to INS for processing. Or do you think that federal INS sweeps are also a violation of civil rights?

  29. 29
    Church Lady says:

    @Calouste: And they also have to have that documentation on themselves at all times, per existing federal law.

  30. 30
    maus says:

    Who needs HuffPo?

    Not I, their policies and shoddy journalism (let alone their business structure) are unmaintainable and pushing dangerous information.

  31. 31
    pattonbt says:

    @Church Lady:

    There is quite a difference here between what you are talking about (confirming your identify for certain transactions where identity verification is required) and summarily being requested for “papers” on a whim. I think you know you are conflating of the two and it’s pretty weak. But most of what you spew here is weak, so it’s par for the course.

    Here’s the problem, LEO will be forced to follow up on all requests by anyone to test people’s immigration status. So if my reading is correct, I as Joe Citizen can call the cops and say my neighbor Joe is here illegally (even if I know he is not) and the police will have to come and check him out. If LEO does not do it then I can take LEO to court and sue. Nice waste of money. And if LEO does it and my neighbor decides to be an ass about it (as I would be) and doesnt cooperate and gets tossed in jail and then sues the state / county for wrongful imprisonment.

    Do any of you supporters of this law not see any problems with this? Not only can it be abused, but it will cost the state serious boatloads of cash. Oh, and it will do nothing to stop the real problem. If I still lived in AZ, I would raise immigration check requests on everyone in the state government. Day one. And if it was not enforced I would sue until it was done. And then I would do it again. This is a stupid law. But I guess since you aren’t Latino, its OK then?

    Sure, can the government ask for papers? Yes. But is that something we really want to become common practice? And you don’t think Latino’s will be unfairly targeted? Please.

    I can imagine the game this will become. Young Latino pranksters constantly putting in requests to get their friends checked by the cops. It would be a fun game to make the cops waste their time. Non Latino’s putting in requests on whites to see if the whites get checked. This has nightmare written all over it for AZ.

  32. 32
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Church Lady:

    I guess I just don’t see what the big deal is. From what I’ve read, the new law just requires enforcement of federal laws. Laws that, by the way, already require non-citizens here legally to always have their green card in their possession.

    I keep seeing comments like this about the law saying “What’s the big deal? Just show your papers and everything is fine.” Now this is about as dishonest as you can get in interpreting what this law does and says. We’re not talking about going to the fucking grocery store and having to show an ID to get cigarettes. We are not talking about having to show ID to get through the fucking airport. We are talking about a law that says brown people–regardless of their legality as citizens–should be prepared to prove said citizenship at any moment in time a law enforcement officer has “reasonable suspicion” they are “illegal”. Because of the kinds of shoes they wear. This law makes it a crime to know, talk, or interact with anyone who is an “illegal”. If you are a preist and you give aid of some kind to some poor brown immigrant, understand that you can be arrested. And if you are not arrested, then any citizen in the state can sue the city and its law enforcement for failing to enforce the law. And if sued, then the city faces a $1000-$5000 fine. Every day.

    Here’s an honest question for you. Is there a federal law on the books that gives citizens the right to sue any municipality or government employee for not doing enough to enforce a law that is clearly unconstitutional?

    The answer, Church Lady, is of course not.

  33. 33
    Randy P says:

    @Church Lady:
    And people who are citizens and who have lived here all their life but have the misfortune of “looking illegal”? What federal law is on the books requiring them to carry proof of citizenship at all times?

    You’re aware that a driver’s license isn’t considered adequate, right? Any Hispanic citizen without a birth certificate can be hauled off to jail in AZ for the crime of not carrying their birth certificate with them.

    Do you have yours? Feel like carrying it around in your wallet?

  34. 34
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Church Lady:

    If you are here legally, why would this be a problem? Show your ID and then get on with your life.

    Unless, of course, the cops don’t believe you and deport you even though you’re an American citizen.

    Or how about this one, where the FBI tells ICE that you’re an American citizen and they deport you anyway to a country you have no ties to.

    So, sure, as long as the police believe you when you say you’re a citizen and don’t decide to turn you over to ICE for deportation even though you have documentation proving that you’re a citizen, there’s no problem!

  35. 35
    ThinkBlue says:

    @Church Lady:

    So, as far as you’re concerned, because there is some crazy Sheriff, who has complaints about him on a myriad of matters, that might have infringed on the civil rights of one, or a few persons, the over 400K illegal immigrants residing in Arizona should get a free pass?

    I love the smell of false choices in the morning.

  36. 36
    Comrade Mary says:

    @Church Lady: You do realize that genuine American citizens with brown skin, whether they were born elsewhere or whether their people have been in the that area of the country for centuries, will have to show their ID on demand in a myriad of situations where a white (or black, or east Asian) American wouldn’t have to, right?

    The cops aren’t going to have perfect que-dar (Thank you, Colbert!). This is not just a matter of people with green cards or visas having to show their papers (over and over and over again). This is about brown-skinned Americans being treated differently from other Americans.

    And it’s also about wingnuts being given the right to sue public officials who aren’t following the law as avidly as they’d like them to. The new law is a pure package of paranoia and pandering, and from what I hear, unconstitutional to boot.

  37. 37
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Randy P: FAIR is against all immigration, legal or illegal.

  38. 38
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Church Lady:

    My understanding of the law is that if local/state law enforcement determine that someone is here illegally, they are then turned over to INS for processing.

    Let’s be clear on something. Your performance thus far has demonstrated that your understanding of this bill is shamefully porous at best, and infuriatingly dishonest at worst.

  39. 39
    Cacti says:

    @Church Lady: @Church Lady:

    So, as far as you’re concerned, because there is some crazy Sheriff, who has complaints about him on a myriad of matters, that might have infringed on the civil rights of one, or a few persons, the over 400K illegal immigrants residing in Arizona should get a free pass?

    Yes, that’s just what I said. Illegals should get a free pass. Good grief. No, what I’m saying is, in Arizona’s largest county, it’s already open season on brown skinned people, even US citizens.

    And based on your “some crazy sheriff” comment, I’m going presume that you don’t live here. Maricopa County is home to 60% of the population of the entire State, and harrassing brown people is Standard Operating Procedure for the Sheriff’s Office there.

    Not content with the civil rights abuses just being in our largest county, the Legislature decided to extended it to the entire State, under threat of lawsuit to LEOs who don’t want to comply.

    How is having local and state law enforcement enforcing immigration laws any different than waiting on INS to do it?

    Because U.S. Constitution grants the Federal Government plenary authority over Immigration and Naturalization.

    Same reason why States can’t make their own treaties, raise their own armies, print their own money, etc. Because the Constitution doesn’t grant them that power.

  40. 40
    Svensker says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    “What’s the big deal? Just show your papers and everything is fine.”

    America is dead.

    (Sure has a big stinky corpse, tho.)

  41. 41
    Mark S. says:

    @Church Lady:

    Imagine you’re driving thru Arizona and get pulled over. You show your out of state drivers license and they tell you that’s not good enough. How do you prove you’re an American citizen?

  42. 42
    Mr Furious says:

    Let’s hope Sheriff Dupnik and Pima County have lawyers at the ready, because the lawsuit provision in the legislation is there for specifically this situation.

  43. 43
    Cacti says:

    @Mr Furious:

    Looking forward to the entire PCSO having a sick out when the State tries to bring Sheriff Dupnik to heel.

  44. 44
    sneezy says:

    @Cain:

    “the sheriff is going to know what “wingnut voltron” is going to mean.”

    Don’t be so sure. Dupnik has been Pima County Sheriff since 1980, and there’s every reason to think that the fine folks of Tucson (among whom I count many friends) will continue to support him.

  45. 45
    momus says:

    I say invite Michelle Malkin into the state to give a talk and then arrest her for appearing “foreign.” Repeat as needed.

  46. 46
    WereBear says:

    Silly me. I remember when it was a point of pride that in America, we didn’t have to show our papers. We made fun of East Germany and Russia for this very thing. It was a horror movie scenario for some sturmtrooper to demand to see your papers.

    This was America and we didn’t have to worry about that.

    We fought a damn war so we could stay free and not let people take over our country and demand to see our papers!

    Baal on a toasted slot car, people. Anyone who supports this law with a shrug and “no big deal” after all the explaining that has gone on, just on this very blog, should be ashamed of themselves, and write, a million times, in crayon, This is not America.

    And listen to Philip Glass the whole time, because it pisses me off that much.

  47. 47
    mai naem says:

    clarence dupnik’s been around a looonng time. He was the sheriff when i went to college and that was while back. also too, he ain’t no liberal soft on crime democrat that the repubs may want to make him out to be.

  48. 48
    Yutsano says:

    @WereBear:

    And listen to Philip Glass the whole time, because it pisses me off that much.

    You are a cruel man sir. A very very very cruel man. I LOVE IT!!

  49. 49
    Cain says:

    @sneezy:

    @Cain:
    “the sheriff is going to know what “wingnut voltron” is going to mean.”
    Don’t be so sure. Dupnik has been Pima County Sheriff since 1980, and there’s every reason to think that the fine folks of Tucson (among whom I count many friends) will continue to support him.
    Reply

    There are plenty of out of staters who will participate. There was some guy in Oregon who was a middle school teacher who decided to have an anti-teabagger website. The next school meeting, the teabaggers descended and took over the meeting to talk about well, teabagging. Acting all reasonable and such.

    Never underestimate – “wingnut voltron”

    cain

  50. 50

    @Church Lady

    I guess I just don’t see what the big deal is. From what I’ve read, the new law just requires enforcement of federal laws. Laws that, by the way, already require non-citizens here legally to always have their green card in their possession.
    __
    I’m asked to show ID anytime I write a check for a purchase, to purchase cigarettes (and, believe me, no one is going to confuse me with an 18 year old), or to board a plane, just to name a few. Recently, I drove through a police check-point and was required to show not only my license, but my car registration as well. My license number was called in to see if I had any outstanding warrants and I was allowed to go on my way. In each of these situations, I might feel slightly inconvenienced, but I don’t feel aggreived and I don’t feel like my civil rights have been violated.

    You claim to have gotten through law school. Was this the same mail order school that Orly Taitz went through to get her J.D? I ask because I’d always heard that one of the things you learned in law school was how to reason and how to make coherent arguments, and yet you’re stunningly bad at both. Let’s take your showing ID at the airport example to start with. Do you know why that started? Ostensibly it was to protect us against the evil terrorists who shot down TWA 800. Of course then it turned out that TWA 800 blew up because of a design defect and some bad wiring. And in actuality the airlines pushed for this because they didn’t want people selling tickets to each other. There’s no public safety justification for this whatsoever, it’s security theatre. As far as showing ID when you make a purchase with a check that’s not mandated by the government, that’s a matter between you and the merchant. You can refuse to show ID and they can refuse to accept your check, but there is no law that forces them to ask you for ID and there’s no law that says that you can’t pay with cash. The fact that you bring up this last for example makes me wonder what law school you attended and if you actually graduated. I’m sure though that if they offered a course called “Spurious Reasoning from Bad Examples” that you not only got 100 percent but also completed all of the extra credit work.

    Then of course there are police checkpoints. Now, when I read the Fourth Amendment, which says, in case you’ve forgotten:

    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.

    I don’t read it as saying “Oh, by the way, any time the police want to they can set up checkpoints and require citizens to identify themselves (“Papers please”).” This is because I believe in the idea that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, something which police checkpoints turn upside down, you’re presumed to be a criminal until the police prove you’re innocent. I might be willing to make an exception when the police are searching for a specific fugitive in a limited area. However the idea of letting cops just set up a dragnet and go trolling for criminals is completely against the idea of the Fourth Amendment and the ideal of a constitutional form of government where the government derives it’s authority from the consent of the governed.

    You don’t feel aggrieved by any of this because you’re white, a racist, incredibly clueless and clueless white racists like you don’t have to worry about being asked to prove that they’re US citizens, even though there are a fairly large number of illegal aliens in this country from places like Canada and the UK, you know, illegal aliens who are white. But racists like you and John Derbyshire, who was an illegal immigrant from Britain don’t have a problem with white illegal aliens, just the black, brown and yellow ones.

    Now I have a good buddy named Paul. Paul’s as American as you or I, in fact we’re both more American than you because we both served in the military. Paul was born in the USA, his Dad was born in the USA, his grandfather was born in the USA, and so on and so forth. In fact Paul’s family has been in the USA longer than most of the white folks who live here because his family is from Texas and has lived there since Texas was part of Mexico.

    Now, Paul, despite the fact that he’s a US citizen descended from a long line of US citizens, despite the fact that he’s a Navy veteran and despite the fact that he barely speaks Spanish has got a couple of things going against him if he ever goes down to Arizona. He has a Hispanic surname and really dark skin, which means that if he gets pulled over the cops are going to fuck with him. Or with his brother, his mom, his uncles or his cousins, all of whom are American citizens but all of whom have dark skin and Hispanic surnames.

    Now, as a racist white woman from the south you can sit there and stupidly say that this will never, ever happen. Those of us who aren’t stupid racists though know that it has, it does and it will. Those of us who aren’t stupid white racists know that if you wanted to do something about illegal aliens you’d start cracking down on the people employing them, and cracking down hard, say by applying civil forfeiture laws and the RICO statutes to enterprises that employ illegal aliens. Crack down on the employers who are breaking the law to get cheap labor and the jobs dry up and the illegals stay home. But of course you’re never going to be in favor of cracking down on the employers because they’re white folks like you, and the last thing you want is to see a bunch of white folks getting their asses busted.

    You smugly and stupidly say that you don’t feel that your civil rights are being infringed upon by airport security theatre, police checkpoints or laws like S.B. 1070 in Arizona. I’m willing to bet though that if the IRS ever audited you that you’d be squealing like a pig about the experience and sputtering about your civil rights and how dealing with the auditors was an intrusion on your liberty, etc, etc, etc.

  51. 51
    Smiling Mortician says:

    That rocked, Wile E. Quixote.

  52. 52
    Lovely Rita says:

    @Mark S.

    Imagine that you are driving through Arizona and run across heavily armed drug runners or human traffickers. You are alone, miles and miles from the nearest town. What do you do?

    This new dipshit law is not going to solve this problem, but it has drawn my attention to the fact that the border situation is untenable. Pull out a map and look at our border witn Mexico and then re-read TZ and Little Dreamer’s comments. Their description of what’s going on down there makes sense when you look at the geography of our border with Mexico. Of course organized crime is going to use Arizona as a staging area for US operations. And the federal government is not providing adequate law enforcement to meet the need at a flashpoint on an international border. So the wingnuts are stepping in with crazy ill-founded and pointless laws. But they are doing something about a situation that is clearly out of control, unlike the Feds. Most people want to be led, you should know that. So people are following crappy wingnut leadership because that’s the only place that they see anyone even trying to change the situation.

    Want Arizona to go blue? Provide leadership and start fixing the problem that the people of Arizona keep telling us is one of their biggest problems: the fucking international, federal border that our federal government is dropping the ball on.

    What I keep getting from these threads is that people are willfully ignorant of serious violence and major organized criminal activties at our southern border. Violence and other safety concerns (like the speeding vans, which are probably driven by human traffickers) are dismissed as racist fantasies because everyone hates brown people.

    Southern Arizona is becoming a lawless zone run by organized crime and the people who should be in control of this situation, the federal government, aren’t doing anything to change this. Are you really surprised that people are turning vigilante?

    This new law blows and will do nothing to solve the border problem. I just don’t see many people willing to admit that the border is a problem.

    A start to the driver’s license thing is some sort of national standards for driver’s licenses or a national ID card. Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that one but I just don’t see how something like that can’t be in a reform package.

  53. 53
    Mark S. says:

    @Lovely Rita:

    Spare me. I’ve lived on the border and it’s not the fucking war zone Nuts and Dreamer would have you believe. It’s actually pretty amazing how little of the violence of Juarez has spread to El Paso.

  54. 54
    KRK says:

    @Lovely Rita:

    We’ll take this slow.

    Take another look at that map and locate Pima County, Arizona. Then note that the Democratic sheriff of that county, whose remarks are the point of this post, doesn’t agree with you or LD or TZ. (For extra credit, do the same for Arizona’s 7th congressional district and Democratic Congressman Raul Grijalva.)

    Then please explain, since we’re still getting crickets from LD and TZ, why anyone here sincerely desiring an informed perspective on this new law’s relationship to the law enforcement situation in southern Arizona shouldn’t think that Sheriff Dupnik and Rep. Grijalva are a hell of a lot more reliable sources than you or LD or LZ.

  55. 55
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Lovely Rita:

    Provide leadership and start fixing the problem that the people of Arizona keep telling us is one of their biggest problems: the fucking international, federal border that our federal government is dropping the ball on.

    You mean exactly the kind of comprehensive immigration reform that Democrats have been talking about for years? The kind that Republicans blow a gasket about every time it’s mentioned.

    Gosh, yes, it’s all the Democrats’ fault for not stepping up and showing leadership. Where are all of those Democrats — I mean, other than the ones who wrote the current legislation.

    At least you’re finally willing to admit that this legislation will do exactly nothing to help with the drug wars. I’m still not getting why you think it was a great idea to pass completely useless legislation that actually draws attention and manpower away from the issue that you claim is the most important. This legislation is only going to hurt actual efforts to secure the border and pursue criminals as cops spend all of their time arresting gardeners and nannies, which is why Arizona cops hate it like the plague. But, hey, arresting the people who are easy to target will make Arizonans feel like something is getting done even as the drug wars get worse and more entrenched. Great strategy there!

  56. 56
    Mister Colorful Analogy says:

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    Sir, that was a thing of beauty. Bravo.

  57. 57
    sneezy says:

    @Wile E. Quixote:

    Damn! Well done, sir.

  58. 58
    Church Lady says:

    @Wile E. Quixote: Wile, you never, ever fail to disappoint. I simply said that I don’t see what the big deal is – from everything I’ve read, the law simply requires law enforcement in Arizona to enforce existing federal law. You, or others, might well have a different opinion. As usual, you have unloaded with what all have come to expect of you – a vicious, unhinged screed. I’ll try to address as much of your mentally unbalaced diatribe as possible.
    1. I never claimed to have graduated from law school. I said I went to law school – Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis, from 1983-84, just in case you’re interested. I left after my first year, when I got a very lucrative offer to become an eeee-vil Investment Banker. Even had I received my JD, I would not have been practicing Constitutional Law (as I assume you also don’t), so my legal take on the constitutionality of the Arizona law would be ill-informed and inconsequential. As is yours on not only on the Arizona law, but the legality and constitutionality of police checkpoints. Unlike you, I live in the land that is, not the one of my personal preferences. If I was so lucky to live in my own personal utopia, people with personalities like your wouldn’t exist in my little nirvana.
    2. Frankly, I don’t really care why I have to show ID in order to catch a flight or what the historical background is. It really doesn’t matter to me. If I want to get on a plane, I have to show ID, so I do. If it bothered me to show it, I wouldn’t fly. Simple solution.
    3. I realize it is not the government requiring me to show ID in order to pay for something by check. It was used as an example of times you have to show ID and how, although inconvenient, I do it in order to facilitate the transaction under the terms of payment I choose. I don’t make the rules, I just follow them. However, under Tennessee law, I do, in fact, have to show ID to purchase smokes. Stupid, to be sure, but once again, I don’t make the rules, I just follow them.
    4. Gosh, I so terribly sorry about your friend Paul. Please tell us about all of the times Paul has been stopped for being a Mexican in Arizona. Oh, wait, it hasn’t happened yet, but it might possibly happen? Well, that certainly closes the debate. Knowing that, I most certainly will have to call my sister immediately and warn her to never, ever step foot in the state of Arizona with her children. Her little brown skinned children, the ones with the suspiciously hispanic sounding surname of Galindo. After all, since her ex-husband (an adament opponent of illegal immigration BTW), their father, is of Mexican descent, her children would certainly be rounded up and quickly shipped off to Mexico City, should they have the temerity to somehow wander into Arizona.
    5. Sorry, you’re wrong on my take on employers that employ illegals. As far as I’m concerned, throw the damned book at them. Taking advantage of illegal labor drives down the wages of all workers, in additional to being, you know, against the law. Just like illegal immigration. Also, given the current state of the economy, Americans need jobs, and at a fair wage. Sorry to destroy your caricature of me as a knuckle dragging neanderthal out to take advantage of the oppressed, all to the advantage of Big Bidness or my personal pocketbook, but there you go.
    6. We have been audited. Sorry to say, I didn’t go running around screaming about the violation of my civil rights. Our accountant handled the entire thing, gave them copies of all backup documentation, and we never even had the priviledge to meeting anyone from the IRS. Didn’t even cost us any money, so I really couldn’t find anything to bitch about. Maybe next time.

    Wile, once again, please, please go back on whatever meds it is that you so obviously need. You have a severe anger management problem that needs to be brought under control.

  59. 59
    pattonbt says:

    @Church Lady:

    Do you even listen to yourself? So your basic argument is:

    I have to show my ID for some stuff I want (that you are requesting to receive), so why should I have to care if I have to show my ID on demand by others and can be detained for not doing so? Really? That’s what you are saying?

    So requesting a service where ID is required of everyone regardless of sex, age, race, creed or religion seeking that service is exactly the same as being demanded to show ID (and not normal day to day ID – birth certificate or passport) on demand or you are detained. Yup. No difference between those two scenarios. Not one bit.

    So I will ask this. If you were in Arizona, and I said to LEO, you need to check out Church Lady she’s illegal. They would now be compelled to track you down and check your status. If they didn’t, I could sue the state for damages. Say they do and catch you while you are out shopping and all you have is a Drivers License? Not good enough, no sir-ree. Off to jail with you until you provide proof of your citizenship.

    You really see no difference in the BS you spout and the proposed law? And you do not see how it can be abused? And how onerous it will be on an already financially crippled state?

    So you are fine with the potential for US citizens to be detained at will if their ID (birth certificate mind you) is insufficient in an on demand, surprise situation?

    You brain is seriously addled. How anyone thinks this law will do any good is beyond me. Seriously, sheer, unbridled stupidity. And somehow we’re the ones who are “unhinged”. The stoopid, it burns. And yes, count me as “vicious”. Vicious against people willing to turn a blind eye to lunacy like this law.

  60. 60
    YellowJournalism says:

    After all, since her ex-husband (an adament opponent of illegal immigration BTW)

    Forgive me if I’m reading this wrong, but I’m pretty sure that everyone here is pretty anti-illegal immigration. Just because they are speaking out against the very likely possibility of abuses under this law and the fact that the law does nothing really to stop illegal immigration, does not mean they think we should just let everyone in who wants to walk across the border.

    This law is probably not even in the minds of people who considering coming to the US illegally. They are not going to stop coming into Arizona just because they might be stopped and asked for papers. Outraged US citizens and legal immigrants might, though, and that’s also going to be a huge problem for the state if the MLK boycotts are an example of what’s ahead.

  61. 61
    jackie says:

    @Church Lady: Does the fact that your drivers license will not suffice make no dent on how you look at this? My drivers license does not prove that I am a citizen. If I am stopped driving in Arizona or walking down the street how do I comply? You do not feel a wee bit odd about having to carry a passport to travel in your very own country?

    Yes immigrants are supposed to always have their papers. I am not an immigrant. So when my shoes trigger the need to prove I have the right to walk down the street in my country and I cannot prove it, I suspect that it might be more than a trivial inconvience. And it certainly is outrageous And how do you prove that the six year old at your side is legal? How many of them have a passport?

  62. 62
    Calliope Jane says:

    @KRK: Hey! Thanks for the h/t! I’m just glad that Sheriff Dupnik’s comments are getting wider coverage (it was great / somewhat surreal to see him on Countdown). And yes, it’s a big deal here — it led the local news for the second day. And Pima County is the second largest county in the state so it has great impact. I watched his interview on KGUN in real time; it was so great to have some sanity on this issue. Made me proud to have voted for him.

    He’s also not backing down (he held a press conference today with lots of deputies behind him reiterating his position). (And yes, to that other poster, the ABC southern Arizona affiliate is KGUN. I know, I know. The NBC station is KVOA and CBS is KOLD – gettit? :-)) He’s also getting death threats, so those that were inclined to call in support, I’m sure the office would appreciate it.

    It’s been strange, these past few days, getting the news and then seeing the national media reporting on it a day or two later. Really don’t like being in the center on this, but what can you do. Heard from friends in Nogales (AZ – major border town) that the Santa Cruz county sheriff isn’t going to enforce it, either . Sounds like the Cochise (SE corner of the state, borders Mexico and New Mexico) sheriff isn’t going to, either (he’s only said that the law isn’t going to change what he and his deputies do. But these are the counties actually on the border, so what do we know.

    The boycott of AZ is also having some effect already — conferences have been cancelled; a local golf resort is reporting the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars already in cancellations.

  63. 63
    Mnemosyne says:

    @pattonbt:

    So you are fine with the potential for US citizens to be detained at will if their ID (birth certificate mind you) is insufficient in an on demand, surprise situation?

    Why should Church Lady care? The chances of a nice white lady being stopped and having to produce proof of citizenship (not identity, which is what a driver’s license is, but citizenship) are pretty low, so why should she worry her beautiful mind about other American citizens being harassed because of the color of their skin?

    I do love how we have linked her to multiple examples of American citizens being detained, arrested and even illegally deported and she still thinks it can’t possibly affect her own family.

    Because this is the odious thing: Arizona is asking American citizens to prove that they have a right to be here. Not legal residents or visitors who have green cards and other easy ways to prove their status. American citizens who are out walking the dog or getting a gallon of milk at the store will be asked to prove to the cop’s satisfaction that they’re really citizens and, if not, they’ll get to spend some time at the police station until a friend or relative can bring their birth certificate to them.

    I really don’t understand the eagerness of people like Church Lady to force their fellow American citizens to undergo that kind of humiliation in the name of “safety.” I just don’t get it.

  64. 64
    Church Lady says:

    @YellowJournalism: So you are anti-illegal immigration, but you don’t agree with a law that, due to continued lack of federal enforcement of federal laws, tries to deal with the problem. Just what would your suggestion be? How would you draft a law to deal with it? Or, as I stated earlier, do you just give up and say, “What the hell – they’re here and there is nothing to be done!”?

    The AP has a report out on the effect of increased enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona. Since 2008, increased enforcement, combined with the downturn in the economy, has resulted in about 100K illegals leaving the state. Here’s the link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s.....SECTION=US

    The workers interviewed are all day laborers, presumably working for cash under the table. These people fly under the radar, paying neither state nor federal income taxes, but use government provided services like public education. What little they contribute to tax coffers is mostly in the form of sales tax on purchases. Given that Arizona, like so many other states, is cash strapped, how long can the state continue to provide services to so many that contribute very, very little towards paying for said services. Between the crime in the southern part of the state and the continuing economic problem with paying for services for citizens, much less the illegal residents, what would you have the state do to try to deal with the problems?

  65. 65
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Church Lady:

    Given that Arizona, like so many other states, is cash strapped, how long can the state continue to provide services to so many that contribute very, very little towards paying for said services.

    Maybe you should be asking that question of the business owners who hire these workers. You know, the ones who are breaking employment and tax laws by paying those people under the table. Or did you actually buy their whine that they were, like, totally tricked into paying below minimum wage by those evil illegals?

    Hint: the employers who were genuinely fooled by fake IDs are withholding income taxes and paying their portion of the payroll tax on those employees, so those illegal workers don’t count in your calculus of non-taxpayers. It’s the employers who are deliberately circumventing the laws of the United States who are depriving their state and federal governments of those tax monies, not the illegal workers.

    It’s always amazing to me how the employers — you know, the actual root of the problem — always get airbrushed out of the discussions about “illegals.” If there were no employers to hire illegal workers, they wouldn’t come here for work. Period. Put your own house in order, Church Lady. If you eat in a restaurant or buy American-grown produce at the grocery store, you have given your money to employers who hire illegal workers. You are part of the problem.

  66. 66
    KRK says:

    @Church Lady:

    I’ll paraphrase for you what I asked Lovely Rita above: Please explain why anyone here sincerely desiring an informed perspective on this new statute’s relationship to the law enforcement situation in southern Arizona shouldn’t think that Sheriff Dupnik and Rep. Grijalva are a hell of a lot more credible about the need for and impact of it than you are.

    I love how you think that an AP article reporting that increased enforcement of existing laws that started in 2008 and resulted in 100,000 illegals leaving the state is support for this additional “papers, please” law enacted in 2010. A new law that Sheriff Dupnik (remember him? the topic of the post?) says is “unnecessary” and “disgusting.”

  67. 67
    Church Lady says:

    @Mnemosyne: And I said, in an earlier comment, that those employers should be arrested/fined/jailed, whatever the laws on the books call for. I do not defend them in any manner. Take your strawman someplace else.

  68. 68
    pattonbt says:

    @Church Lady:

    So illegal immigration is down then. Why the law now? Maybe AZ should just ensure their economy continues to be shitty forever then no one will come. Sounds like the best solution. Free market bitches!! And it costs nothing – no taxes!!!!

    Awesome! Problem solved.

  69. 69
    Church Lady says:

    @pattonbt: 100K down, amost half a million left to go.

  70. 70
    Church Lady says:

    @KRK: And do you give the benefit of the doubt to anyone that disagrees with them? For a state with a huge hispanic population, it’s amazing that 70% of the citizens are supportive of the new law. I guess all of them must be white racists…..

  71. 71
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Church Lady:

    So pointing out that those lost tax dollars that you’re lamenting are lost because of the employers’ actions is a “strawman”?

    You know as well as I do that half (at least) of the people whining about how much money the state pays out in benefits to illegal workers are hiring those workers themselves. They are creating the problem that they’re whining about. And yet you would rather blame the workers for taking money under the table and not the employers who pay workers under the table specifically so they can avoid their tax obligations.

    And I notice that you haven’t responded to our point that it is American citizens who are going to suffer the worst effects under this law, not immigrants. Another inconvenient fact that you prefer to ignore so you can keep up your complaints about those horrible immigrants who force people to give them jobs?

  72. 72
    pattonbt says:

    @Church Lady:

    Well, this new law has started some boycotts, so that should further negatively impact AZ’s economy. Maybe knock another 100K out. Progress! What else can we do to hurt AZ’s economy? Im open to ideas!

  73. 73
    gwangung says:

    @Church Lady:

    And I said, in an earlier comment, that those employers should be arrested/fined/jailed, whatever the laws on the books call for. I do not defend them in any manner.

    Yet, you approve of more laws and more measure on the workers, without at least as vigorous an effort to employers and without calling for more effort and money spent on the demand portion.

    I would not call that a strawman at all. I’d call it more of a misplaced focus, given that employers are less mobile and more visible—you get more bang for the buck there.

    (Of course, on the other hand, you can argue that employers have more political and economic power than individual workers, so you’re better off concentrating on the powerless….)

  74. 74
    pattonbt says:

    @Church Lady:

    I don’t know if the 70% who support this law are all racist, but they are supporting a law which, if not outright racist, has the potential to put 30% of the population at risk of increased police harassment without provocation. Nice people. Im sure the brown people of AZ don’t mind. It’s for their own good anyway. Amirite? Fun!

  75. 75
    Yutsano says:

    @gwangung: Brown people with little to no legal recourse are much easier to beat up on than good upstanding citizen employers who exploit cheap labor for profit simply want to make a decent living. That is the bottom line, no one wants to chase the folks with the money.

    Wanna see someone really twist in the wind? Ask Walnuts how many illegals he’s employing to maintain his seven houses. The explosion would be delicious.

  76. 76
    Jrod says:

    When it comes to Church Lady, it’s all very simple. If you’re part of her tribe, i.e. WASPish semi-wealthy upper middle class types, then you’re an actual person, worthy of support and protection. If you’re not, then you’re just one of them, so fuck you.

    Since her tribe doesn’t stand to be inconvenienced in the slightest by this law, she’s fine with it. All the flack will be caught by brown types who don’t even attend the same church she does, so really, what’s the problem?

    She really is a disgusting slime. Always remember that when trying to talk to her.

  77. 77

    @Church Lady

    Blah, blah, blah, I don’t mind complying with the demands of petty officials because I’m a good little serf, blah, blah, blah.

    It doesn’t surprise me that you didn’t graduate from law school because you’re incredibly stupid and not very good at making arguments. If you ever went to court your ass would get handed to you tout de suite. Good thing that you went off to become an investment banker, a profession which history has shown doesn’t require any large amounts of intelligence, competence or ethics.

    Again, you don’t understand what the problems with this law are because you’re a stupid, pampered, white southern racist. As a matter of fact my friend Paul has been harassed because he’s hispanic, and I know lots of black people who have been treated differently by the police because of the color of their skin. Of course this doesn’t bother you because you’re a white southern racist who believes that all blacks and Hispanics are probably criminals and doesn’t mind if the police harass them. Or you probably figure that they’re just making it up.

    You really don’t understand what living in a free country is about do you? Not surprising, you’re incredibly stupid and ignorant (The fact that you were able to enter the Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law at the University of Memphis says nothing good about that institution’s academic standards.). You claim to be in favor of enforcing the law against employers who hire illegal aliens. OK, then make a little change to S.B. 1070 shall we and then enact it in Tennessee.

    Section 11-1051, subsection B of S.B. 1070 reads as follows:

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

    And section 11-1051, subsection E of S.B. 1070 states:

    E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.

    This basically says that if the police pull you over for a burned out tail light, or because you were going a few miles per hour over the limit, or because they felt that you were driving erratically, you know, basically for any reason they care to make up, they can go on a fishing expedition if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that if they have probably cause to suspect that you’re an illegal alien they can arrest you. Now, those of us who aren’t ignorant, white southern racists such as yourself know that “reasonable suspicion” basically means “Does the person have a dark complexion or do they speak English with a furrin soundin accent”. OK, you’re fine with this, and you claim to be in favor of enforcing the law against employers who hire illegal aliens. So let’s add two more sections. They can be subsections K and L of section 11-1051.

    Proposed Section 11-1051, subsection J of S.B. 1070

    J. 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 IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 1324(a) or 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTIONS 1324(b), A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE IF THE PERSON IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324(a) BY VERIFYING THAT ANY EMPLOYEES OF THE PERSON ARE NOT UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS AS DEFINED UNDER 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324(h)(3) BY VERIFYING THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON’S EMPLOYEES WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

    Proposed Section 11-1051, subsection J of S.B. 1070:

    K. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON IS IN VIOLATION OF 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1324(a) OR HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY VERIFY THAT THEIR EMPLOYEES ARE NOT UNAUTHORIZED ALIENS PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE 1324(b).

    Now, sure, S.B. 1070 does have sections dealing with employer sanctions, but why should I have to go to the county attorney’s office and file a complaint form against you if I suspect that you’re employing “unauthorized aliens”? Why shouldn’t the police, if they pull you over for say, throwing a cigarette butt out the window, be able to, if they have a “reasonable suspicion” be able to investigate whether or not you’re employing any “unauthorized aliens” and are therefore in violation of 8 USC 1324(a) and/or whether or not you’re fully compliant with 8 USC 1324(b).

    Now, to be sure section 23-212.01 does allow you to file a complaint with the attorney general or your county attorney, and yes, the complaints can be anonymous. Which means that if we were to enact this law in Tennessee and you run a small business that someone could anonymously drop a dime on you.

    Of course why stop there? Why not allow state and local police officers to audit your taxes if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that you’re not in compliance with the US tax code. I mean obviously you would have no problem, if pulled over by a police officer, with proving that you had paid your state and federal taxes, would you? If so, then why? If you don’t have anything to hide then you don’t have anything to fear.

  78. 78
    KRK says:

    @Church Lady:

    I never said anything about racists, white or otherwise. I’m talking about the need for and effect of the law. And how radical and lawless of me to think that the sheriff in the largest county on the Arizona-Mexico border and the Congressman whose district is the southern third of the state would be more informed than random poll-takers. What’s your reason for disregarding them?

  79. 79
    Church Lady says:

    @Mnemosyne: Have you actually read the text of the law? I have. Yes, there is the possibility of civil rights violations, just as there are in most laws concerning illegal acts. It doesn’t mean it will be a probability. If that happens, there are laws on the books, and courts to enforce them, to redress any wrongs. Arizona has already stepped up enforcement, and the new law follows federal law – unless, of course, you consider the federal immigration laws to be unconsitutional as well. In addition, the new Arizona law also contains provisions dealing with employers and their responsibilities in ensuring they are following federal law and outlining penalties for those that don’t. As I have stated, more than once, employers that hire illegals should suffer whatever penalties the laws on the books proscribe.

    Illegal immigration is obviously a problem for the people of Arizona and this is the way that their elected officials are trying to deal with it. The majority of their citizens happen to agree with it. If you disagree with them, that is your right. If you are a citizen of that state, express your disagreement with those officials in the voting booth.

    But I also asked what would you do? How would you solve the problem? The response – crickets.

  80. 80
    Church Lady says:

    @gwangung: Read the text of the law – all of the sections. It does deal with employers.

  81. 81
    Jrod says:

    @Church Lady: Federal law allows for private citizens to sue police agencies for failure to enforce certain laws zealously enough? Really?

    Cuz if that’s so, I can think of about eight years worth of unenforced crimes I could sue about.

    But heck, who could possibly see a problem with immigration enforcement being required by law to satisfy every single citizen in a state full of reactionary racist assholes, lest the enforcement agency face a never-ending stream of lawsuits? Clearly there’s no trouble here, nosirree.

  82. 82
    Church Lady says:

    @Wile E. Quixote/a>: Rather than pulling out select sections, how about the whole thing?

    Arizona Revised Statutes Section 11-1051 (effective 90 days after the end of the current Arizona legislative session). See “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 2,” which contains the text of new ARS Section 13-1509 and “Text of Arizona’s Anti-Illegal Immigration Law – Part 3,” which contains the text of new Sections 13-2319.E, 13-2928 and 13-2929. This post does not contain the entire text of the new law. Additional parts of the new law will be in future posts.

    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.

    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. Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The person’s immigration status shall be verified with the federal government pursuant to 8 United States code section 1373(c). 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. 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.

    C. If an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States is convicted of a violation of state or local law, on discharge from imprisonment or on the assessment of any monetary obligation that is imposed, the United States immigration and customs enforcement or the United States customs and border protection shall be immediately notified.

    D. Notwithstanding any other law, a law enforcement agency may securely transport an alien who the agency has received verification is unlawfully present in the united states and who is in the agency’s custody to a federal facility in this state or to any other point of transfer into federal custody that is outside the jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency. a law enforcement agency shall obtain judicial authorization before securely transporting an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States to a point of transfer that is outside of this state.

    E. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

    1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.
    2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.
    3. If the person is an alien, determining whether the person is in compliance with the federal registration laws prescribed by title II, chapter 7 of the federal immigration and Nationality act.
    4. Pursuant to 8 United States Code section 1373 and 8 United States Code section 1644.

    F. This section does not implement, authorize or establish and shall not be construed to implement, authorize or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302), including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.

    G. A person who is a legal resident of this state may bring an action in superior court to challenge any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that adopts or implements a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. If there is a judicial finding that an entity has violated this section, the court shall order that the entity pay a civil penalty of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than five thousand dollars for each day that the policy has remained in effect after the filing of an action pursuant to this subsection.

    H. A court shall collect the civil penalty prescribed in subsection G of this section and remit the civil penalty to the state treasurer for deposit in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund established by section 41‑1724 [KEYTLaw Comment: This section is part of the new law and reads as follows: 41-1724. Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund. The gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund is established consisting of monies deposited pursuant to section 11‑1051 and monies appropriated by the legislature. The department shall administer the fund. Monies in the fund are subject to legislative appropriation and shall be used for gang and immigration enforcement and for county jail reimbursement costs relating to illegal immigration.].

    I. The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person or any official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in a proceeding brought pursuant to this section.

    J. Except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith, a law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency against reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, incurred by the officer in connection with any action, suit or proceeding brought pursuant to this section in which the officer may be a defendant by reason of the officer being or having been a member of the law enforcement agency.

    K. This section shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and

    I’m not a Constitutional expert, nor do I play one on TV, and, surprisingly, neither are you. Once again, I don’t see anything particularly draconian in this law. The upshot I see is that, for the most part, it codifies existing federal law as state law.

    Wile, I hate to ruin you usual rude fun, but how about rather than bitching about what I think, and how wrong, wrong, wrong (oh, and did I mention raaaaaacist) you think I am, how about you put your thinking cap on (if possible, after removing that tin foil hat usually adorning your mishappen noggin) and tell us how you, Constitutional expert that you are, would draft a law to deal with Arizona’s problem with illegal immigration?

  83. 83
    pattonbt says:

    @Jrod:

    Seriously, this is the aspect that so many people seem to overlook (although I do think it is right to focus on the profiling aspect as it is hideous). A private citizen can sue if the law is not applied zealously enough. This is a monster burden on the government (state and local). Because dealing with illegal immigration was so easy and cheap to deal with before.

    Do any of these people who say “well, it’s a bad law, but we have to DO SOMETHING” have thought how this will play out?

    There is a cadre of seriously evil, anti-brown people in AZ (and around the world) who will abuse this legislation without remorse. I mean, they are the assholes who wrote the law for god sake. They will raise complaints with LEO stating so-and-so is illegal, check them out. And when LEO says “we’ve got more important things to do than harass brown people”, the idiots will “sue” the government to take the action they want. Because those who are anti-immigration will make case after case after case after case after case.

    If you thought the AZ economy was in the toilet before, wait until the lawsuits start.

  84. 84
    pattonbt says:

    @Church Lady:

    So reading Section G do you now see how this can be massively abused?

    Again, I can say to LEO, check Church Lady, she’s illegal. LEO says “I’ve got more important things to do”. I sue LEO to check you out and LEO pays damages, court and legal fees every day LEO doesn’t check you out.

    Say LEO says OK, fine, we will check her out and catch you out and about without any of the proper ID, which is reasonable to assume can happen. Off to jail with you then. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, straight to jail until you can coordinate proof of your citizenship. Maybe that takes an hour, maybe a day, maybe a week because your husband is out of town or something. But no matter, They’ve got a nice cushy natural air prison out there. Good for the skin I hear.

    So finally you prove your citizenship and get let out. And since I am mean, I call LEO again to have you checked out. Start all over again.

    So you really do not believe, that those who wrote this law, hard right, anti-immigration assholes, really are NOT going to game the system exactly as that? They wrote it to abuse it. They are going to bring case after case after case after case until this law gets overturned. In the mean time, brown people will get harassed for being brown.

    Yeah, I guess it’s funny how people could see anything wrong with that.

  85. 85
    Church Lady says:

    @pattonbt: Just out of curiousity, who are the lawyers that are going to be filing these actions in Superior Court and how do you think they will be paid? Do you think that Joe Blow, next-door neighbor to Javier, the illegal, is going to hire a lawyer to file charges against some agency he thinks should be checking into Javier’s immigration status? Or is Joe going to go to Court and file the complaint himself and pay the filing fees and then ably represent himself in Court? Exactly how do you think this is going to work?

  86. 86
    Jrod says:

    @Church Lady: Duuuurrrr, I dunno, who would wanna do dat?

    The guy that helped Arizona‘s new immigration bill is also an attorney for the Immigration Reform Law Institute. That‘s the legal arm of an immigration group that‘s called FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. FAIR was founded in 1979 by a man named John Tanton. Mr. Tanton is still listed as a member of FAIR‘s board of directors. Just for some insight into where John Tanton and FAIR were coming from seven years after he started FAIR, Mr. Tanton wrote this, quote, “To govern is to populate. Will the present majority peaceably hand over its political power to a group that is simply more fertile? As whites see their power and control over their lives declining, will they simply go quietly into the night or will there be an explosion?” That‘s FAIR, who helped write Arizona‘s anti-immigrant law.

    In drafting that language, FAIR may have slipped a little something special in there for themselves. FAIR makes a living off of suing local and state governments over immigration laws. Tucked inside Article VIII of Arizona‘s new law is a provision that if groups like them win their cases, quote, a judge—sorry—a judge may order that the entity, quote, “who
    brought the action recover court costs and attorney fees”

    So, FAIR puts up the funds for the challenge, and collects it back from the state after they inevitably win the case. All they have to do is prove that, in some way, that jurisdiction did not pursue those dastardly illegals to the FULL extent the federal law allows. Like, I dunno, maybe they let cops take a day off, or maybe one time the cops didn’t bust the Home Depot parking lot because they had actual crime to deal with that day, or whatever. According to the letter of the law that you C&P’d so proudly, as though it’s majesty would win this argument for you, all law-enforcement agencies and local governments will lose the suit if they can be shown to have ever, in any way, failed to pursue illegals in any way less than what federal law allows. This is an impossible standard, unless your police budget is unlimited and you have no qualms about civil rights, which we all realize you don’t.

    Also, section 2 makes it clear that any driver’s license from a state that doesn’t require proof of residence will be insufficient proof of citizenship. Now, I’m fairly certain that states are required to accept the IDs of other states, which makes this section very questionably legal. But besides legal issues, I’d say there’s a moral issue with basically requiring everyone from states that don’t check residence when issuing a DL you bring their birth certificate and passport with them if they’re ever unfortunate enough to go to Arizona. That’s sure to really bring the tourists in droves, because who doesn’t like having to carry around your papers in your home country.

    Oh, but that’s OK. Just try not to seem illegallish and you’ll be fine.

  87. 87
    Yutsano says:

    @Jrod:

    Oh, but that’s OK. Just try not to seem illegallish brown and you’ll be fine.

    FIFY.

  88. 88
    pattonbt says:

    @Church Lady:

    Please see Jrod’s response to your query of me. I think he sums up quite nicely how AZ got played by far right bigots. The guys who drafted this law will be laughing all the way to the bank.

    And I’m sure any sleazy attorney can make a living off this, not just FAIR (but I bet in your world all attorneys are as pure as the driven snow, none would do anything unethical right?). All they have to do is make complaints, wait for LEO to not jump ASAP, file suit, claim legal fees. Nice racket. Nice government paid for retirement fund.

    AZ citizens got played for suckers.

    But again, this should just make AZ more broke, which as you pointed out, is what will really drive away the illegals, so maybe its great after all!

    By the way, great response Jrod.

  89. 89
    pattonbt says:

    @Church Lady:

    I honestly do not know if you are a spoof troll or not, but you post here quite often and seem to have strange views about the reality of the world. But there are really ugly people out there who do everything they can to take advantage of a situation. It is this dark nature of humanity that we need to be extra vigilant against laws like this. You may not have a hateful side to you and would never do anything wrong, but there’s always someone else out there who will.

    I went to ASU and I could this becoming almost a game among students there (many with out of state licenses by the way with the birth certificate tucked away back with mom and dad). Frat brothers will be reporting each other “for the hilarity”. I mean I could easily see myself doing this to my white Christian loving co-workers just to see if the law gets applied evenly. And you work yourself a nice deal with a scumbag attorney and you could easily turn it into a money making machine. Hell, I’d report myself for a few days off from work!

    Again, I’m just amazed that you can be so blind to see how severely messed up this law is and the burden it will put on an already strapped state.

  90. 90
    Hypnos says:

    The only way to effectively comply with this is to set up an internal passport system in the US.

    Might I suggest the Soviet Union as an example?

    “About establishment of the Unified Passport System within the USSR and the Obligatory Propiska of Passports” , December 27 1932, should do. It’s got the right language: ” [passports will help with] the removal of persons not engaged in industrial or other socially-useful work from towns and cleansing of towns from hiding kulaks, criminals and other antisocial elements. ”

    Just substitute “kulaks” with “illegals”.

  91. 91
    sempronia says:

    Just a lurker here, never posted. This thread might be dead by now, but I had to say – could we knock it off with the ad hominem attacks? Church Lady’s initial post was perfectly polite, and even if you don’t agree with the outlook, there’s no call for the name-calling and insults. Makes us look like intolerant, reactionary types. All the answer we need is irrefutable facts/logic and sensible compassion, conveyed in elegant prose – the blogosphere’s usual standard, right? where’s aimai when we need her?

    Just my two cents…

  92. 92

    @Church Lady:

    Well I can tell that you’re not serious because if you were you would have endorsed my idea for subsections J and K which would allow any police officer to investigate any one he suspected of employing illegal aliens in violation of 8 USC 1324a or not being fully compliant with 8 USC 1324a(b).

    I can also tell that you, despite that year you spent in law school, really don’t understand the difference between the concepts of de jure and de facto. Not surprising, you’re a southerner, it was people like you who gave us Plessy v. Ferguson and the whole concept of “separate but equal” and who were outraged when the Supreme Court overturned it in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education a decision you should read some time to remedy your ignorance of the difference between de jure and de facto

    Now, if you weren’t an ignorant racist pinhead you might know that we have a law on the books that’s designed to deal with illegal immigration, it’s called the Immigration and Nationality Act and it establishes penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens and as amended in 1986 requires employers to verify that employees they hire are eligible to work in the United States. That’s the 8 USC 1324a and 1324a(b) that I cited above. Now, 8 USC 1324 establishes criminal penalties for bringing in illegal aliens. If the government wants to they can send you up the river for a long, long time for smuggling in illegal aliens. But let’s look at 8 USC 1324a, the section of the law that establishes penalties for employers. This section of the law is pathetically weak, because employers want it this way. The maximum civil sanction you can face under 8 USC 1324a(e)(4) is $10,000 per unauthorized alien employed. So if you’re saving more than $10,000 a year for each unauthorized alien you employ you still come out ahead. And bear in mind that that’s the maximum fine. The minimum fine is $250, so even if they’re caught employers can still come out way ahead of the game.

    As for criminal sanctions, well they’re laughably weak as well. If the government decides to go after you for a pattern or practice of violating 8 USC Section 1324a the maximum penalty you can receive as defined by 1324a(f)(1) is $3,000 for each unauthorized alien employed and six months in jail for the entire pattern or practice of violations. So even if the government goes for criminal charges the maximum sentence you’re facing is six months in a minimum security lockup and a $3,000 fine per employee. Compare this to the penalties in section 1324 dealing with bringing in or harboring illegal aliens where the government can hit you with 10 years in jail and a $250,000 fine for each violation of the law and seize any property involved in the violation of section 1324 using civil forfeiture.

    So the penalties for bringing in illegal aliens can be huge, but the penalties for hiring them are ridiculously small. But there’s more, businesses have an escape hatch in 8 USC 1324a(a)(3) which says that if an employer can establish that they have complied in “good faith” with the employment verification procedures established in 8 USC 1324a(b) that they’ve established an affirmative defense that they’re not in violation of 8 USC 1324a(a)(1)(A). 8 USC 1324a(a)(4) establishes another loophole that says that if you hire knowingly hire contractors who are unauthorized aliens as defined by 8 USC 1324a(h)(3) that you’re in violation of 1324a(a)(1)(A). But if you don’t know that these guys were illegals you’re off the hook, which is one reasons why businesses love to hire through temp agencies, it provides them with plausible deniability.

    And there’s another nice loophole for employers too, 8 USC 1324a(b)(1)(A)(ii) says that if the documents someone provides to comply with 1324a(b) reasonably appear on their face to be genuine that the employer is not required to ask for any other documents. So if someone walks in with forged documents all an employer has to do is say “Gee, they looked so real” and they’re off the hook. And employers aren’t required to keep copies of the documentation submitted for verification, they can ask for them if they like, but they’re not required to keep a copy to prove that the documents that were submitted were valid and that they acted in good faith.

    Now, not only is the law weak, but employers never get busted because no money is spent on enforcement. Republicans love to put lots of ICE agents down on the borders to look for illegal aliens and talk about how they’re cracking down on the problem, but hate to actually have ICE agents going out and checking up on employers. So you have a situation where the laws dealing with hiring unauthorized aliens have weak penalties that are ridiculously ineffective at deterring the hiring of unauthorized aliens.

    Now, we could start off by enforcing the laws we have on the books already. Instead of putting ICE agents down on the border have them start going around to businesses and checking up on whether or not they’ve filled out I-9 forms on their employees. But even then the fines are still laughably weak, even with the addition of 8 USC 1324(a)(A)(3) which establishes that anyone who knowingly hires 10 unauthorized aliens within a 12 month period is guilty of felony harboring and can be fined $250,000 and imprisoned for five years.

    So the next thing to do would be to beef up the criminal sanctions for violating 8 USC 1324a and hiring unauthorized aliens to match the criminal sanctions for violating 8 USC 1324 and bringing them into the country, 10 years in the joint, a $250,000 fine and enact a civil forfeiture provision that matches the seizure and forfeiture provisions in 1324.

    While we’re at it let’s amend the RICO laws, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 96, Section 1961 to include in the definition of “racketeering activity” any acts that are indictable under section 274a (8 USC 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As it stands today the government can use the RICO statutes against anyone in violation of section 274 of the INA (8 USC 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens), section 277 (8 USC 1327. Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter) and section 278 (8 USC 1328. Importation of alien for immoral purpose) but if you’re just employing the illegal aliens that someone else bought into the country in violation of 8 USC 1324 you don’t have to worry about RICO.

    Of course employers would really, really, really hate this. Especially if we not only enacted stricter laws, you know that whole de jure thing but also actually enforced them, you know, the whole de facto thing. If the penalties for hiring illegal aliens were in line with the benefits, and if the laws were enforced guys like conservative talk show host Peter Weissbach, whose building maintenance company was hiring illegal aliens and then, when caught doing so by ICE just fired the illegals and avoided any fines want the laws we have to stay weak, even while they complain about the problems that the illegal immigrants they’re hiring cause.
    So rather than have any laws that would actually deter employers, who are largely white, from hiring illegal aliens by penalizing them when we’ll just pass more laws that are designed to penalize brown people while making dumb white racists like you feel good.

  93. 93

    @Church Lady

    Given that Arizona, like so many other states, is cash strapped, how long can the state continue to provide services to so many that contribute very, very little towards paying for said services.

    You know, that’s how I feel about states like Arizona and Tennessee. Given that states like California and Washington are cash strapped how long can we continue to pay federal taxes to provide services to so many states like like Arizona and Tennessee that contribute so very, very little towards paying for the federal government?

  94. 94
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Church Lady:

    Once again, I don’t see anything particularly draconian in this law.

    Yes, stating that only an Arizona state ID or tribal ID is sufficient proof of United States citizenship is not draconian at all. Neither is the provision that they can pick you up and immediately transfer you to a federal facility. Not to mention that, even if a cop arrests someone in order to harass them, all s/he has to say is, “Well, I thought they might be illegal” and the cop is completely immune from lawsuits.

    Nope, nothing draconian there.

    ETA: I do love how you claimed, “If that happens, there are laws on the books, and courts to enforce them, to redress any wrongs” while posting the portion of the law that says that cops are immune from being sued if they claim they were trying to enforce this law. So much for being able to get redress in a court of law.

  95. 95
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Church Lady:

    But I also asked what would you do? How would you solve the problem? The response – crickets.

    No, my answer was, “Strict enforcement against employers, including jail time.” The fact that you didn’t like my answer doesn’t mean I didn’t answer.

  96. 96
    les says:

    @KRK:

    Yes and yes. Oh, and he’s running for Kansas Secretary of State. With Brownback running for governor. Sadly, Kansas is likely to put Arizona to shame as the immigrant lovin’ pussies they are. And we may beat Texas to be the first state to require creationism in biology class. And Phil “panty sniffer” Kline will be resurrected to torture anyone who thinks about abortion. And, Brownback’s likely successor as Senator is, if you can believe it, more ignorant and reactionary.

    I need a hug.

  97. 97
    les says:

    @sneezy:

    The fine folks of Pima County may support him–that’s great. How long will it continue when wingnut citizens fill the courts with lawsuits against him, costing the County big $$? This law puts the crazies in charge; that’s what gets Church Lady hot for it.

  98. 98
    les says:

    @sempronia:

    Geeze, at least learn what “ad hominem” means. Nobody said Church Lady’s post was stupid, bigoted and poorly reasoned because she’s long demonstrated herself to be a priggish, bigoted, ignorant twatwaffle. People said her post and subsequent, uh…arguments…were ill-informed, illogical, poorly reasoned and poorly argued. Others noted that this result was not surprising given her prior performances, and that she continues to represent herself as a bigoted ignorant twatwaffle.

    Thanks for playing.

  99. 99
    sempronia says:

    @les:

    oh, okay, no problem. Knock it off with the personal attacks then.

Comments are closed.