Arizona State Senator responds to Immigration

[hugo]

The revision fixes the problem I had with the bill.

AZ legislature “fixes” new immigration lawShare109posted at 10:55 am on April 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey printer-friendly After becoming a nine-day wonder on the national political stage, the Arizona legislature has amended its new law on immigration enforcement. Byron York notes that the conditions for investigating the residency status have gotten less ambiguous and more reflective of the intent of the legislature:

In the past days, some critics of the new Arizona immigration law have said that it will lead to Arizona becoming a police state. Many of the criticisms — some including the words Nazi and fascist — have been based on a general objection to the law and to the enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. But some have been specifically focused on a few key phrases in the law. …

The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…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…” Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

I agree that this issues of this passage got exaggerated, but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law. Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully? After all, it wasn’t just people on the Left who objected to the vague notion of “lawful contact” in this passage. Plenty of people on the Right also expressed concern about the potential for police to assume expansive powers to stop and question people with no probable cause other than assumptions about immigration status. Even some of the police in Arizona objected to it.

The Arizona legislature could have saved everyone the trouble by defining the parameters from the beginning. Governor Jan Brewer more or less had the same criticism, signing the bill but issuing an executive order to clear up the ambiguity by establishing rules for “lawful contact” simultaneous to the bill signing. The change now makes plain the intent to have Arizona law enforcement check residency status while enforcing the other laws of the state, a common-sense approach that other states should also adopt — since the federal government stubbornly refuses to enforce their own existing laws.

The new clarifications are welcome indeed, and should defuse the controversy that threatened to distract the GOP from the larger issues of economic crisis and government encroachment. But just as with the surprises that we keep finding in the ObamaCare bill, the entire problem could have been avoided had the legislature paid more attention to the details before voting it into law.

If the police are simply verifying legal status of individuals who would have been asked for identification anyways I see little problem from a civil liberties standpoint. We all know what happened with the general welfare and commerce clauses of the Constitution when they weren't specifically defined.

 

[Times]

Come on TJ, How bout these guys? More Liberals? Did THEY not read it too?

.

.

Why is it your always wanting me to cover every tiny little point from you but you never answer a single question I ask of you?

Look Phreakwars, of course there are many people from all aspects of the spectrum who are both for and against this law, but the few you can name who are not pure liberals are so insignificant compared to those who are it is not an issue. This is the same point I make against abortion supporters, you only want to talk about the 1% part of the issue while completely ignoring the 99% of the problem.

Why can't you admit the Federal Government has the responsibility to secure the border?

Why can't you admit Obama is on vacation on this very bad problem?

Why can't you admit this discussion never happens if the Federal Government enforces the laws they are responsible for enforcing?

This law is a symptom, not part of the problem, we need our elected officials to fix the real problem and that is the completely open borders and illegals sucking our tax dollars out of us like a leech.

By the way, just because someone might be registered as a Republican that does not mean they were conservative, many like Specter who just got defeated were Republicans but voted very liberal and even Bush was very Liberal in his last two years so you have to look past their possition and see their policy in this instance and most of them against this is also against securing the border and that is a Liberal stand no matter what party they happen to be in at the time.

 

[Phreakwars]

Dude, you get liberals on the brain.. get a life.

You just can't handle the fact that there are some Republicans out there with AT LEAST enough decency to know you don't turn people into second class citizens all for the sake of security.

Why can't you admit the Federal Government has the responsibility to secure the border?

I don't recall ever saying they didn't.

Why can't you admit Obama is on vacation on this very bad problem?

Bush could have fixed it too.. in fact, he tried, he was shot down by his own party... but now it's all Obama's fault.. how convenient.

Why can't you admit this discussion never happens if the Federal Government enforces the laws they are responsible for enforcing?

They could, but you insist on lower taxes, can't have your cake and eat it too. .

.

 

[Phreakwars]

The revision fixes the problem I had with the bill.

If the police are simply verifying legal status of individuals who would have been asked for identification anyways I see little problem from a civil liberties standpoint. We all know what happened with the general welfare and commerce clauses of the Constitution when they weren't specifically defined.

Once again, I agree with you Hugo, and once again, your creeping me out because I do.

.

.

 

[Times]

Dude, you get liberals on the brain.. get a life.

You got racism on the mind, you get a life outside of the liberal shell you see everything through, this law has nothing to do with race, never did.

You just can't handle the fact that there are some Republicans out there with AT LEAST enough decency to know you don't turn people into second class citizens all for the sake of security.

The problem I have is they are all wrong, this law never did that even before the adjustment, everyone who thought it did never read and understood the law in the first place and were just jumping to conclusions based on political correctness and yes, many, many Republicans spend too much time trying to be politically correct instead of being informed. I don't like that part.

I don't recall ever saying they didn't.

lol, nice dodge.

Bush could have fixed it too.. in fact, he tried, he was shot down by his own party... but now it's all Obama's fault.. how convenient.

I thought Obama was the President of "change"? Why keep falling on that sword and making excuses? If everything Bush did was wrong, fine, do something different and get it done instead of trying to say it is okay Obama does nothing just because Bush did nothing?

I did not like Bush in his last two years either, I was very vocal against much of what he did but you Phreakwars, you never say Obama is wrong, you never take a possition against what liberals ever do.

They could, but you insist on lower taxes, can't have your cake and eat it too.

What?

What the hell are you talking about? We woulf get a huge reduction in taxes spent if we got rid of the illegals, most of these States give illegals welfare, free medical, free education, even low income housing, all of that spent money goes back in the tax coffers when we no longer have to support people who are here illegally and not paying taxes.

Again, we have plenty of money to take over auto companies, we have plenty of money to take over medical care, we have plenty of money to take over banks, but we can't secure the border? Go to Colorado, grab the 4th ID and put them on the border, I doubt seriously we are in danger of Canada invading and no need to have a massive military buildup in Colarado. We pay these troops anyway as well as regular support so the difference in cost would be almost nothing to have them on the border instead of sitting outside Colorad Springs doing nothing. Then, after the border is secured, build the fence, no one step will fix this problem, but taking no steps will never fix the problem.

I'll ask you right out Phreakwars, should the illegals be sent home?

Should we secure our borders?

 

[Phreakwars]

Well OF COURSE the illegals should be sent back you moron, I have NEVER EVER defended an illegal. If they are illegal, they have broken the law and should be dealt with. My issue, the one you like to conveniently dodge, is AMERICAN CITIZENS being profiled.

How about we start cracking down on illegal Canadians and profiling people who might be possible illegal Canadians? How would you identify an illegal Canadian?

How about we start taking white people and asking them to show proof of citizenship? You carry your birth certificate with you at all times TJ? How happy would you be if Obama signed a law meant to curb illegal Canadians from entering and called for identifying potential illegals? How happy do you think white people would be about having to show proof of citizenship?

You'd hear all kinds of calls for a revolution, tyranny, and etc, etc.. HOW DARE ANYONE QUESTION A WHITE PERSONS CITIZENS STATUS!! HOW DARE GOVERNMENT STICK THERE NOSE IN SOMEONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. FREEDOM, LIBERTY, and all that crap.

You evidently have NO PROBLEM AT ALL with AMERICAN CITIZENS being subjected to such scrutiny just because they may have brown skin, or an accent. I do.

If that makes me a "BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL" then I am proud to be one, because I care about the rights and freedom of ALL citizens, not just a select few like you.

.

.

 

[eddo]

When I went to vote yesterday I, as a white male, was asked for identification.

should I be screaming racism now????

 

[Phreakwars]

That's an election, of course you show'd ID. Your being ridiculous.

.

.

 

[Phreakwars]

And I still want an answer to my question... how do you identify a potential illegal?

.

.

 

[Phreakwars]

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

Now THAT, I have no problem with..

.

 

[Times]

Great point eddo, and one radical liberals like Phreakwars will never grasp......

So Phreakwars, you want the illegals sent home, but you do not support any law or action that would actually do that?

Your the one who wants his cake and eat it too, we can't send them home if we are handcuffed by liberals like you who will not allow anyone to be asked if they are here illegally. So in fact you "DO NOT" want them sent home because you directly block every attempt to do it in reality.

I have identification on me every day, I have no problem producing it if an officer asks me to, no problem. I produce my identification to vote, again I have no problem with that.

Let's use a tiny bit of common sense here Phreakwars, if the illegal person can't speak english and can't produce identification, you really believe it is wrong to then start wondering if he is illegal? Really?

 

[Phreakwars]

I believe it is wrong to ask for identification of an individual if they are not suspect of any crime other then being a potential illegal.

So Phreakwars, you want the illegals sent home, but you do not support any law or action that would actually do that?

Not if it involves scrutinizing an American citizens status..

.

 

[Phreakwars]

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.

Ring a bell?

.

.

 

[Times]

So Phreakwars, you want the illegals sent home, but you do not support any law or action that would actually do that?

Not if it involves scrutinizing an American citizens status.

If we do not check a person's status, we can never send an illegal home, so in practice you play semantics, you say you want them to go home but you refuse to let anyone have the tools needed to accomplish that goal, so in reality you do not want them sent home.

Your just as much an open border supporter as anyone else Phreakwars, you can't say you want them sent home if you at the same time say no possible way of checking status is allowed.

Can you give an idea how we can send illegals home without asking them if they are illegal?

*********************

And your qute is irrelivent, nobody is giving up freedom to show identification. And safety is not as big a concern as we are out of money Phreakwars, in all of this you refuse to understand that we cannot continue to pau for these illegals to be here, we must take actions because we are out of money.

 

[Phreakwars]

Can you give an idea how we can send illegals home without asking them if they are illegal?

Simple... no jobs, no illegals. Come down extremely hard on the people who employ them. They did it once, and it worked TOO WELL. Problem was, there was nobody to fill the job void because white people won't pick lettuce for less then minimum wage. John McCain had that down and said it himself, it just an inconvenient truth people don't want to accept.

Take away an illegals incentive for wanting to come over, they won't come over, and those that are here, will hi-tail it back home with anchor babies in tow. But that ain't gonna happen, like I said before, BIG MONEY LOVES illegals, regardless of how much of the population overwhelmingly wants them gone, and what big money wants, big money gets.

.

.

 

[eddo]

I believe it is wrong to ask for identification of an individual if they are not suspect of any crime other then being a potential illegal.

Officers will not allowed to pull anyone over because they "look illegal." Just like with AZ's current seat belt law- there must be a valid reason to pull someone over or talk to them BEFORE you can question their legality. Cops will not be just walking around bugging every tan skinned individual.

And I still want an answer to my question... how do you identify a potential illegal?

.

.

as for the "reasonable suspicion" used to asked for further id, a number of things could fall into this category:

license plates from out of the country, inability to speak English, lack of proper id (drivers license, insurance, registration,) 16 people crammed into a Kia Sportage, etc.

 

[Phreakwars]

I believe it is wrong to ask for identification of an individual if they are not suspect of any crime other then being a potential illegal.

Officers will not allowed to pull anyone over because they "look illegal." Just like with AZ's current seat belt law- there must be a valid reason to pull someone over or talk to them BEFORE you can question their legality. Cops will not be just walking around bugging every tan skinned individual.

And I still want an answer to my question... how do you identify a potential illegal?

.

.

as for the "reasonable suspicion" used to asked for further id, a number of things could fall into this category:

license plates from out of the country, inability to speak English, lack of proper id (drivers license, insurance, registration,) 16 people crammed into a Kia Sportage, etc.

See this post: http://justbs.us/top...post__p__105950THIS, I have a problem with:

 

[eddo]

I believe it is wrong to ask for identification of an individual if they are not suspect of any crime other then being a potential illegal.

Officers will not allowed to pull anyone over because they "look illegal." Just like with AZ's current seat belt law- there must be a valid reason to pull someone over or talk to them BEFORE you can question their legality. Cops will not be just walking around bugging every tan skinned individual.

And I still want an answer to my question... how do you identify a potential illegal?

.

.

as for the "reasonable suspicion" used to asked for further id, a number of things could fall into this category:

license plates from out of the country, inability to speak English, lack of proper id (drivers license, insurance, registration,) 16 people crammed into a Kia Sportage, etc.

See this post: http://justbs.us/topic/29146-arizona-state-senator-responds-to-immigration/page__view__findpost__p__105950

then what are you still griping about???

 

[Phreakwars]

The potential that is still there to profile AMERICAN citizens.

.

.

 

[Phreakwars]

Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully? After all, it wasn’t just people on the Left who objected to the vague notion of “lawful contact” in this passage. Plenty of people on the Right also expressed concern about the potential for police to assume expansive powers to stop and question people with no probable cause other than assumptions about immigration status. Even some of the police in Arizona objected to it.

So yeah, I'd say my concern was justified..

.