Absurd immigration and national security laws are not new, but Arizona's is just more blatant than most. The ACLU already had a map of the "Constitution-Free Zone" within 100 miles of any border. A redditor just updated it to reflect SB1070. Much more accurate.
(Original here.)
8 comments:
So, I will admit that I haven't been paying a terribly large amount of attention to the Arizona thing probably b/c Oklahoma has had a law like the Arizona law http://www.desertdefender.com/2010/04/az-sb-1070-immigration-bill-misinformation/ (don't agree with some of the guy's comments, but the text of the law is nice to read) on the books for a few years now. Sure there was a lot of hubbub when it first came out, but I've not heard many complaints since it passed of racism and the like.
The thing is that "lawful contact" is apparently required. If someone is pulled over or arrested and they don't have a license or won't give their name or BD, no matter what color they are, do you think the cops are just going to let them go? They are just putting into law what would probably happen anyway, aren't they?
What am I missing? To me it just seems like a PR stunt by Arizona trying to whine to the Federal Government that they are not doing enough to help the border states out with border protection.
What the bill calls "lawful contact" includes "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."
So for one, it's unclear whether further lawful contact is even technically required - whether there need be another reason to pull someone over than "reasonable suspicion." But regardless, there is already a very high incidence in this country of the crime known as "driving while black." This is an extension of that. The cops can find any excuse whatsoever to pull someone over (like the fact that everyone speeds at least a little), and it's usually legal, but then certain laws kick in to guide subsequent interactions. SB1070 erases the further protections and allows the cop to arrest people he has stopped for "reasonable suspicion" or at least has stopped for anything else, like going 2 mph over the speed limit.
So now you ask why we think it would only affect Latinos? Or well, disproportionately so? What is it that creates "reasonable suspicion?" I mean, think about it for a sec. If not being brown, what could it mean? The law says that the cop has to have reasonable suspicion before asking for papers (otherwise it'd be a 4th amendment violation). So if you can figure out another way to have reasonable suspicion, I'd love to hear it. They can make it constitutional, theoretically, by pulling over tons of white people too, but then all the cops are spending their time doing is asking everyone for papers.
And finally, the link you posted is pretty misinformed about the papers needed. Aside from a driver's license (which someone will typically just get a ticket for driving without), if you got pulled over on reasonable suspicion, what would you have on you? Unlikely you'd have a passport on you (and most Americans don't even have one), and definitely not your birth certificate. And since you were born here, you don't own any immigration papers. So if you think about it, they're just as likely to lock up Americans as undocumented immigrants anyway. It's pretty ridiculous.
Another wrinkle about "lawful contact," from an AZ House majority research analyst: "[I]t wouldn't just be those suspected of crimes. It could be victims, witnesses or just people who are lawfully interacting with the police officer."
That link also documents a typical right-wing smear campaign against opponents of the law based on the "legal contact" phrase. It seems your original link is part of it, or is misinformed. Of course, I'm not trying to imply you're doing that - I'm just letting you know about what's going on out there.
I read: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official ... where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien ... a reasonable attempt shall be made ... to determine the immigration status"
Nowhere does it include lawful contact as suspision of illegality. It says that lawful contact must be made first. Also, "A reasonable attempt to determine immigration status" does not even suggest "locking" anyone "up". Do you really think a cop will bother handcuffing you, driving you to the station, and throwing you in a cell (not to mention the paper work he will probably have to fill out) when he can just look up your name in his database?
So were victims of crimes or a witnesses gauranteed b/f this law that they will not be suspected and investigated? They still look people up and ask for identification after crimes have happened.
The only way I can see anyone getting locked up from this law is if they are pulled over for some reason and don't have ID and refuse to give the officer a name. Which, *they would probably lock you up for anyway*
I didn't ask why you think it will affect Latinos disproportionately. Of course it will. It is an immigration law in a border state. It's not possible for it not to affect Latino's disproportionately. I just don't think it will affect them any more than any cop's current predisposition would. I can see, however, how this might give cops more and better reason to act on their predisposition, which would be bad. But, come on, it's been completely blown out of proportion. The law is completely unnecessary, b/c all of these things are done anyway. So I suppose I agree that it is a bad law only because I hate unnecessary laws and cops don't need any more reason to use racial profiling.
But the boycotters? That makes me laugh. Have these people been boycotting Oklahoma since 2008? Do they boycott all states and countries where racism exists?
But here's a question for you:
Can they *actually* make something constitutional by adding the phrase "except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution"?
I'm going to leave the legal corrections to Andrew and respond to your question of the impact and legitimacy of a boycott.
I assume that by "these people", you're referring to people like me - advocates for immigrants who probably aren't immigrants, don't live in the state, and probably won't be directly impacted by the new law. I can't speak to the response this demographic had to the 2008 law because I wasn't aware of it at the time of its inception.
However, I was told about it in a discussion about how draconian, anti-immigrant laws DESTROY local economies. Some quick google searching finds tons of research to support this. Here and here, for example. There's a NJ town that enacted a law that essentially kicked out all immigrants that resulted in similar economic devastation.
My point in mentioning these stories is that yes, in fact, people (immigrants) were boycotting these states and towns after they enacted these crazy laws. And yes, there are calls for boycotts of states and countries that enact repressive and racist laws. Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany?are both admittedly extreme examples, but people were calling to boycott the Beijing Olympics because of human rights abuses (largely racial and religious). People call to boycott corporations that behave in racially discriminatory ways.
First, I'll just concede for the sake of argument that a separate "lawful contact" needed start the point. "Lawful contact" can be basically anything at all, however - no random stop like this ever creates a problem in court. And it includes victims and witnesses. You ask why victims and witnesses shouldn't be investigated too, but that has to do with the substantive crime, not their status as a resident in this country, which is a completely separate matter. "Lawful contact" as a witness has nothing to do with immigration status but under this law can turn into that. But regardless, the point is that a white person won't be asked as a witness to show papers.
Ok, a couple misconceptions to clear up: First, there is no database cops can just look someone up in. State cops do not have access to the ICE database, and the way people typically interact with the state has nothing to do with immigration, so the info isn't there. No one really knows what "a reasonable attempt shall be made ... to determine the immigration status" means. It could very easily just mean asking for papers, giving them the authority to lock people up for not having them. And if you think people won't be locked up b/c of this law, you're missing the fact that that's the whole point. Here's an example where this already has happened.
Next, you mention that this is what cops would do anyway, and to a certain extent you're right - cops do profile. The difference is that before this law, state cops just didn't have the authority to lock you up for immigration issues - that's a federal matter. (There's a controversial DHS-local team-up in some places, but that's all). Also, even if they had the authority, they'd have to have some reason to get the incriminationg info from you. Here they merely need "reasonable suspicion," which is so ill-defined as to probably be unconstitutional itself. (Slate actually has a good post about that point.) At the very least, it's really impossible to challenge.
Ok, your last two things: Find me the Okla. law you're talking about, and I'll explain why it's different. I know Okla. is pretty bad, but I don't think it's this.
Re: Your constitutional question. What that phrase does is allow a defense of the law in court by finding that whenever someone is profiling unconstitutionally, he's also acting outside the law, so the law needn't be struck down. It's a decent measure of protection, but only to the degree it's possible to follow. The problem this law is going to run into is that, on the one hand, there's that provision, but on the other hand, cops are mandated to do something that they cannot do without unconstitutionally profiling. It's inherently contradictory, so the phrase won't help it survive. (Again, the Slate article talks about the rock-and-a-hard-place problem for the cops.)
Hope that helps.
Putting that phrase in almost begs people to explode in fury over the constitutionality of the thing.
It's kind of like saying "with all due respect" or "no offense" haha--leaves me looking for something to take offense at.
You came up with a 3 day old example of this actually ruining somebody's week? Well, damn, you win. That is an unbelievable story. The dude has a driver's license!! What is wrong with Arizona cops!? They obviously don't need that law at all.
I will look for the Oklahoma law (honestly, I probably won't-that sounds like work), but I don't think it has the "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien" clause, which I see now would be a big difference. I think it was less racial profiling and more 'you go to jail if you can't produce ID until we know what to do with you' which is some better some worse, but it doesn't empower the crazy-ass cops. This appears to be the worst thing about this law, which it's entirely possible the lawmakers did not foresee. You think?
Yeah, the guy I linked has a bit of skinhead in him, but I try to ignore the skinheady parts.
The one thing that I haven't heard mentioned that would worry me more than a truck driver with a valid drivers license (damn) is kids under 16 who wouldn't have any form of ID anyway. I wonder if Arizona cops are particularly bothered by Latino kids.
As a rule I don't really boycott, because I find myself not being able to eat anything. That is sort of what I meant. "Why this one?" but then again, I often have trouble understand why people pick whichever one it is that they picked.
"As a rule I don't really boycott, because I find myself not being able to eat anything."
I generally follow this rule as well. Food is a good example, because our food system is just so super-evil. But there are special cases when such an egregious infraction of human rights occurs that such action is warranted. I try not to drink Coors because of all the racist/homophobic/unionbusting shit they've done. I avoided my favorite dim sum place for months until they settled a lawsuit brought on by the employees who had been robbed by management. Mandating racial profiling certainly falls under this category for me.
Post a Comment