Look, I don’t like this new Arizona immigration law anymore than you do, but it’s really starting to bug me that so many people—who haven’t even read it—are howling to holy Hell on Earth about it being racist.
Sorry, folks. I’ve read SB 1070 and I can say with confidence that, as of today, May 7, 2010, there is nothing racist about it.
For one thing, there is an entire passage (lines 30 to 34 of Section 2) that explicitly prohibits law enforcement from using “race, color or national origin” as a determining factor. The only other part of the bill that identifies when law enforcement is required to investigate the status of a person’s citizenship is this:
“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.”
Jesus Cristo, I hate legal-speak! It’s almost as though all our laws have to get approved by Jenny Gibberish over at the Office of Redundancies and Gobbledygook to ensure the text and words confusing to people and humans it is. Allow me to rewrite:
“Law enforcement shall attempt to determine a person’s immigration status, where reasonable suspicion exists that he or she is unlawfully present in the U.S.”
The key phrase here is “Where reasonable suspicion exists.” It’s the phrase that proves it’s not a racist law.
I can hear your grumblings now. Oh, what a racist I must be for saying SB 1070 ain’t racist, right? Hell, I’ve already been verbally accosted by my wife, who said the law is “a slippery slope to the Holocaust, jerk!” My friend and colleague, Aaryn Belfer, said, “You won’t see Arizona cops stopping any tall blond Germans, fuckwad!” And CityBeat editor Dave Rolland, blurted, “Hey, assface [his pet name for me], the law gives cops with chips on their shoulders about immigrants a reason to harass Latinos!”
But SB 1070 does not embolden racist cops. The bill clearly gives “reasonable suspicion” as the requirement. Well, think about it. In a state consisting of nearly 1.3 million Hispanic citizens (roughly 25 percent of the population), it is absolutely, undoubtedly, irrefutably not reasonable to assume a person is illegal because his or her skin is brown. And any judge who heard a police officer testify that race was the reason he stopped the suspect, would be required—by the language of this bill—to throw the case out on its backside.
Of course, any cop can lie about why they felt the perp appeared “suspicious.” But that’s the cop’s bad, not the law itself, and saying so would be like saying that our laws against drug trafficking are racist because a police officer can stop a driver for being black, plant some drugs, then tell the judge he pulled him over because he was speeding.
Bottom line, you can’t say the law is racist because future racists might circumnavigate it.
Some have argued that the law is racist because it doesn’t go far enough to protect minorities. I don’t agree. SB 1070 specifically prohibits factoring race and color. However, even if it were true, it wouldn’t make the law racist. Calling 1070 a racist bill because it doesn’t go far enough to protect minorities is like calling our trespass laws homophobic because they don’t go far enough to stop people from walking into gay people’s yards.
Look, there are plenty of valid reasons to oppose this bill. Labeling it racist does a huge disservice to legitimate opposition because, the real problems are swept to the margins—problems like invasion of privacy, extension of governmental powers, erosion of civil liberties and the biggest, most glaring problem of all which, alone, should render 1070 null and void: the problem that it is already a law! Have a look at how the whole thing begins. It’s the premise, the thesis—the raison d’être—of SB 1070:
“NO OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE… MAY ADOPT A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.”
Oh, for crying out loud, can we get a law that’s written in English already!? It’s almost like they don’t want the general public to read or understand it. Again, a quick translation:
“The state of Arizona reserves the right to enforce federal immigration laws.”
There you go. Bam boom bang! SB 1070 gives Arizona the right to enforce federal law. But you don’t need a local law to enforce federal law. It’s already the law! It is already legal and mandatory for police to stop and interrogate people who are “reasonably suspicious” of having committed a crime. It’s called “probable cause” and probable cause is, simultaneously, a tool that law enforcement uses to investigate potential criminals, and a constraint that prevents them from harassing folk for no reason. If SB 1070 is a racist law, then so are all probable-cause-related laws.
Look, I know some of you are outraged over the perceived racial component of this bill. But the fact that you’re outraged proves my point. You’re angry because it’s unreasonable to judge people by the color of their skin. You are angry because it’s unreasonable for a cop to harass a person on the basis of being brown. And if any Arizona law officer acted in such an appalling manner, it wouldn’t be because of this law, it would be in spite of it.
Ed Decker
05.12.2010
Originally published in San Diego CityBeat
Just had to disagree with you 100% on the new column. Name me one factor, when the police make a lawful contact with you, that would give them reasonable suspicion you were not here legally besides your race. Your spoken language, your appearance, what? If they were already investigating you for an actual crime they have the right to detain you. The authors of the law know cops will stop Mexicans without papers, check the status, and if they are here legally say the “suspect” failed to signal or stop. Cops can make up any reason to stop you and this gives them cover to check your immigration status when they do it.
Profiling Arizona legislator Russell Pearce: Author of immigration law is pals with noted neo-Nazi
| http://www.facebook.com/l/625b9;crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/profiling-arizona-legislator-russell
How about this, Jim?
The cop pulls over a vehicle for, say, expired registration. When the vehicle pulls to the side, six people jump out and start running in different directions. I would say that it is reasonable to suspect a crime being committed and not necessarily racist to try and grab as many as he could and ask for documentation.
And yeah, you are right that there may be cops who will abuse the probable cause clause in this law and make up some minor traffic infraction to justify the stop. But again, as I said in the column, that’s the cop’s bad – he’s BREAKING the law, not following it. Besides, cops already do that with all the other traffic laws. Are those laws racist too?
Lastly, about your link to the article about the allegedly racist background of one of the bill’s authors.
My argument is about the law itself and not the alleged intentions of it’s composers. It doesn’t matter if every one of the authors of that bill was a card-carrying Nazi, what matters is what the bill says and what it’s enforcement will look like.
I agree completely with Ed that this law is not racist, however I disagree that it’s wrong for Arizona to adopt it simply because of redundancy to Federal Law. I understand the argument; however, I disagree that it is redundant and I support the right of the State of Arizona and its residents to adopt it.
This bill does a few things that expand upon Federal Law in matters specifically regarding the State of Arizona; for instance, deciding where the money collected from violations will go. It specifies that after court costs, a separate fund for the “Gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission” will get the money and I think that’s where it SHOULD go. It also more specifically defines violations and enforcement requirements for business licenses which are not in the federal statutes because they are state specific, (although I haven’t looked at the federal statute so I wouldn’t really know). This law also creates policy for enforcement and penalties specific to businesses who hire or employ contractors or employees who were not verified through legal channels and then sets up policies for probation for companies who violate the law. It also establishes defense against frivolous claims and entrapment defense. This is all State specific and there’s nothing wrong with Arizona defining and implementing those laws.
According to the Constitution, States have the right and are encouraged to create laws which are needed or wanted specific to each State and wanted by its residents. There’s nothing wrong with this law and if you don’t like it you can move, or vote it down. It seems that most Arizonans are FOR this law so it’s not even a Californian’s problem unless you’re scared that YOUR state is going to adopt the same legislation. As a Californian, you have a responsibility to keep an eye on your own state as well as the decorum to keep your nose out of the rights of another state.
One of the big arguments against immigration enforcement has always been to limit the US demand for things like drugs or cheap “undocumented immigrant labor” and this bill specifically addresses that as well. Although I believe this is a STUPID argument for an open border that puts the cart before the horse, at least this bill addresses it.
Arizona is suffering from serious problems due to illegal immigrant traffic including large amounts of non-Mexican illegal immigrants. The security of the US itself is at risk due to the ease at which terrorists can (and already have) violate our borders. The risks to our country go beyond Drug traffic and “Cheap Labor” or even terrorism. I’m not about to get into that argument here but I don’t see anything wrong with Arizona seeking to define how it will protect its borders from any sort of illegal immigrant no matter their intention.
What I think is completely deplorable about this situation is not people who are crying racist. Some people cry racist about EVERYTHING! What I think is deplorable is that legislators or public personae would encourage you to do things like boycott an Arizona Diamondback game when it comes to your town or stop buying goods and services from companies in Arizona. WTF is wrong with you people? You’re going to boycott a company because its State passed legislation to protect its citizens? Are you kidding me? Grow up!
During a “normal” stop, like a traffic violation, or shoplifting, when a cop asks for your driver’s license. …and you don’t have one because you’re not a citizen. so then he asks for your passport.
The same thing that would happen in Mexico if you were traveling on business or on vacation.
You wouldn’t be stopped because you’re from California. But if you ran your car off the road then you will encounter the Mexican police and they are going to ask you for your id.
same thing.
The reason there may be a need for laws like this is the opposite immigration policy many local police departments have in place. They are prohibited by policy (not law) from ascertaining a person’s immigration status as part of a police investigation.
Glad to see someone else thought of the idea that it was ALREADY a law!
What a cop lie? Oh Ed! How could you think such a thing??
The only problem I have with the law is the ambigious statement, “REASONABLE SUSPICION” . What constitutes “reasonable suspicion”? I have to go through a Border Patrol check point almost everyday. Same checkpoint. Same car. Around the same time each day. Yet I’m often asked if it’s ok for them look in the back of my car. When asked that I will sometimes say “”no” or “why”. That always throws them off! It’s fun! My point is that they have never once said to me that it is because they have “reasonable suspicion”. So… once again…what constitutes “reasonable suspicion”?
I get it man.
I’m still going ahead with my boycott of arizona iced tea… fuck those nazis.
I live for your writing man… and of course sex, drugs, booze, roller coasters, pb&j, pillow fights and all the other great aspects of existence.
Let’s get together soon and drink until we can’t feel.
Lee
Colleen, I’d stop you for reasonable suspicion if I was a cop
Lee! That boycott on AZ iced tea is a great idea! Definitely an intelligent decision.
It’s not already a law in the respect that the regulations that exist in SB 1070 do not exist in the federal statute. It’s not redundant, it’s State specific. Read it. Quit saying it’s already a law because it’s not. What your saying is like saying that Gun Laws don’t need to be defined by states because they are already defined by the federal government. That is wrong. State’s rights allow them to make different laws, even against federal law. Just look at the Marijuana Laws in California. This is part of what is so great about the US. State’s Rights! Adopting and implementing state laws is supposed to be easier than federal law. This is intentional!
One of the things that is so wrong with our current government is how much control federal law has over states. Technically federal law isn’t supposed to have so much power but what happens is the Feds create laws by withholding funding unless a state complies. This, while not technically unconstitutional, is against the framers’ intent of the constitution. If Montana doesn’t want to have a speed limit then the US government shouldn’t be able to withhold funding for roads until they do. That’s just plain bullshit.
and don’t even get me started about the ###. (and other bullshit government agencies/programs/taskforces) who are created and appointed without the consent of the governed yet dictate policy, laws and generate bullshit studies to support their personal agendas.
Grrrr.
I’m just sick of the old white guys that come into my truck service shop and ask my co-worker paco, “what do ya think of that law in arizona?” with this “we got you mother fuckers” look on their faces… I want him to scream, “you stole our land years ago, now we are slowly out breeding you to take it back!” just to see their response… I would fight next to paco in his revolution, much better food on his side.
Well, they don’t get it either. Let it go my friend… Let go the self-loathing of thine forefathers as well. I think there is no argument that all things considered, the world is a better place for American Imperialism.
American imperialism has made the world a better place… unless you are from the middle east, Cambodian, Vietnamese, Panamanian, Nicaraguan… fuck it we’ll just say south american, from Detroit, new orleans, downtown los angeles or any of the other american cities left to rot while amurica (sic) fixes the rest of the world. I know, I know… let it go, can’t make a freedom omelette without breaking some collateral damage eggs.
All right Patrone, I am now going to destroy your logic piece by piece. But first, an admission of error: After reviewing the language of the law I have to concur there are a few items in there that are not redundant to current federal law.
HOWEVER, those things should be their own separate laws. The redundancies, which make up the lion’s share of the bill, are inappropriate and should not have been included. Redundant laws are like redundant HTML on a website. On the face of it, they don’t appear harmful, but they clutter the works and eventually, some funky shit always occurs because of it.
Now, follow along while I dismantle your logic piece by piece…
1. You keep howling about States rights, and I am waaaay down with the concept, but, it’s not a legit argument when the State wants to make laws that are unconstitutional.
That’s exactly why the Framers created a FEDERAL government to oversee the States. So that when, say, the state of Alabama decides to make a law requiring that blacks drink from a different water fountain, the Feds are able to say, “Um, no siree–that’s in violation of the Constitution, Yo.”
Ditto SB 1070. While I stand by my assertion that it’s not inherently a racist law, it is certainly a violation of civil rights.
I mean, c’mon “show me your papers” really? Is that the world you want to live in?
All you right wingers keep screaming about how it’s already a law that immigrants carry their documents with them at all times.
Oh man, what a fallacy of reasoning. Yeah, Duh, immigrants have to carry papers – but citizens don’t! So, when a cop suspects someone of being an illegal, but that person IS legal, but they DON’T have their driver’s license on them, which they are not required to have, they get handcuffed and taken downtown until they can prove they are a citizen.
2. American Imperialism has not made the world a better place, Dave. It’s made AMERICA a better place, at the expense of the places we Imperialize.
We live our fatcat lifestyles thanks, in part to all the land we stole, the gold we looted and the slaves we yoked over the years.
Hey man, I love America as much as the next guy, but let’s not be ignorant about our many flaws and follies.
3. Boycotting is a legitimate, non-violent, perfectly reasonable, totally patriotic way for people to express their discontent about something and nudge them to change. Yes, of course, there will be collateral damage, people will be hurt who have nothing to do with the bill, but that’s true of all aggressive actions, whether dropping bombs in the Middle East, or firing an employee because they were stealing from you.
The bottom line is, this law has made people mad and they want to send a message to the Arizona legislature, just as the Arizona Governor wanted to send a message to the Obama Administration (funny how they didn’t write this law when Bush was in office though, huh?) and there is nothing wrong with either action.
4. Lastly, you can not be “self-loathing of thine forefathers.” You can only be self loathing of thine self. Loathing of forefathers is “other-loathing.”
So there you have it Patrone, piece by piece your arguments have been dismantled, analyzed, and tossed into the heap with all the other absurd, illogical positions. Right there next to “civil union is the same thing as marriage” and “don’t ask don’t tell,” and “our laws are based on the Ten Commandments.”
WHO LOVES YA HOMEY
MUAH!
Oh, Colleen, sorry, forgot to respond to your question. Reasonable suspicion will be determined by judges. It’s that way with all sorts of laws. Cops all over the country are bound by “reasonable suspicion” when investigating crimes, not just Arizona. And let’s not forget our entire judicial system is based on “reasonable DOUBT.”
Yes, the word “reasonable” is ambiguous, but when you think about it, it’s really the best we can do. I mean, you can’t prohibit cops from stopping people no matter WHAT they are doing. And, you can’t say they can pull over anyone they want whenever they want. So, there has to be some sort of language that allows them to look for bad guys without harassing good guys.
Without “reasonable suspicion” a cop would not be allowed to burst down somebody’s front door if they heard a person being attacked by a knife inside.
The word reasonable is the best word for the situation because it allows for changing times, changing ideas – both with reasonable suspicion, and reasonable doubt — and is the best we can do in a world where there is no black and white, only a million shades of gray.
I’m going to assume you knew what I meant by self loathing cause that’s a topic that could take up a whole website. I don’t want to get into that one; but, I know you know what I mean.
According to many recent polls, the majority of Americans and Arizonans support this bill.
for instance:
People-press report
Wall Street Journal AZ immigration poll
Only a few in the media and on the web are crying out and most of them probably haven’t read the bill. I read it and although it references federal law (which is very common in state laws), it mostly defines how Arizona will deal with enforcement etc. I’ve already said it and it’s true, I’m not sure why you’re not reading this the same as I am. The only “redundancy” is when they quote federal law and that’s perfectly legit. Arizona isn’t sending a message to Obama, they’re reacting to recent killings and crimes by illegal immigrants.
I don;t even get into another country without a passport and I don’t know about you but I don’t go anywhere without my driver’s license unless I’m going running and if I were it would be pretty plain to a cop what I was doing and why I would justifiably not have “papers” even if I had a thick foreign accent, at least I would have a house key on me. A cop could easily take me back to my house where I would show him my ID. C’mon what’s so wrong with that? OH MY GOD! You mean I’m going to have to trust the judgment of a cop? OH that’s TERRIBLE! That is unbelievably PARANOID! It’s pretty clear to a cop who’s standing on a corner waiting for a bus and who’s standing on a corner waiting to get picked up to work. It’s illegal, let them enforce it! Let them have the tools to enforce the law. I’m sick of scumbags getting off because of our intricate legal system developed by rule of law grown from trial lawyers and frivolous lawsuits.
Oh yeah and by the way, a domestic partnership by definition in California Law is EXACTLY the same as marriage. Look it up. I did.
It’s only at the federal level that it’s different and that really only pertains to taxes and insurance.
I’m not against homosexual marriage having civil weight, I’m against ALL marriage having civil weight. I think it violates separation of church and state and I think you shouldn’t get civil benefits from a religious union. Make EVERYONE get Domestic Partnerships and give them equal civil weight under federal law and THEN you’ve got something constitutional!
If someone wants to get married in a church, so be it! but it should have no civil weight without a civil partnership.
As a matter of fact, some countries don’t even let you in if you’ve had a DUI like Canada for instance!
Sorry, one last thing:
It’s not like this bill builds a wall or does anything radical for people to be so upset about. It’s nothing, it basically outlines policy for Arizona’s law enforcement to follow. There aren’t any budget allocations or enforcement agencies created. It’s pure policy! This thing is a no-brainer! That’s why at least 7 other states are about to adopt similar legislation. This has been blown WAY out of proportion by alarmists.