Of particular interest to me is this part of the article, talking to "Article 67 of Mexico's Population Law"
Authorities, whether federal, state or municipal ... are required to demand that foreigners prove their legal presence in the country, before attending to any issues.The article goes on to say the Interior Department acknowledges the problems and notes that the legislature is working to repeal what is obviously a law offensive to ....
What is not clear is whose Interior Department was being quoted, although I am guessing it is the Mexican Interior Department, under Mr Fernando Gómez-Mont.
IMHO there is a lot of misinformation about the new Arizona Immigration Law. Now it appears that some who are throwing stones live in glass houses. Others are just not getting their own work done.
I would like to note that the US Congress has failed in its responsibility to the Citizens of this nation with regard to immigration.&nbp; Not the Democrats or the Republicans, but the US Congress. It is a single entity and has responsibilities as a single agency. Laying the blame off on this party or that is a sign of leadership failure on the part of the US Congress. Further, this is not about the President. We have a powerful Congress and I think we should expect more out of them than we are getting. Let us not hear that the 535 members of the US Congress are whinging about the President not leading. I am betting that deep down inside most of those 535 men and women think they can do as good a job, if not better, than the President. Always have and always will. OK then, lets see some of that attitude in action.
I have recently been pretty busy and haven't been able to scan all the local blogs. Has anyone talked about the US Constitution, Article 1, Section 10 - 3 WRT the new Arizona Law?
Regards — Cliff
22 comments:
re-write
As in the other thread, my sympathies are divided.
Why are they bypassing the legal immigration process and migrating to the US in the first place? Are the legal means of immigration too strict? Some of these illegals are filling jobs, that no legal resident/citizen would do. Corporations/businesses exploit them, but just because the corporation particpated in the illegal activity, doesn't make the undocumented/illegal innocent in their own actions disregarding our legal immigration policies.
Think back to the New Bedford Immigration Raid back in 07'.
I don't want anyone to be exploited, but at what point are valid concerns being pushed aside.
I can't commit a crime, and make the argument and claim I'm a mother of four small children, don't punishment. But many did in the New Bedford Raid when mothers were detained. Everyone points fingers at the ICE, but what about the company that hired them. Why didn't critics and the government go after them more harshly, but mostly focused on the government's policies on the undocumented/illegal immigrants. I believe the owner of the factory only served 18 months, for essentially benefiting for illegal human trafficking.
In my opinion, US Constitution, Art.1, Section 10-3 is in many ways strikingly similar to the "so-called" Interstate Commerce clause which Congress has long relied on as authority for its statist actions to include Obamacare. Thus, its relevance to the issue of illegal immigration does not exist.
Second, I think that the AZ law is a stopgap measure that provides state authority to do what the Federal statutes already require, but are not enforced. AZ's codification of Federal law is in my opinion a defensive action taken to stem the economic and safety devastation caused by the illegal immigrants, and the processes that bring them here.
Recall that the DOJ delivered an edict that forebade Arapaho County Sheriff Arpaio (I think both the county and Sheriff's name are misspelled) from essentially performing immigration enforcement, even though the Feds refused to do so on anything other than a half-hearted cursory level.
Before any immigration reform legislation can be rewritten at the Federal level, the keystone issue is closing the borders. Otherwise, the law is essentially closing the barn door once all the horses are gone.
W/r Renee's assertion about illegals and corporate abuse. Well, it isn't that illegals do work that residents won't do. It is that because of their illegal status, employers can pay them a fraction of what it would cost to hire an American worker....and get away with it. It also allows employers to circumvent Federal and state workplace and employment rules and laws....this is particularly the case in the agriculture industry....even today.
Of course, there is the argument that we don't seal the borders with Canada, so why are we disparaging our southern neighbors? Well, there isn't much of a lemming rush over the US/Canadian borders...and Canada is arguably a bit more sensitive to folks using their country to stage into the US for terrorist or other illegal actions......"a bit more."
I note that Texas is on the eve of their own legislation similar to AZ. Unclear what NM or CA will ultimately do. At the moment, the loony tunes in CA want to boycott AZ.....but that has much more to long-standing issues than immigration alone....not to mention a LOT of political grandstanding.
We also have 287g Programs, in which ICE trains local law enforcement.
This is an issue back in 06' regarding Heally and Patrick. Here is a news article from 09' concerning the impact on local police. If you have a significant undocumented/illegal population, you don't want to lose community trust.
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) ripped into the new Arizona immigration law today, comparing it to Nazy Germany.
"This law of 'frontier justice' – where law enforcement officials are required to stop anyone based on 'reasonable suspicion' that they may be in the country illegally – is reminiscent of a time during World War II when the Gestapo in Germany stopped people on the street and asked for their papers without probable cause," Mack said in a statement.
"This is not the America I grew up in and believe in, and it’s not the America I want my children to grow up in," he added.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/95123-mack-r-compares-ariz-law-to-nazi-germany
..............................
I think Cliff is correct. It will take both parties to straighten this out.
Some splintering continues. Those associated with Bushes -- Jeb, Marco Rubio, and Karl Rove -- are all worried both substantively (and probably politically) by Arizona's law.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin supports it unabashedly.
http://www.gop12.com/2010/04/palin-slams-obama-for-encouraging.html
.............................
I don't want to be insensitive, but I am less worried about illegal's rights than I am about my own.
Do I look illegal?
In AZ, and in former half term Governor Palin's mind, it's up to the cops.
I am not thinking it is like Nazi Germany, or maybe Soviet Russia. In the 1960s, twenty years on, when traveling in Germany, I had to turn in my passport to the hotel clerk when I checked in, so he could take it to the police to check out. I have not experienced that more recently, but maybe things are better in Germany.
And, I think Mr Mack gets confused between probable cause and not probable cause. And, frankly, I think the Nazi comparison is overreaching. Comparing Arizona to Mexico might be more appropriate.
And, finally, did anyone get the irony of the overreaching Wasserman cartoon on the editorial page of The Boston Globe, next to the editorial that basically said, school official in Boston should ask students to "show their papers"?
Regards — Cliff
@Renee
My experience is from being married to a Brasilian immigrant, but I would venture to say this is common. I personally know several illegals. In MA, it is as likely that an illegal is from Canada or Ireland as from an "exotic" place, based on my experience.
Often, the pathway to "legal immigration" is subject to bribery, patronage and corruption.
In nations that underpay civil servants, those that have access to visa applications are often already well to do. Your average Jose with pie eyed dreams of streets paved with gold doesn't stand a chance of getting in the line.
So they cheat.
The system is cheating them, so they fight back in the manner that is readily available to them.
I just had to have a City Clerk notarize a paper that I swore, under oath, that my daughters is eligible for "in state tuition."
Are we going to try to distort the "show us your papers" meme to the n-th degree?
Ask Mike Hayden about such things, Cliff.
Piddle it away, if you like. The wing nuts have their asses hanging out in the breeze on this one.
I am saying that while MLK was an important person in helping to move civil rights for all American forward, he is in some ways symbolic of the work of many people. He is also one of the those people who paid the ultimate price. When we honor MLK we honor Rosa Parks and a lot of other people, and I would hope we honor folks like Eleanor Roosevelt, who also made a difference—for instance in getting Blacks into flight training and into the fight during WWII—and Alan Gropman who wrote about that struggle and continues to honor and support the Tuskeegee Airmen.
But, the person who may have done the most for the farm labor people in the Southwest and the Pacific Coast is Chavez. He has disappeared from public view since his death, but he was an important player in the 1970s and 1980s.
Success has a thousand fathers. Failure is an orphan.
Regards — Cliff
@ Jack
Having to constantly carry papers as proof is something that "Live Free or Die" Conservatives should be against.
Renee,
I'm sure we would agree, every American should be against such a thing.
There is nothing in the law that "requires" AZ law enforcement officers to stop someone for a document check. The document check will be performed incidental to another contact that meets the requirements of the 14th Ammendment.
This whole issue is a polarizing opportunity for groups on both sides of the "issue." Requiring "documentation" to be carried by foreign citizens who are here legally has been a law on the books for many, many moons. So what??? The purpose of that law is to provide authorities the means by which folks who AREN'T here via legal means to be indentified and shipped "home." The PROBLEM is that the "authorites" REFUSE to enforce that law uniformly across the fruited plains....if they enforce it at all.
What happens in other countries regarding the process of leaving to come to The Land of the Big BX is a matter for other countries to solve...and the US needs to keep its nose out of it. If you arrive at our border with an approved entry visa, fine. As the Chinese "say"...."No tickee, no laundry."
Much of the current illegal immigrant resentment stems from citizen taxpayers being forced to solve Mexico's socio-economic problems....and that unavoidably becomes a broad brush calling out ALL illegal immigrants.
The fault however, is that of the US for effectively having an open border that only encourages the problem.
AZ BTW is simply restating for the greatest part Federal law...already on the books....for years.
And while we are "branding" folks, I pretty much resent the label of "Live Free or Die Conservative." That implies a radical position that is the polar opposite of "Stay Alive by Surrendering Your Personal Freedoms Liberal." I think neither label is appropriate....or fair.
Maybe it's my ignorance of the Arizona law, but stopping someone merely to check their "papers" seems to be a clear contradiction to the Fourth Amendment which has held in place since 1791. Why hasn't the Tea Party raised objections based on the Constitution that they hold up when it is in their best interests? Certainly, the darling of the Tea Party is clear in her support for this intrusion into a person's privacy.
Even the Democrat's have included a national ID in their draft immigration reform bill. But I would hope the need for that ID is limited to applications, and identity requests resulting from primary offenses.
A re-post to assert that AZ law enforcement will be co-erced to act.
--------------------------------
The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the measure, even though many law enforcement unions and advocacy groups supported it.
John Thomas, a lobbyist for the Association of Chiefs of Police, said rural communities would be harmed disproportionately if residents are allowed to file lawsuits against cities or counties that do not enforce of federal immigration law. Many of those communities are small and do not have the ability to defend the suits, much less pay court costs and hefty fines if they lose.
“They may not have an attorney,” he said. “They barely have (enough) police.”
He suggested changing the bill to allow such suits to only be filed by county attorneys or the attorney general.
http://azcapitoltimes.com/blog/2010/02/24/sanctuary-cities-bill-ready-for-debate-on-house-floor/
Can't wait for the "Westboro Baptist Church"es of the anti-immigration world to figure out the smorgasbord of tax payers dollars that have been laid out to feast from.
Joe, police can't and won't stop someone to do a document check. That is indeed a violation of the 4th. However, if someone is stopped or hauled in for another infraction, documentation MAY be asked for....but an AZ driver's license is presumptive evidence of citizenship. FEDERAL law requires that a green card carrier keep it on their person at all times....so lets not kick AZ in the you know what for merely enforcing what Federal law already requires.
This whole thing is little more than a hyper-emotional partisan inspired tempest in a tea pot designed to make a class of citizens look greedy and racist. It's a familiar theme.....and a tiresome one.
BTW, OK has had a law on its books since 1 Nov 2007 regarding illegals that is much tougher than the new one in AZ....and of course...there were protests and gnashing of teeth along with dire predictions about the un-Constitutionality of their law, do dah, do dah, do dah. It is still on the books and being quietly and effectively enforced. TX will soon join them. CA.....don't hold your breath. San Diego and Orange County are already bedroom communities for Tijuana.....
I find it bothersome that Neal refuses to provide links that support his points.
Yes, this blog format is clunky, but it is doable
I tend to take Neal at his word, but links are always preferred. Especially since, when I have the time, I'll be inclined to Google.
I take Jack's point and assume responsibility for educating Neal on how to embed links. With a couple of Masters' degrees he should be able to master it.
Regards — Cliff
Just for you Jack.....just for you.
http://www.captc.org/pubpol/immigration/HB1804_factsandfiction.pdf
OK:
The bill does not require or allow law enforcement officials to attempt to determine the legal status of immigrants who have not been detained on a felony charge or DUI. Many police officials have publicly stressed that they lack the resources, the mandate or the desire to investigate the immigration status of anyone prior to detention.
http://www.captc.org/pubpol/immigration/HB1804_factsandfiction.pdf
So the OK law only allows verification based of detention for FELONY or DUI.
AZ:
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)
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
"ANY LAWFUL CONTACT"
Sorry, conservadudes. I think the Cardinal is closer to the correctomundo that you twoze.
C'mon Jack......read the law......the whole law. Lawful contact is not a stop and check based on perceived race or national origin. If you are an undocumented immigrant, and you speed and get stopped, or you are DUI and you get stopped, or you hold up a store and you get detained, or you shoot someone and the cops arrest you........INCIDENT to that they will check on your status. It is precisely what the Federal law already says....and frankly....no more. And it was YOU who made a big deal about the Guv modifying the law before the ink was wet.....and she went to great lengths to guarantee the rights of anyone in her state....IN her state.
You and the Cardinal....and all the rest can carp and whine all you want. The LAW has been on the books for years at the Federal level, for nearly 3 years in Oklahoma,will soon be on the books in TX.....and well, well, well.....lookee here at MA.....considering a very similar statute.....because illegal immigrants are cost YOU.....the MA taxpayer a bundle....not to mention eating up jobs..which YOU might not want to take....but SOMEONE who IS legal would love to have.....but can't get because the employer would rather pay cheat wages.
Good on AZ.....they are at least trying to solve the problem.
What's your idea Jack??? Instand citizenship for anyone who shows up at the US border....no background check.....just let them in......and lets make sure that they all get SS and Medicare....and if they have "proof" that they did military like things before they arrived....maybe we can arrange for the DoD to give them a full military pension like those who served 26+ years.
We need to spread it around a little more equally don't we Jack?
I wonder, if a crime happens in a neighborhood and cops go around looking for witnesses? Would that be considered "lawful contact?"
Not every dealing with the 5-O require the blues to be flashing.
A true story: I was a teenager, having a party. Cop shows up at my door, saying "Break it up. You don't want me coming in there, do you?" I retorted, "Don't you need a warrant?" He looked at me dead in the eye, "All I need to say is that I saw someone run into this house after I saw them breaking into a car." I informed the officer that the house would be empty in 15 minutes.
You can presume to know what I think or my opinion all you like, Neal. Blogging allows for such things. It hardly makes your fantastic rants true.
Knock yourself out apologizing for this breech of civil liberties. It's just the wetbacks! Big whoops, right?
For now.
I am amused, to a point, that some yahoo tells you conservatypes that some wrongdoers is out there and you roll & bitchup. Tap my phones. Give up habeas corpus. Allow torture. Now illegal search.
Staggering!
But whatevs. It's the rag heads. It's the Hajis. It's the wetbacks. Whatevs. NIMBY.
But then we elect Barack Hussein Obama. Now Glen Beck and Michelle Bachman tell you that you are a teabag away from an internment camp.
Frankly, you are struggling with a lack of a consistent logic stream.
Post a Comment