Arizona's new crackdown on illegal immigration will increase crime in U.S. cities, not reduce it, by driving a wedge between police and immigrant communities, police chiefs from several of the state's and the nation's largest cities said Tuesday.I admit that I was a little concerned about this, even though I realized it was an Photo Op for Attorney General Eric H Holder, Jr and a chance for him to push his views, even though he may have still not read the Arizona law.
Fortunately, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was not mentioned in the article. But, he is, strangely, against the new Arizona law. And here is his ill-informed OpEd in the New York Daily News. Mr Bloomberg is the mayor of a city with a stop and frisk law. It would appear that he is, at best, inconsistent.
The New York Civil Liberties Union has come down against the New York City "stop and frisk" law, which is much more egregious than the Arizona Law.
Someone I know commented on the New York City law and its implementation:
Using the logic of the article, then one would be driving up crime in NYC because that S&F policy alienates the Black and Hispanic community, who will stop cooperating with police and would undermine community police in NYC. But as we know, crime has been going down since it was implemented. The NYC Police pull over, stop, and question more than 500,000 people a year to check for illegal guns (which is redundant as almost every gun is illegal in NYC). About 90% are Black and Hispanic (mostly young males).One thing I will say for Mayor Bloomberg is that he has one thing right:
One reason there is not as much uproar about S&F is that although it targets blacks and hispanics, it has driven down crime in those neighborhoods as well (and stopped thousands of murders). Blacks and hispanics might not like getting shaken down by cops, but many remember what it was like to be shaken down by drug dealers, and many are willing to put up with inconvenience/humiliation as the safety they now enjoy trumps that. When Giulinai ran for Mayor the 2nd time his precentage of the black vote went from 5% to 20%.
Bloomberg said that because federal lawmakers have failed to tackle the thorny issue, lawmakers in states like Arizona have taken matters into their own hands.I presume he means by not passing new immigration legislation.
"This country is committing national suicide," Bloomberg said.
Regards — Cliff
5 comments:
There is always enough ambiguity in law for reasonable people have different interpretations. Do we have clarity on what is a "lawful" stop, detention or arrest?
http://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/SB1070-HB2162.PDF
Personally, I find the national discussions (hystrionics) over laws regarding illegal immigration to be at best ill-conceived, cynically ambivalent, and certainly quasi and/or falsely egalitarian. In the case of Bloomberg, he has never allowed a political sound bite opportunity to pass by, even if his utterances leave folks confused. He is not above the old "do as I say, not as I do" axiom.
While the focus is on Mexicans, illegal immigration is a huge problem for the US and leaves us quite vulnerable to another 9/11 scenario. And, we can't be assured that the next terrorist isn't carrying a vial of botulin toxin or a suitcase nuke. We more or less assume that he or she will be Middle Eastern in appearance, but why not Mexican? Why not Columbian?
But of greater urgency is the personal cost to each American citizen. And it is this cost that has spurred AZ and OK (two years ago) to legislate at the state level against illegal immigrants. It is a quality of life issue for citizens. It is a safety issue for citizens. And...it is a LEGAL issue for society.
We have no idea of the nature of an illegal immigrants visit to the US. It could be quite innocuous, or it could be to extend a drug network, set up a kidnapping highway, settle some scores, or maybe just find a good job. In any event, the police need to determine the answer to those questions and many more. If the person is a simple laborer looking for a better life...fine...he or she simply gets sent back across the border. The rest of them will face a different outcome....and our safety will be improved.
I don't know about all the folks who read this particular blog, but my taxes are plenty high and going higher, and one of the reasons has to do with immigration and the lack of enforcement...unless there is a political gain to be had.
Sending them all back to where they came might not drop my tax rate precipitously, but it will reduce it to some extent and then we can work on the other causes.
"Lawful" stop and frisk?? I'll leave it up to the cops and the hoards of attorneys and courts to sort through that. I am interested primarily in the outcome....and I have no intention of doing something that would cause me to be stopped and frisked. That would be my recommendation to those who have a reason to want to avoid it.
Neal
I am thinking you were most of the way there toward avoiding Stop and Frisk a number of decades ago, when you picked Caucasian parents.
Joe
All laws await the irritations of the citizens and the decisions of the courts. I bet if RICO had been around in the 1950s the Civil Rights Movement would have had a much hard time of it.
Regards -- Cliff
Naive!
Neal wrote-
"Lawful" stop and frisk?? I'll leave it up to the cops and the hoards of attorneys and courts to sort through that. I am interested primarily in the outcome....and I have no intention of doing something that would cause me to be stopped and frisked. That would be my recommendation to those who have a reason to want to avoid it.
Yo, it is not about YOUR behavior, intent or willful act, IT IS about the cop(s). Also, we cannot afford such frivilous legal spending.
Nip it in the bud. Let's not put this tool in their bag.
---------------------------------
(Bold mine)
The controversial immigration law approved by Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer last week has drawn a storm of protest from civil rights activists who claim it will open the door to racial profiling in the southwestern border state.
Supporters of the law have repeatedly insisted that the measure expressly forbids racial profiling but said Friday that amendments made by lawmakers late Thursday had clarified the issue.
The initial law signed by Brewer last week said police were required to determine someone's immigration status if they formed a "reasonable suspicion" during any "lawful contact" with an individual.
That passage has now been changed from "lawful contact" to "stop, detain or arrest."
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0430/arizona-lawmakers-tweak-immigration-bill-lawful-contact-stop-detain-arrest/
Cliff, did I really get to pick?? It's been so long I forgot. But what if I lived in Ireland and had red hair and pale skin and was Catholic? Or was of some Slavic origin...living in a Muslim community in Bosnia. I hear the argument, but it is one of convenience I think. The problem at the moment is with illegal MEXICANS....so if you look latino....it is regretable...but for the sake of American citizens and in the interest of lowering our costs....maybe its worth a look at your documentation or absence of it.
Yeah...I know....racial profiling is a huge no-no...but don't we do that on the battlefield and in other human interactions? We ARE racial and we ARE tribal....and the UN isn't going to change it.
I don't mind having a Mexican family move in next door to me...as long as they are citizens of MY country and willing to share the burdens of citizenship in America. If on the other hand, they just want to live here because its nicer and want me to understand that while I pay my taxes they don't have to because they still owe their allegiance to Mexico. BS.
I grew up in a part of WA state that was hugely populated by Mexicans and Indians (the Yakima tribe and a few Shoshone thrown in for some reason). I never really saw them as being any different than me...except their suntans were much nicer. I carried that ambivalence toward skin color all my life and to this day. It ain't the color of the skin...its what you do in MY country. And since its illegal for me to look for illegals...even if Martha Coakly claims it is not illegal to be illegal in MA.....I have to depend on the cops to do it. If some of them overstep their authority....well...we can deal with them as a separate issue.
I am just not a believer in Washington's newest bogeyman, the failed state theory...and that we as the leader of the free world must save them all before they fail...or repair them when they do.
Post a Comment