Arizona Immigration Law - SB 1070

[Bob]

I'm surprised this topic hasn't yet been discussed in this forum. For those of us who are watching American news, this story is getting a lot of attention these days.

Here's a link to the bill.

From the bill - 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.

I think the language "lawful contact" has since been been amended to something else. I can't remember or find the new language, but I think now the language is more specific regarding the circumstances under which someone in Arizona can be asked to provide proof of legal presence in the USA. I think it now specifies that during a lawful stop or detention that state and local law enforcement can request proof of legal presence in the USA from whomever is being stopped or detained.

Regarding the controversy in the news, I entirely understand why certain groups of people like Latinos/Hispanics might be wary of this new law, as many might suspect that it will lead to unpleasant encounters with law enforcement. I think Jan Brewer (I saw an interview with her on CNN the other day) and other proponents of this bill have done little to nothing to acknowledge and understand reservations that many people (primarily Latinos/Hispanics), and assuage their concerns by reminding them that racial profiling is still illegal at the federal level and that law enforcement will not be going around harassing certain visible minorities. I think the government and proponents of this bill have failed miserably in addressing the reservations with compassion and empathy, and instead went into full-blown defensive mode, which probably perpetuated the political gap between what they're trying to sell (the utility of SB 1070) and those they're trying to sell it to (Arizonans who are opposed to it for both valid and invalid reasons).

On the other hand, the opponents of this bill (the demonstrations/protests) seem to do little to nothing to acknowledge that there is a serious problem of illegal immigration in Arizona and other Mexico/USA border states. The Federal Government has done very little to address this problem. So, states like Arizona need to take matter into their own hands, for example with the passing of SB 1070 in Arizona. The loudest of the opponents of this bill unfairly describe it as racist/Nazi-esque (do I even need to explain why these comparisons are absurd?), and seem to be the type of people that want a stateless and borderless world without any laws whatsoever.

Hopefully I'm not alone in thinking that this bill is a good idea, but the communications department of the Arizona Governor needs some serious help in selling its goods.

Edited May 1, 2010 by Bob

[Shady]

Hopefully I'm not alone in thinking that this bill is a good idea, but the communications department of the Arizona Governor needs some serious help in selling its goods.

I agree. At first I bought into much of the disinformation of the opponents of this law. But when one actually reads the specifics of the legislation, much of the myths about racial profiling are put to rest.

[BubberMiley]

But when one actually reads the specifics of the legislation, much of the myths about racial profiling are put to rest.

Funny you never did that when you parroted your Sarah about death panels in the healthcare legislation.

[Bob]

I agree. At first I bought into much of the disinformation of the opponents of this law. But when one actually reads the specifics of the legislation, much of the myths about racial profiling are put to rest.

The media seems to perpetuate this gap in understanding, by propping up a proponent against an opponent for a 5-minute talking point segment. I've noticed that the opponents often make misleading statements suggesting that Latinos/Hispanics are going to start experiencing widespread harassment by the police (an understandable concern, although manageable through precedents) and an unsympathetic proponent who simply rails against illegal immigration without addressing the concerns of the opponents. Why not simply invite a few rational folk, perhaps legal experts, to address the merits and possible shortcomings of the law (I did see Avery Friedman and Richard Herman discuss this law briefly on CNN this morning with Fredricka Whitfield).

Here's an interesting side note, when I watched Jan Brewer in an interview, she said at least twice that illegal immigration brings in terrorism. How can you sell the merits of this new law without expressing any understanding towards the reservations of Latinos/Hispanics and then even using hyperbolic statements such as suggesting that terrorists named Miguel and Pedro are coming in through Mexico?! We all know illegal immigration is a big problem, draining the economy in several ways. Why didn't Jan Brewer focus on the facts regarding the problems of illegal immigration rather than trying to scare people by talking about terrorism (which I saw as a semi-reference to 9/11, which qualifies as most Americans' initial thoughts of terrorism)?

I think I'm rambling, so I'll stop there.

[Bob]

Funny you never did that when you parroted your Sarah about death panels in the healthcare legislation.

Sarah Palin's "death panel" comments are a perfect example of the bullshit rhetoric that we all-too-often see from the media and policians (I guess Sarah Palin qualifies as a quasi-politician, now...).

[Topaz]

Maybe the west should get out of the Middle-East and come back home and help all these illegals fight to drive out all those drug lords out of Mexico so its safe for them to stay in their own home land. The Mexican government is either too weak or is part of the drugs scene and violence going on down there.

[Argus]

There are two targets of this bill. The first is Obama and his timid federal government. The Democrats are terrified of alienating (no pun intended) the Hispanic vote, and so do nothing about the massive numbers of illegals flooding across their southern border. The second target are the municipal politicians within Arizona who cater to the Hispanic vote, more specifically, to the loud, vocal "ethnic representative" types, and so have protected illegals. In certain places in the US, in Arizona, which are known as "sanctuary" cities and towns, places where, offically or unofficially, municipal officials and police look the other way in terms of immigration status, and simply pretend everyone they deal with, even if they don't speak a word of English, is a citizen. Phoenix and Tuscon are considered sanctuary cities.

Edited May 2, 2010 by Argus

[Guest TrueMetis]

There are two targets of this bill. The first is Obama and his timid federal government. The Democrats are terrified of alienating (no pun intended) the Hispanic vote, and so do nothing about the massive numbers of illegals flooding across their southern border. The second target are the municipal politicians within Arizona who cater to the Hispanic vote, more specifically, to the loud, vocal "ethnic representative" types, and so have protected illegals. In certain places in the US, in Arizona, which are known as "sanctuary" cities and towns, places where, offically or unofficially, municipal officials and police look the other way in terms of immigration status, and simply pretend everyone they deal with, even if they don't speak a word of English, is a citizen. Phoenix and Tuscon are considered sanctuary cities.

America doesn't have an official language, it doesn't matter if they speak english or not.

[bush_cheney2004]

America doesn't have an official language, it doesn't matter if they speak english or not.

Correct...but some Canadians afflicted with Anglo-Francophone disease think it also applies to the United States, which actually has a very long history with Espanol. We even have a state named "New Mexico".

[Guest American Woman]

There are two targets of this bill. The first is Obama and his timid federal government. The Democrats are terrified of alienating (no pun intended) the Hispanic vote, and so do nothing about the massive numbers of illegals flooding across their southern border.

As opposed to Bush who wanted to grant all illegal immigrants legal status? I can only assume that's because Bush was terrified of alienating the Hispanic vote too.

The second target are the municipal politicians within Arizona who cater to the Hispanic vote, more specifically, to the loud, vocal "ethnic representative" types, and so have protected illegals.

I guess that would make Bush a loud, vocal "ethnic representative" type, who wanted to protect illegals by giving them legal status.

In certain places in the US, in Arizona, which are known as "sanctuary" cities and towns, places where, offically or unofficially, municipal officials and police look the other way in terms of immigration status, and simply pretend everyone they deal with, even if they don't speak a word of English, is a citizen. Phoenix and Tuscon are considered sanctuary cities.

Typically police in a "sanctuary city" are prohibited by law to question immigration status without criminal cause. So they aren't "pretending" anything.

And FYI, half of the States have at least one city offering sanctuary to illegal immigrants, and two states offer sanctuary to them: Oregon and Maine.

[Bob]

America doesn't have an official language, it doesn't matter if they speak english or not.

Maybe humour doesn't always carry over well in discussion forums, but assuming you're NOT joking - do you seriously think that America's absence of an official language makes concerns of Americans regarding the ability of immigrants (legal and otherwise) to communicate in English unimportant? In other words, does the legitimacy of the desires of Americans to have immigrants to their country be able to communicate in English depend on the existence of official language laws?

Where does common sense fit into this equation?

[bush_cheney2004]

....In other words, does the legitimacy of the desires of Americans to have immigrants to their country be able to communicate in English depend on the existence of official language laws?

It is less a matter of what the English speaking Americans want and more a matter of what an immigrant must do to be successful. The USA has more spoken languages than Canada, but states do have official English language laws, with provisions to deliver services in other languages as well. In commerce, we find that multi-lingual capability is better for business than an English only stance.

[Guest American Woman]

In certain places in the US, in Arizona, which are known as "sanctuary" cities and towns, places where, offically or unofficially, municipal officials and police look the other way in terms of immigration status, and simply pretend everyone they deal with, even if they don't speak a word of English, is a citizen.

America doesn't have an official language, it doesn't matter if they speak english or not.

Actually, in most instances, in order for one to become a naturalized citizen (and Argus was referring to "citizens"), one must "be able to speak, read, and write simple English."

[Bob]

It is less a matter of what the English speaking Americans want and more a matter of what an immigrant must do to be successful. The USA has more spoken languages than Canada, but states do have official English language laws, with provisions to deliver services in other languages as well. In commerce, we find that multi-lingual capability is better for business than an English only stance.

I still think any country's residents have a legitimate basis for wanting immigrants to their country to be able to communicate in the country's primary language(s). I don't know what the immigration process is like in the USA, but assuming that immigration is handled at the federal level, I'll further assume that there are some basic language standards in English that most immigrants must fulfill in order to be accepts (perhaps there are exceptions to refugees or those who are sponsored).

I know in Canada, at the provincial and municipal levels, there is some flexibility and adaptation to the language environment. I know you can take the written portion of the driving exam in Ontario in quite a few languages, as an example. I'm also sure there are many municipal and provincial services available in Cantonese and Mandarin in Vancouver.

As far as commerce goes, there is certainly a culture of flexibility here. I've seen large Canadian business (banks, for example) offering services in several languages. It's inaccurate to suggest that Canada is too archaic in our business with respect to language. Given our French/English-bilingualism fiascoes, though, it's understandable to think that we're a bit messed up up here.

[bush_cheney2004]

.....I don't know what the immigration process is like in the USA, but assuming that immigration is handled at the federal level, I'll further assume that there are some basic language standards in English that most immigrants must fulfill in order to be accepts (perhaps there are exceptions to refugees or those who are sponsored).

Just for basic things:

"Language

Applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language. Applicants exempt from this requirement are those who on the date of filing:

have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 15 years or more and are over 55 years of age;

have been residing in the United States subsequent to a lawful admission for permanent residence for periods totaling 20 years or more and are over 50 years of age; or

have a medically determinable physical or mental impairment, where the impairment affects the applicant’s ability to learn English."

I know in Canada, at the provincial and municipal levels, there is some flexibility and adaptation to the language environment. I know you can take the written portion of the driving exam in Ontario in quite a few languages, as an example. I'm also sure there are many municipal and provincial services available in Cantonese and Mandarin in Vancouver.

Also true in for US states and territories.

As far as commerce goes, there is certainly a culture of flexibility here. I've seen large Canadian business (banks, for example) offering services in several languages. It's inaccurate to suggest that Canada is too archaic in our business with respect to language. Given our French/English-bilingualism fiascoes, though, it's understandable to think that we're a bit messed up up here.

I'm sure Canadian firms are just as "flexible"...that is the point...no sense in falling into such a cultural trap at the expense of business in a global economy. I have worked on several retail point-of-sale systems for export to Canada and that means "French Canadian"....not the English language.

[ironstone]

The major US networks certainly seem to be covering this story in different ways.Once again,FOX stands alone.Apparently,police DO NOT have the authority to randomly stop people and demand to see identification.They can only ask for ID if they have caught and detained someone for some sort of violation.Kind of a big thing for the critics to omit isn't it?This law doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

[Bonam]

Yup the law sounds fine to me too. The people disparaging it are very blatantly misrepresenting what the law actually says.

[Oleg Bach]

Have the Americans forgotten what sovereignty is? You have people that are demanding rights under the constitution who are not citzens. That is akin to a next door neighbor coming into your house and demanding the same domestic rights and privledges that you have - that your wife has and your children have...yet they are not family nor has the interloper been formally adopted into said family or nation..the Yanks are just plain stupid.

[sharkman]

You may have heard that the city council of Los Angeles has voted to boycott Arizona in response to the Immigration law passed there. Recently a letter from Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the state utility regulation panel, came to light. It reveals that Los Angeles is being a little selective in what they choose to boycott.

I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies — a vote you strongly supported — to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).

You explained your support of the boycott as follows: “While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars — or the withholding of our dollars — to send a message.” (emphasis added)

I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the “resources and ties” we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

If you ask me Los Angeles, a financially troubled city in a state teetering on bankruptcy, should quit trying to harm another state's economy and worry about their own.

Edited May 21, 2010 by sharkman

[DogOnPorch]

Arizona has its reasons...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaloa_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juarez_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tijuana_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Negros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Familia_Michoacana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltran-Leyva_Cartel

...etc.

[naomiglover]

Arizona has its reasons...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_gang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaloa_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juarez_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tijuana_Cartel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Zetas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Negros

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Familia_Michoacana

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltran-Leyva_Cartel

...etc.

Racist laws are not going to get rid of gangs and drugs.

[naomiglover]

I was in Arizona when this law was passed. I really don't see how Arizona can function without the paperless Mexicans. I haven't looked into the validity of a comment I heard on TV, but it was said that 35% of Mexicans who are doing low-skilled jobs are illegal. How can you get rid of these 35% of workers and not see a huge negative effect on the state economy? I doubt most whites will do the jobs that the Mexicans are doing.

I just don't see this racist and xenophobic law lasting long. There is going to be too much national resistance. Many cities have already boycotted Arizona and many more will follow.

[DogOnPorch]

Racist laws are not going to get rid of gangs and drugs.

Do you really think all Arizona law enforcement officials are non-Latino? Typical thinking from your corner...

BTW: Seems the law applies to those already pulled over for some offence. Meaning the law would target those already breaking the law. Do you like those breaking the law over those who do not? This is a targeting of illegal immigrants breaking the law...not ones that came into Arizona via the legal way and shopping at the Target.

Also, any of those gangs would kill your mother and father in front of you to make a point. Ignore them at all of our risk. Or do you actually think they'd spare the likes of you due to your 'progressive attitude'?

It may be touchy as laws go...but the situation is beyond critical in many regions of the US-Mexico border.

[Guest American Woman]

It may be touchy as laws go...but the situation is beyond critical in many regions of the US-Mexico border.

Evidently other states are following suit:

One of America's national organizations fighting against illegal immigration is announcing that 17 states are now filing versions of Arizona's SB 1070 law which is designed to help local police enforce America's existing immigration laws.

Numerous national and local polls indicated that 60-81% of Americans support local police enforcing immigration laws. link

The states are: ARKANSAS, IDAHO, INDIANA, MARYLAND, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, MISSOURI, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW JERSEY, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, PENNSYLVANIA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, TEXAS, UTAH

Edited May 21, 2010 by American Woman

[naomiglover]

BTW: Seems the law applies to those already pulled over for some offence. Meaning the law would target those already breaking the law.

Previously, officers could check someone's immigration status only if that person was suspected in another crime. Now, they can ask for immigration status and papers if the person looks like they are illegal.

How exactly do you profile an illegal person?

This law is severely flawed.

Edited May 22, 2010 by naomiglover