Posted by: arnegrim | April 28, 2010

AZ illegal immigrant law… continued…

Civil rights activists have decried the new law as “racist,” but Palin dismissed the attacks during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

“There is no ability or opportunity in there for the racial profiling,” she said. “Shame on the lame stream media again for turning this into something that it is not.”

Palin then blamed the president for allowing the “myth” that the law allows racial profiling to take hold.

“It’s shameful, too, that the Obama administration has allowed…this to become more of a racial issue by perpetuating this myth that racial profiling is a part of this law,” she said.

“Governor Jan Brewer did what she had to do as the CEO of that state,” Palin said. “To help protect the citizens of her state she had to do what the federal government has refused to do, and that is help secure the border.”

I agree.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36467.html

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Again, how will the law be enforced? What will be the probable cause for suspecting that someone is here illegally?

    You agree that Brewer is the “CEO” of her state? That’s ridiculous. She’s a governor, not a CEO. There’s a difference.

  2. Perhaps you should ask the lawmakers of AZ who say that it does not allow for racial profiling…

    As for ‘CEO’, it’s an odd point to argue… a CEO is the ‘top dog’ of a business… she is the ‘top dog’ of AZ… do you truly have a problem with the comparison… or with Palin?

  3. No, I’m asking you, Rob, as a supporter of the law to explain it to me.

    You can cut the insinuations. Palin herself has nothing to do with it, though I find it interesting that Fox News has apparently chosen her as a go-to for policy discussion.

    I do have a problem with the comparison on these grounds: a CEO runs a private, for-profit business largely designed to benefit the business owner and/or the shareholders. A governor oversees and leads a public, not-for-profit state. I see a difference, though if you do not, that’s fine, and I don’t see any need to disagree with you.

  4. There are some instances where I trust the leaders of the government… in this case, I trust the leaders of AZ to have created a law that not only allows enforcement of the immigration policy, but to do so in a way that will stand up in court against the accusations of racism.

    What insinuations? You had an issue with a comment made by Palin… I don’t see her referring to anything more than the ‘person in charge’… you see it differently. I’m just wanting to clarify WHY you see it differently. Am I wrong in thinking that you, for the most part, disagree with Palin and her stances?

  5. So you think the law is open to those accusations, then? Can you explain what protections are in place to avoid racial profiling?

    The insinuation on Palin. I can see why you made it now. No, my problem was not her *per se* but with the stupidity of her statement. I hope I clarified why I see it differently.

    Yes, you know for the most part I disagree with Palin and her stances! 😉

  6. Rob, I just read the immigration bill. On page 2, it says, “B. 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.” (lines 20-24).

    It also says, “E. A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES.” (lines 37-29)

    The bill does not spell out what constitutes “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion.” This is what I find troubling. It appears to grant a lot of leeway to officers.

  7. Whether or not I think the law is open to those accusations is moot, those accusations are already being made… and the plan is to challenge the law in court or try to have it repealed through a public vote.

    I see more clearly your issue with ‘CEO’… but I think you’re reading too much into the term and not enough into the context.

  8. Possibly… but I imagine there are a number of laws that give the officer quite a bit of ‘leeway’… why is this one outrageous? Why is immigration so taboo when it comes to enforcement?

  9. You are likely right (to both points). This bill, however, places officers in the ridiculous position of having an outside observer challenge them in court for not carrying out the full extent of the law (supposing, for example, that an officer did not think there was “reasonable suspicion” but someone else did). This clearly exists to put pressure on the officers to find reasonable suspicion to require a documentation check.

  10. That’s what defense attorneys are for… and why they exist… to poke holes in prosecutor’s cases. That includes pointing out where a police officer didn’t perform the correct ‘steps’. But there are a number of laws like that. Every time there is a search and seizure the officers run the risk of not having dotted some i or crossed some t to make the whole thing dismiss-able… and that’s just one law. There comes a point where you the laws have to be enforced… or removed. If you don’t enforce immigration laws, why have them? If you don’t enforce child pornography laws, why have them? If you don’t enforce vehicle speed limit laws, why have them? Take your pick.

  11. This is on page 3:

    G. A PERSON MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY
    12 OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL
    13 SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY THAT LIMITS OR
    14 RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL
    15 EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW. IF THERE IS A JUDICIAL FINDING THAT AN
    16 ENTITY HAS VIOLATED THIS SECTION, THE COURT SHALL ORDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
    17 1. THAT THE PERSON WHO BROUGHT THE ACTION RECOVER COURT COSTS AND
    18 ATTORNEY FEES.
    19 2. THAT THE ENTITY PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT LESS THAN ONE THOUSAND
    20 DOLLARS AND NOT MORE THAN FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH DAY THAT THE POLICY
    21 HAS REMAINED IN EFFECT AFTER THE FILING OF AN ACTION PURSUANT TO THIS
    22 SUBSECTION.

  12. Sounds like a pretty good incentive for the officers to avoid racial profiling…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: