ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1070
STATE OF ARIZONA SENATE BILL 1070
20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY
21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS
22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS
23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE,
24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE
25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
So, only if an officer saw a vehicle with, say, a tail light out could they pull them over. Because that would constitute "lawful contact".
And then, and ONLY then, if they had "reasonable suspicion...that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States..." could they make inquiries about their citizenship paperwork.
OK.
So you're an Arizona cop. There are 2 vehicles in front of you. They both have a burned out tail light.
One is a hunter green 2010 Volvo being drive by an elderly white woman with a "Svenska Flicka" bumper sticker.
The other vehicle is a rusted out 1976 Ford Econoline van packed to capacity with men who appear to be Hispanic surrounded by roofing materials or lawn care equipment.
Which vehicle, with identical violations, will the officer pull over and question?
If he pulls over the Volvo with the Swedish bumper sticker, will he feel compelled to ask the elderly, white driver for her Swedish passport, green card or visa?
Suppose the driver with the broken tail light is any other white person. Would the police officer ask if they are here illegally from France, England, Canada, Italy, Russia, Poland, Germany, Greece or Spain?
What, exactly, constitutes "reasonable suspicion...that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States..."?
This law is CLEARLY aimed it Hispanic and Latino immigrants and is therefore discriminatory, biased and unconstitutional.
The States don't have the authority or the legal standing to establish their own immigration policy or take it upon themselves to arbitrarily enforce federal laws according to their own interpretation.
This whole "illegal immigration" issue is a pathetic attempt to pander to the lowest common denominator of Right Wing paranoia in a vain attempt to halt the philosophical diaspora that is fragmenting their fundamental conservative core and sending their intellectually feeble drones scurrying for a rallying point.
They lack knowledge of, or deny the role of, the impact of immigrants (documented or undocumented) on our economy.
The Right Wing is confused, panicked, scared and looking for an easy enemy.
Joseph McCarthy blamed the Communists.
Lou Dobbs blames the Mexicans.
Same thing.
Posts
7 comments:
It doesn't matter. The cop has the legal right to pull over either one and ask for their license, registration and insurance and to check their record.
What if the two vehicles had the same issue and both drivers were white women? What if the two vehicles had the same issue and one driver was white and the other black? What if the two vehicles had the same issue and one driver was white and the other was wearing a hijab? What if the cop was black and one of the drivers was white and the other black?
You could go on and on. The potential for racism and abuse of power exists under all kinds of circumstances, whether in Arizona, Missouri or any other state.
One thing is for certain. If one of the cars had a white driver with a bald head, wearing sunglasses, and the car was a jeep with Missouri tags, I'd pull him over first for sure.
The panic is ON! Start learning Spanish boys!
AND what constitutes "proof of citizenship"? My husband is a naturalized brown man. He has a drivers license that he carries, but not a passport and neither of us carries our SS cards. He most certainly doesn't carry his naturalization papers everywhere.
This is America, a land where we shouldn't have to live in fear of being asked to produce "papers" at the whim of a barely past pubescence asshole with a gun and a badge on a power trip.
so maybe there is a problem stopping people on the street and checking their papers, but I don't see a problem asking for papers when getting government benefits,enrolling in school, getting in-state tuition,getting a job or going to vote.I've been asked to show mine every time.
The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants. This sets the stage for a clash between the federal government and Arizona over the SB1070 immigration crackdown.
Do you think the feds have a valid case? Are you happy that republican governor of Arizona will be spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to defend they law?
Share your opinion on all of Arizona's political issues at http://www.azlegislation.com
JOOLS - And you would be right to pull me over as I am generally up to sumpin!
POODLES - Exactly! The paranoid conservatives are trying to take us down a road where "everyone must have their papers in order" and produce them on demand. The Nazis required Jews to wear the Star of David so they could be easily identified. I'm sure the conservatives would love to require Mexicans to wear sombreros for the same reason. Rascist fucktards!
m.v. - Government benefits...I'm OK with that. Enrolling in school...not OK with that. Anyone should be able to get an education. In State Tuition...not OK with that. In state tuition is offered to anyone who lives in the state. U.S. citizenship is not required. Getting a job...legitimate businesses will require your SS# and only citizens have one. Cash only businesses don't give a fuck. Voting...actually you are not required to even show an ID, let alone prove citizenship in order to vote. Anyone walking into a polling station can be given a provisional ballot which will be validated after the fact.
ARIZONA - She wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars defending Krazy Kris Kobach's racist law if she hadn't pandered to the panicky, paranoid right wing nut jobs and signed the bill. She could have vetoed it on the grounds that individual states don't get to set, modify or enforce federal immigration policy. That would have avoided this whole hot mess.
Post a Comment