Menu
Statement by Jan Brewer
Yesterday US District Judge Susan Bolton made an historic and courageous decision in blocking the major parts of Arizona’ controversial new immigration law. But the fight is not over, as proven by this statement released on the state’s official website by Governor Jan Brewer. In my opinion we can not forget that the issue here is less illegal immigration, and more protecting the rights of individuals given by the Constitution of the United States.
I ask …Why isn’t the Tea Party fighting to protect these rights?
STATEMENT BY GOVERNOR JAN BREWER
PHOENIX – “I am disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling enjoining several provisions of “The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” — SB 1070; though I am heartened by some findings – including the ban on sanctuary cities.
“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.
“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
“For anyone willing to see it — the crisis is as clear as is the federal government’s failure to address it.
“The judge herself noted that the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona and that, ‘You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored.’”
“When I signed the bill on April 23rd, I said, SB 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to address a crisis we did not create and the federal government has actively refused to fix. The law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring
that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona are undiminished – holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.
“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of
Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.
“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue? I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action.”
“I ask …Why isn’t the Tea Party fighting to protect these rights?”
Which rights?
Regards — Cliff
The Fourth Amendment sounds about right to me. In Mapp v. Ohio the Supreme Court specified that this did in fact apply to states as well as the federal government. (I find it amazing that that never came up before 1961).
The concern isn’t protecting the “right” of illegal immigrants. And the protection against unreasonable search and seizure isn’t what bothers me the most. The problem is that American police officers will be walking up to American citizens saying “your papers please.” Why does anyone think this is a good idea?
There is also the, albeit minor, technicality that the Constitution gives the right to regulate immigration to the federal government. That being said, I gave up on hoping the Republicans would stop ignoring inconvenient parts of the Constitution years ago.
I guess I misunderstood the Arizona Law. My understanding was that Police Officers will NOT be asking for papers on the street. That reminds me of The Third Man. Queue the Zyphers.
This is not like New York City, where the police can stop you on the street and frisk you to see if you are carrying a gun. I guess that if they don’t ask for ID it is OK and not a violation of one’s Constitutional Rights. The Arizona Law says that if you get brought down to the station because you did something wrong they check your immigration status. That is a far cry from “Papers Please”.
To have a decent discussion we all need to get on the same sheet of music. What does the Arizona Law say? Are there other examples of Police being allowed to stop people on the street without probable cause?
Now, if the argument is that some Police Officer in Arizona might move outside the law and stop people to check their nationality, then I say that the ACLU should step in and nail that particular Police Officer and his or her partner and nail them hard. Darned tooten. These things do happen. When I was going through pilot training, back before the earth started to cool, we have a Black West Point Graduate in the class behind me and driving his new Jag down through Alabama to Selma every State Troop pulled him over, or so it seemed to him. That kind of thing is flat wrong. On the other hand, Police in Phoenix, investigating a kidnapping, might well want to know if the suspect has ties to Mexico and probing in that direction seems perfectly legitimate. It will become more so as the Cartels penetrate further into the United States.
Regards — Cliff
Directly quoting from the bill:
“FOR ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY OTHER LAW OR ORDINANCE OF A COUNTY, CITY OR TOWN OR THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES…”
And Cliff, the ACLU is going to be very, very busy. The police are going to pull you over if they want to pull you over.
Also from the bill:
“A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.”
As far as I can tell, there’s nothing about being brought down to the station before they check your documentation.
As far as New York City goes, you’re changing the conversation. Every time I respond to a deviation from the topic at hand the comments all seem to drift away from the original post, but I’ll do it once more.
I wasn’t familiar with NYC’s “stop and frisk” policy. The police seem to like it; in 2009, 762 guns confiscated, 6,000 other weapons, and 34,000 arrests. 2009 also saw a mere 412 homicides in the city. As far as I can tell, the policy hasn’t been challenged in court yet, unlike the Arizona law. But I’m not going to defend it; African Americans and Latinos are 9 times as likely as whites to be stopped. It’s just like the Arizona law; attacking the symptoms, not the problem.
New York DID try to solve the problem; they went after the Virginia gun sellers who provided most of the weapons used in homicides in NYC. But the Bush Administration’s Justice Department ordered NYC to stop their investigations.
Anyone who thinks the Arizona law will actually solve the problem of illegal immigration has been spending a bit too much time in the sun. But that’s beside the point; the law is unconstitutional. But if Arizona’s government was actually serious about dealing with immigration then they’d be lobbying their congressional delegation to introduce bills into the House and Senate rather than writing a bill right out of a Southern Strategy play book. But I’m not going to hold my breath on the Arizona delegation writing any legislation that would actually solve the problem; it’s too convenient of a campaign issue to solve.
“ANY LAWFUL STOP, DETENTION OR ARREST”. So, it seems to me that this says it is not just a case of “papers please”. The ACLU might find itself busy early on, but that is why I pay my dues to them.
You said “I wasn’t familiar with NYC’s “stop and frisk” policy. The police seem to like it…”. I don’t care if the Police like it. It is the same sort of thing. Why is it OK in NY, here in the liberal North East, but not OK in the South West, where we think all those rabid Republicans live? It reminds me of a speaker I once heard (must have been 1982 or 83) who explained that President Reagan didn’t understanding foreign policy because he was from the wrong part of the country. Now those chickens are coming home to roost.
Regards — Cliff
“…WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN AND IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES”
This qualifier allows ambiguous interpretation and is open to abuse.
My reading is different.
Regards — Cliff