Posts Tagged ‘Arizona’
New Arizona law thanks to Bay Area flag fiasco?
San Francisco may have started the “boycott Arizona” conversation after SB 1070 became law, but thanks to a Bay Area high school, Arizona might be considering another heavy-handed, anti-Latino law soon.
Four students at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, a community about an hour south of San Francisco, were given an ultimatum regarding their American flag-bearing attire on Cinco de Mayo: go home or be suspended. Daniel Galli and four friends were asked to remove their American flag bandannas and turn their American flag T-shirts inside out. Administrators though the shirts were “incendiary” and would lead to fights.
“They said we could wear it on any other day,” Galli said, “but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it’s supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today.”
Maybe such cultural sensitivity and general sissiness flies in liberal, nearly bankrupt, pot-smoking states like California, but that’s not how it works in Arizona. When word reached the office of Russell Pearce, recently endeared to the world as the author of SB 1070, the Republican senator burst into action. Pearce immediately began writing a new bill to guarantee similar situations never happen in Arizona. Here’s what he’s come up with so far:
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona
Section 1. Intent
The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in not ever doing anything similar to what those crazy stoner Californians did making those patriotic high school students remove their American flag attire in order to make Mexicans feel more comfortable on “their holiday.” (Note to self: Find out exactly what Cinco de Mayo means besides half-price tequila shots so I can legislate against that, too.) The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to always allow patriotic Americans to display the nation’s flag and colors while never allowing other persons present in this country to make similar displays of their nations’ flag and colors.
Sec. 2. The Arizona Revised Statutes are to be amended by adding the following: (Note: Have intern figure out where this needs to go.)
DISPLAY OF AMERICAN FLAG AND COLORS: The display of the American flag and colors is always permitted. Attempting to prevent said display is a class 1 felony. DISPLAY OF FOREIGN FLAG AND COLORS: The display of foreign nations’ flags and colors is never permitted. Attempting said displays is a class 1 felony.
VAGUE DISPLAY OF COLORS: It was brought to the legislature’s attention that at certain times, foreign colors may be displayed for a purpose other than nationalism and American colors may be displayed for a purpose other than patriotism. To clarify, persons in the State of Arizona must follow the following guidelines.
DISPLAY OF AMERICAN COLORS: Red, white and blue must be displayed together in a manner so as not to confuse observers for their purpose. There is nothing worse than displaying these strong, patriotic colors and being mistook for a sissy Frenchie, neanderthal Brit, commie Russian or Cuban, etc. Therefore, the American colors must be in a pattern recognizable as American – i.e., 4th of July designs, that patriotic bunting stuff on county fair stages, with stars or a badass eagle. Other uses, such as those hip Obama posters are not allowed. Similarly, use of singular colors red, white or blue, is not allowed. They go together, you know!
DISPLAY OF FOREIGN COLORS: Foreign colors may no longer be used in combination unless easily recognizable as a corporate logo. Example: red, white and green, while traditionally Christmas colors, are also Mexican colors. As Christmas is not a Mexican holiday, but an American one, blue should replace green as a Christmas color immediately. Red and yellow, while the colors of those devious, tiny Chinese people, is most recognizable as McDonald’s. This should not be discontinued. (Note: Somebody clean this up. You know what I’m going for, here.)
Do you think the irony is lost on him?
Cutting through the B.S. about SB 1070.
Enough with news reports talking about the protests on either side. It's time for some good old-fashioned, boring legal analysis by someone who is not an expert.
By now, chances are you’ve heard about and formed an opinion on Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (PDF), AKA the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, AKA that immigration law that has everyone upset with Arizona and various entities pretending they’re the U.N. and preparing to impose economic sanctions.
Regrettably, thus far coverage of the bill has focused on the fallout. Group A is angry about the potential civil rights violations. Group B is angry about the fact group A would even consider being angry. The ACLU is considering a lawsuit at the behest of group A. Group B … well, group B owns a lot of guns, so I won’t go on about them.
The point is, reports have been quick to briefly summarize the bill and move on to the (overwhelmingly negative) reactions. But paraphrasing the law as giving police “broad power to detain people they reasonably suspect are illegal immigrants and arrest them on state charges if they do not have legal status” doesn’t do much to clarify why opponents are so up-in-arms other than they don’t want the police to have broad power.
SB 1070 is an addendum to Arizona statutes already in place, and the main part of it does address the power of state agencies to enforce federal immigration law. The legislation adds article 8 to Title 11, chapter 7 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, and it appears to be what opponents hate and supporters love.
The new article prohibits law enforcement agencies from making any policies that don’t allow the full enforcement of federal immigration laws. Conceivably, this is the legislature’s way of ensuring everyone is on the same page. If the state’s law is the maximum enforcement level of federal laws, then there will be considerable pressure on law enforcement agencies to follow the new bill to the letter. There is an additional incentive: agencies are subject to civil suits for failing to enforce the law.
Most of the other parts of this new article are pretty straightforward. Illegal immigrants will be turned over to the federal government after serving any sentence or paying any fines. Arizona law enforcement has access to federal immigration records as allowed by law.
Presumably, the opposition has focused on two sections of article 8. The first requires police officers, during “any lawful contact,” to verify immigration status “where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.” The other section allows officers to arrest someone if there is probable cause to believe he or she has committed any crime punishable by deportation, no warrant required.
Opponents of the law are right to question the latitude granted to law enforcement officials in this case. “Lawful contact” can cover any circumstance, including consensual contact initiated without probable cause when the person doesn’t know he or she may refuse. Combined with the vagueness of what reasonable suspicion of legal presence is – poor English? certain race(s)? Obama supporter? fashion sense? – it’s a recipe for civil rights disaster.
And despite the “when practicable” qualifier, this section leaves the door wide open in regards to who, when and where officers may demand to verify immigration status. Before reading the text of this bill, I was skeptical about immigrants being afraid to cooperate in criminal investigations out of fear of deportation. After reading it, however, it’s clear that there really isn’t a provision to prevent a victim or witness from being asked for immigration papers. That’s a glaring omission the legislature should have addressed.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the other section of the bill in question crosses the line by explicitly allowing police to arrest based merely on probable cause. Under normal circumstances, that isn’t unconstitutional. If it were, there would be very few arrests in the U.S. Take driving under the influence; if a police officer determines someone is driving while drunk or otherwise intoxicated using sobriety, blood or breath tests, the arrest happens then and there. The officer doesn’t have to record the findings, request a warrant and then go find the person again.
The Arizona law, however, doesn’t distinguish any situation as different from another. As it’s written now, prosecutors could argue any objections to an arrest using the idea of probable cause. Arizona’s immigration law takes a constitutional stumble by inviting challenges to what an unlawful arrest is.
(Before anyone objects on the grounds the Constitution doesn’t apply to illegal immigrants, the Supreme Court – in Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Boumediene v. Bush – has decided it does, based on the 14th Amendment. If you have any further objections, take it up with the Court.)
It's not just protestors rallying. Supporters have also been hitting the streets to back the new law.
Besides granting law enforcement officers increased powers to enforce the federal immigration laws they’re now required to, SB 1070 institutes harsher penalties for illegal immigrants who commit certain crimes. Although some may argue the stiffer penalties run afoul of the Eighth Amendment, I don’t see how they’re different from gang enhancements that have already passed constitutional muster.
Finally, from a safety standpoint instead of a legal one, the Arizona immigration bill effectively prohibits illegal immigrants from getting jobs. Even applying for a job could be a misdemeanor. While the goal is to make Arizona an unattractive destination for illegal immigrants, this section goes a step further and makes it a potentially dangerous destination for them.
When you can’t work legally, your options are limited to finding under-the-table odd jobs or committing crimes. Both of these options can endanger illegal immigrants. They may take on day laborer jobs that nobody else will because of hazardous working conditions. Or, they may be coerced into dangerous tasks by unscrupulous citizens who know they won’t be able to tell authorities without facing criminal charges and deportation. Worse yet, illegal immigrants may turn to crime to scrape out a living, giving local police even more work to do. As those affected by the new law grow increasingly desperate, it is very likely police will encounter more violent crime and threats to their safety.
Immigration reform will continue to be a hot-button issue – especially as minorities become majority – but Arizona’s SB 1070 goes too far. By requiring law enforcement officers to verify immigration status, the bill serves to make illegal immigrants fearful and perhaps uncooperative with investigations. Worse than that, the bill runs roughshod over protections afforded to everyone in the United States, not just citizens, by the Constitution, as allowing arrests without warrants disregards the Fourth Amendment.
There needs to be a national consensus about immigration reform. If Americans didn’t believe the federal government was dragging its feet on the issue, then perhaps states wouldn’t feel compelled to enact such harsh – and potentially unconstitutional – laws. The extreme response of trying to remove all illegal immigrants, however, isn’t the answer either.
