Immigration

A Different Kind of Arizona Sheriff

|

The anti-Joe Arpaio.

Advertisement

NEXT: Why Pick on Smokers? Because We Can!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Pearce insisted that SB 1070 prohibits racial profiling. He repeated a phrase he’s used in the past, writing, “Illegal is a not a race, it is a crime.” And he added, “I guess the 9 Sheriffs who support this bill are racist.”

    Well either that or naive beyond comprehension.

    The results of this law are INTENDED consequences.

    1. Exactly.

      I love the supporters citing x and y clause for why these new powers won’t be abused. I highly doubt power-tripping cops are going to be delving into the details of this bill before going out on patrols.

  2. Pearce insisted that SB 1070 prohibits racial profiling.

    And yet, at the same time, requires it in order to function.

    1. Any race can be illegal in Arizona. American immigration policy makes no mention of race, only nationality (when it does that). Are all Mexicans small, brown and dirty? You must be a racist.

      1. How many illegals do you get from Germany in Az? How many from Ethiopia? How many from Mexico?

        Disparate Impact — get ready for a lot of court challenges.

        1. Oh come on. The disparate impact argument is sort of silly. There are lots of needed laws that will have a disparate impact.

          That being said, I think there are going to be some serious unintended consequences that bite them right in the butt.

          The real problems occur when the welfare state meets the illegal immigrant. Why not address that directly ? One could mandate required citizenship checks to utilize any public service. If checks were made directly at the impacted services, then the impact problem would go down. Register for a school, welfare or use the emergency room as an unfunded benefit, go directly home. Rather than comment on the public good of this action, I would note that it might have a chance of actually gaining the desired goal.

          What they have done instead is to remove any reason to actually cooperate with the police. Not only does this exacerbate problems with organized crime and gangs, but they give an additional power to a group that has already shown they will abuse it.

          Frigging brilliant !

          1. The disparate impact argument is sort of silly.

            Would be if it weren’t for about 40 years of civil rights legislation and judical decisions.

            1. So you are telling me that we can’t enforce things like poaching laws because they disparately effect people that are largely white ? Or we can’t regulate moonshine because it has a disparate effect on hill-billys ?

              1. I’m telling you that if there were two large populations of poachers and the authorities targeted only one of them for enforcement action, then you would see court cases.

                It’s basic demographics. There aren’t a bunch of Polish plumbers living illegally in Az, and there aren’t alot of Ethiopan cab drivers living illegally in Az.

                There will be lots of deportations that stemmed from Driving while Mexican. It will be obvious; there will be long, drawn-out court cases.

          2. The real problems occur when the welfare state meets the illegal immigrant. Why not address that directly ? One could mandate required citizenship checks to utilize any public service. If checks were made directly at the impacted services, then the impact problem would go down.

            Instead, the law targets people hiring day laborers. Key word: laborers.

      2. If you think Arizona cops aren’t going to be targetting a certain range of skin color to enforce this law, then someone’s been doping your stash.

    2. Pray tell how it’s racial profiling if a cop asks for the passport or green card of a pasty white guy who can barely speak a word of english, and does so in a heavily accented manner that one with a sharp ear picks out as possibly Polish or Russian? (or German, or French).

      1. Silly boy. Only Mexicans are here illegally.

      2. I think to be safe, the police in Arizona will just start asking everyone for proof of citizenship. Which few, if any, people carry as a matter of course. So a lot of American citizens are going to get locked up until they can prove their citizenship, and I’ll be $10 that at least one of them gets shipped off to Canada before they can get their papers in order.

        1. Um, maybe if you read it, you would know a drivers license will do?

          Fail.

          1. A driver’s license won’t do if you don’t have one.

          2. A drivers license and social security card didn’t work yesterday for a truck driver in Arizona. He sat at ICE (courtesy of Sheriff Joe) until his wife arrived with his Fresno, CA birth certificate.

            “Papiere, bitte?”

            1. Linky link?

              1. I could easily believe that sheriff Joe has idea that a driver’s license and/or Social Security card, doesn’t necessarily mean your not illegal.

                1. Linky link?

                  Here you go.
                  The ICE agents said this was all just standard procedure

                  I didn’t realize that ICE enforces Az law. There must be some Federal law against illegal immigration that I wasn’t aware of. Thanks for clearing that up

            2. “Papiere, bitte?”

              Drink!

  3. I eagerly await my followers on this blog to decimate your arguments, Xeones.

    1. Chirp.

  4. What its supporters say is true: the law is redundant, more a goad to the feds, to already present illegals, and to AZ-bordering states than a thing made to be implemented.

    So cops who race-profile in search of illegals without this law in place will go on doing it, the ones who don’t won’t start (unless they wanted to anyway), and the ones who think shouting “racist” will further their careers will shout it, then go on doing what they do ? being racists, probably.

    Thrilling.

    1. That’s politics.

    2. “”the law is redundant, more a goad to the feds,””

      And it will die under federal judicial reveiw. At best, it’s grandstanding for attention.

  5. Nothing says liberty like inconsistent enforcement of laws.

  6. I like how he says that if he tells his people to detain certain individuals they will do so even if they have to make up some bullshit reason for doing so. Was he really intending to be that honest, or was it a slip of the tounge?

    1. He also said that kind of behavior is “baloney”, so he was probably being honest. Judging from this short article, he seems like the kind of guy who should be in law enforcement; a complete departure from the Joe Arpaios and Michael Jacksons of the world.

  7. The anti-Joe Arpaio indeed
    The Sheriff’s Department says they did nothing wrong, and they stand behind the actions of the sergeant.

    http://www.kold.com/Global/story.asp?S=1447485

  8. Look, it’s easy. Ask them what their favorite football team is. If they say the Cards or some other NFL team, they’re Americans. If they say Cruz Azul or Man United or anything else, they’re illegals.

    1. What if they say the LA Galaxy?

      1. They’re doubly illegal.

  9. Tucson police officer has filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new immigration law

    http://www.TucsonSentinel.com/…..cobar_1070

  10. The sound you hear in the distance is that of an Arizona Oathkeepers head exploding.

  11. Where are the Oath Keepers coming down on this? (Seems to me that Rule #2 may apply here)

    What would all the liberal bed wetters do if the Oath Keepers decided that this was a law that they were obligated to disobey?

    How would they reconcile being on the same side of an argument as a bunch of right wing militia nuts?

    1. The Oath Keepers’ rhetoric uses “American citizens” and similar phrases with sufficient frequency that I think they can get away with avoiding the immigration issue.

      1. Depending on when and how they use “American citizens”, that sounds like a flawed understanding of the Constitution — the human rights part of it (speech, due process, etc.) apply to every human being in their dealings with the US government or any of its subordinates, excluding special contexts like war.

  12. Dupnik says he will enforce AZ immigration law if ‘forced’ to do so

    http://azstarnet.com/article_2…..03286.html

  13. SB 1070 criminalizes illegal immigration.

    That sentence wins the article.

    1. SB 1070 criminalizes illegal immigration.
      That sentence wins the article.

      One more time: BEING AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT has been (hitherto anyway) NOT a CRIME.

      Example: when a legal entrant as a tourist overstays his status, he becomes an illegal immigrant. But NOT a criminal.

      If the illegal immigration was jumping the border fence or swimming the river, then that act (the action itself) was crime (it’s a crime for a US citizen to do that too though a differnet one.) But one could still be on the hook for that “illegal immigration” act as a crime and yet at the same time no longer be an “illegal immigrant” (e.g., being later granted lawful status/permission to remain, or by having left the country).

      But the fact of being present or remaining in the USA without legal authorization, which is what is meant by “illegal immigrant” i.e. being an alien unlawfully/unauthorizedly present, that is present in violation of immigration law, that merely makes one in CIVIL LAW deportable/removable/arrest-and-hold-hearing-and-expellable, but nevertheless one is not a criminal by the mere virtue of being an “illegal immigrant”, ie an alien staying in country without proper authorization.

      To date aliens break no *criminal* laws (barring this Arizona one if it says that) by merely remaining present in the country without authorization.

  14. Dupnik, eh? Sounds Polish. Let’s see his papers.

  15. http://dynamic.azstarnet.com/c…..p;h=Dupnik declares immigration law an ’embarrassment’

    Dupnik declares immigration law an ’embarrassment’

    Most of the comments are in opposition to Dupnik.

    How is it that the man who has been the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of this county for over 40 years, 40 years in which the traffic in drugs and humans has done nothing but grow, grow, grow, how is it that this guy continues to be re-elected time after time. There is an air of corruption to the man’s administration that deserves to be investigated.

  16. Everybody needs to read the law before they comment. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/4…..s/0113.htm

  17. This from federal law is very important to this discussion.

    Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
    Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
    State and local law enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law. There is no extant federal limitation on this authority. The 1996 immigration control legislation passed by Congress was intended to encourage states and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws. Immigration officers and local law enforcement officers may detain an individual for a brief warrantless interrogation where circumstances create a reasonable suspicion that the individual is illegally present in the U.S. Specific facts constituting a reasonable suspicion include evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.