Tom Tancredo: Beware of racial profiling in immigration laws

posted at 5:07 pm on April 26, 2010 by Allahpundit

He supports Arizona’s new law — with a caveat. If it ends up doing what the left claims it’ll end up doing, then it’s no go.

Contrast Tanc’s statement with what McCain said over the weekend about the law being a “good tool” for cops even though he’s, er, not sure that every part of it is legal. We’ve actually reached the point where Maverick and Tom Tancredo are more or less simpatico on immigration.

Coloradans can expect to become part of the debate waging in Arizona over the strictest, most sweeping immigration legislation in the country…

“If I had anything to say about it, we’d be doing it in Colorado,” smiles former Republican Colorado Congressman Tim [sic] Tancredo.

Tancredo applauds the law in that Arizona took control of enforcing laws the federal government hasn’t enforced.

But he questions how police can stop people for any reason. “I do not want people here, there in Arizona, pulled over because you look like should be pulled over,” says Tancredo.

He suspects police in Arizona will only pull people over for breaking the law.

The director of the Arizona Police Association expects the law will be “rarely applied” and notes that there’s nothing in it requiring cops to check someone’s illegal status. Only when “reasonable suspicion” arises does it come into play. Two issues then: (1) Is being caught without ID sufficient grounds to generate “reasonable suspicion”? No, according to my reading of the statute. Showing ID can overcome “reasonable suspicion” that already exists, but that’s the key — it has to already exist. (2) Can cops pull someone over on suspicion of being an illegal alien or do they need an independent reason? Sixty percent of the public supports the former scenario, but here’s what reader John B., a lawyer, e-mailed this morning about what the law actually says:

The first sentence of the section [of the statute] you posted, in my view, requires that a lawful stop be made in the first place, before you even get to the question of reasonable suspicion as to whether a person is here illegally.

The first sentence of the section you posted states, “FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL …” … Stop right there. I would argue that the language of the statute requires “lawful contact” to be made in the first place. That’s condition #1 – that the law enforcement officer have reasonable suspicion (governed by Terry v. Ohio) to stop a suspect in the first place…

The statute in my view, in no way, codifies the mere question of citizenship as the basis for which to stop someone. If that weren’t the case, the AZ legislature could simply have omitted the language in the statute before “where reasonable suspicion exists ….”

First, you need reasonable suspicion to stop someone. Then, you need reasonable suspicion that they’re here unlawfully. Two levels.

If that’s correct, then you’re not going to see citizens being pulled off the sidewalk and threatened with jail unless they show their “papers.” There has to be some sort of independent suspicion first — although admittedly, given the welter of federal and state criminal laws that the modern citizen has to navigate, cooking up “reasonable suspicion” of driving infractions, etc., wouldn’t be hard for a cop looking to justify making a stop.

Exit question: Which of you dangerous tea-party radicals went and smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the windows of Arizona’s state Capitol?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I even heard Brit Hume say this might not be constitutional.

Fox won’t want to jeopardize their advertising. Business loves illegal aliens because they keep labor cheap, and not just for those who use illegal labor. If the companies using illegal labor had to suddenly start using legal labor, the other companies would be in a bidding war to keep their employees.

The ironic thing in all this is that it’s the poorest workers who benefit the most by cracking down on illegal aliens, but they are too stupid or too tuned-out to know it.

Buddahpundit on April 26, 2010 at 6:06 PM

*sigh*

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.

But, as we know, THAT is about THREE due process procedures DOWN the street.

If you read the piece opening this thread, you’ll understand.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM

MB4

You sick puppy!
Keep up the good work! Somebody’s gotta do it!

Cybergeezer on April 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Responding to call about a man with a holstered gun on his hip at a pet store. Two of them. Remarkably restrained since the last time.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Exactly like I said, they were there because of a complaint. If the two men had shot a couple of people, would it be OK if we ask them for their ID’s then?

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Don’t make him more jealous, m’dear.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:57 PM

That level of devotion intimidates me. :)

Diane on April 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM

speed911 on April 26, 2010 at 6:05 PM

I understand what you’re trying to convey; Arrest is immenent in big cities, but small towns where the gendarmes know you, not so much.

Cybergeezer on April 26, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Delusional disorders are a form of psychosis in which a person has paranoid delusions which are often intense and long lasting. They may take the form of the affected person hearing sounds, such as police sirens, when no one else hears them, and people, such as cops, talking about how they are out to get them when they really aren’t.

Sigmund on April 26, 2010 at 6:04 PM

Oh, I forgot to add something that is of the utmost importance.

Given the nature of their problems, people with paranoid delusions are often very suspicious about receiving treatment. Often they don’t believe anything is wrong with them and asking them to get some help from a professional may only serve to feed into their paranoid delusions and make things even worse. A great deal of care should be taken in approaching these people.

Sigmund on April 26, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Sigmund on April 26, 2010 at 6:16 PM

Yea; When I’m on a stake out, hiding behind a telephone pole, my beer belly sticks out! It makes me schitzo/paranoid/depressed; But one beer fixes that.

Cybergeezer on April 26, 2010 at 6:21 PM

A great deal of care should be taken in approaching these people.

You and your tweed-jacketed dragon just keep away from me…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Just one more reason he is FORMER………

RealMc on April 26, 2010 at 6:24 PM

Profiling hmmm….you mean like in 2003 when the DC sniper was on the loose. The FBI said they were looking for a 20 to 40 yr old white male.

Bevan on April 26, 2010 at 6:25 PM

Call me crazy, but I would print the text of that passage on the first page of every paper in Arizona for a month. I would further include that passage as a rebuttal to every op-ed alleging the new law to be some kind of open-season-on-hispanics.

Onus on April 26, 2010 at 6:28 PM

…part of the debate waging in Arizona…

I think they either meant “raging in Arizona” or “being waged” in Arizona. (Maybe they meant “raging” but have a speech impediment.)

Tzetzes on April 26, 2010 at 6:29 PM

You forgot the wizard/knight suit picture AllahPundit. Or is he more tempered now so you can’t use it?

Sultry Beauty on April 26, 2010 at 6:43 PM

People act like this is a new thing, like they’re not doing this now. In my DEEP BLUE state, in my DEEP BLUE city, my very law-abiding best friend (who is Native American, and looks Native American) has been pulled over for “exiting a parking garage suspiciously” where he worked (for Paul Allen), and was pulled over in my neighborhood (which is fairly nice) for no apparent reason…just a “What are you doing here?” sort of stop.

He is a good driver, and was just minding his own business. It happens to him with surprising regularity – and this is in Seattle.

I would like to know how people propose to identify illegal immigrants if not to ask for identification if there is a lawful opportunity to do so. I’m not sure how you’d go about that.

capitalist piglet on April 26, 2010 at 6:52 PM

We’ve actually reached the point where Maverick and Tom Tancredo are more or less simpatico on immigration.

THE END OF DAYS IS AT HAND.

TheUnrepentantGeek on April 26, 2010 at 6:57 PM

I would like to know how people propose to identify illegal immigrants if not to ask for identification if there is a lawful opportunity to do so. I’m not sure how you’d go about that.

Happy to help.

1. at every traffic stop, LEO asks about immigration status

2. when LEO has a right to brace a guy with MS-13 tatted on his forehead

3. when any other police contact raises a reasonable suspicion (like someone tenders a bogus DL or other ID)

Play along, and think of others….!!!!

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 6:58 PM

Um, before you didn’t have to carry ID on your person at all times. Now you do.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:41 PM

And what is so onerous about that? Was your driver’s license carved onto a stone slab?

katy the mean old lady on April 26, 2010 at 7:04 PM

Question: Can the police use RIDE or insurance Checks in Arizona for motorists?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on April 26, 2010 at 7:24 PM

Exactly like I said, they were there because of a complaint. If the two men had shot a couple of people, would it be OK if we ask them for their ID’s then?

barnone on April 26, 2010 at 6:10 PM

Of course. That’s legitimate suspicion. For the hundredth time, I have no problem when a person has committed a crime, or there truly is “reasonable articulable suspicion” of a crime. I’m talking about when a bad cop conjures up reasonable suspicion for whatever reason he wishes. He doesn’t like the shirt some guy is wearing, he wants to get an attractive woman to pay attention to him, whatever.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 7:40 PM

And what is so onerous about that? Was your driver’s license carved onto a stone slab?

katy the mean old lady on April 26, 2010 at 7:04 PM

I dunno. What’s so onerous about a police officer looking through your car if he pulls you over?

That fourth amendment really just gets in the way, doesn’t it?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 7:41 PM

People act like this is a new thing, like they’re not doing this now. In my DEEP BLUE state, in my DEEP BLUE city, my very law-abiding best friend (who is Native American, and looks Native American) has been pulled over for “exiting a parking garage suspiciously” where he worked (for Paul Allen), and was pulled over in my neighborhood (which is fairly nice) for no apparent reason…just a “What are you doing here?” sort of stop.

And that kind of crap is wrong no matter what he looks like.

I would like to know how people propose to identify illegal immigrants if not to ask for identification if there is a lawful opportunity to do so. I’m not sure how you’d go about that.

capitalist piglet on April 26, 2010 at 6:52 PM

Traffic stops, hand over driver’s license, since you have to have it to operate a motor vehicle. Keep up the checks and raids on companies that tend to hire illegal aliens. If you arrest an illegal alien, kick them the hell out. The same stuff that was doable before this bill. Why are we letting government off rather than kicking their ass and telling them to do their damned jobs?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 7:45 PM

So, MC, according to your use of “papers”, the state, which issued a DL expressly for ID purposes, would need a warrant to demand it from you.

Truly nuts.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 7:46 PM

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 7:41

PM

Tell that to your bank next time yu cash a check.You sound like a paranoid cop hater from the ’60′s.

katy the mean old lady on April 26, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 7:46 PM

…against unreasonable seizures.

Confirming that you are licensed to drive if you are driving a car is pretty clear.

And suppose you didn’t drive, so you don’t have a driver’s license. Then what?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 7:49 PM

You sound like a paranoid cop hater from the ’60’s.

katy the mean old lady on April 26, 2010 at 7:48 PM

Oops, I forgot. There haven’t been any bad cops since the 60s. I should have remembered. My bad.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 7:50 PM

If you arrest an illegal alien, kick them the hell out. The same stuff that was doable before this bill.

Not by the state of AZ, it was not. It still isn’t, under most circumstances. Arizona DOES NOT DEPORT. HAVE YOU READ THIS FREAKING BILL?????!!!!????

Why are we letting government off rather than kicking their ass and telling them to do their damned jobs?

This just in….

Deemocrat majorities in both chambers of the legislature, Deemocrat thug sitting in the WH. ICE stretched thin…

film at 11.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 7:51 PM

And suppose you didn’t drive, so you don’t have a driver’s license. Then what?

I’m sorry, my quotient for answering stupid questions is limited.

Last one: you get a non-driver license (wonderful for tendering your credit card, or cashing a check), you carry a copy of one of the SEVERAL other forms of ID MENTIONED IN THE FREAKING LAW that raise THE FREAKING PRESUMPTION you are here legally.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 7:56 PM

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 7:51 PM

This just in…

Deemocrats are poised to be routed in 6 months.

I’m sorry, my quotient for answering stupid questions is limited.

Last one: you get a non-driver license (wonderful for tendering your credit card, or cashing a check), you carry a copy of one of the SEVERAL other forms of ID MENTIONED IN THE FREAKING LAW that raise THE FREAKING PRESUMPTION you are here legally.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 7:56 PM

I’m sorry my quotient for giving you the point you missed is limited. If a person isn’t driving, why should they have to provide government-issued identification at an LEO’s whim?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I’m sorry my quotient for giving you the point you missed is limited. If a person isn’t driving, why should they have to provide government-issued identification at an LEO’s whim?

As I know you know, they should not…CANNOT…and will be exposed to TROUBLE if they do what you suggest.

Your apparently good mind is WARPED by a few…very harmless…scrapes with cops who were trying to walk the tight-rope we demand in modern society.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 8:09 PM

As I know you know, they should not…CANNOT…and will be exposed to TROUBLE if they do what you suggest.

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 8:09 PM

…IF someone challenges them on it. How many people will, particularly if the attitude is “just give it to them”?

The notion of ignoring your rights as a law-abiding citizen just emboldens the very thugs that would take advantage of that loophole. If all we’re doing is avoiding annoying bad cops who don’t respect our rights, then exactly how do they get in trouble?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 8:13 PM

I also heard that a drivers license would be valid proof. That is a lot different from asking for papers, which is what I had heard before.

Terrye on April 26, 2010 at 5:48 PM

And what if you’re not driving a car when a cop approaches you?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 5:50 PM

Well, if you are black and you are employed by Harvard University, you yell at the cop in front of lots of people, and then you and the cop get to go drink beer with the President at the White House. How bad could that be?

Constance on April 26, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Oops, I forgot. There haven’t been any bad cops since the 60s. I should have remembered. My bad.

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 7:50 PM

A great number of them seem to be in Madison. Ever think of running for office? Maybe they’d stop picking on you

katy the mean old lady on April 26, 2010 at 8:20 PM

I’m sorry my quotient for giving you the point you missed is limited. If a person isn’t driving, why should they have to provide government-issued identification at an LEO’s whim?

MadisonConservative on April 26, 2010 at 8:00 PM

I’m white and had to provide my ID to a US Border Patrol officer when I was a passenger, not a driver. It was not a big deal. If you want to live in the US you ought to be able to prove you belong here. If you feel like taking a risk by going out on the highways or streets without any form of ID, then how to you expect your family to be notified if you should suddenly fall ill or be shot? It’s just common sense to carry some form of ID.

GrannySunni on April 26, 2010 at 8:31 PM

You sound like a paranoid cop hater from the ’60’s.

katy the mean old lady on April 26, 2010 at 7:48 PM

You’ll never take me alive, you dirty coppers! Come and get me!
- Madison Cagney

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 9:56 PM

You’ll never take me alive, you dirty coppers! Come and get me!
- Madison Cagney

MB4 on April 26, 2010 at 9:56 PM

ROTFLMAO!
.

katy the mean old lady on April 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM

The whole notion and too oft repeated act of annoying bad cops (and other gun-toting uniformed “officials”) breaking the 4th amendment even just a little, further complicates the thug problem, because it intimidates the innocent and well-meaning people, BUT EMBOLDENS the criminals, because they can point to the law being broken by law enforcement!

So yes, MC has a valid point.

Simply checking the drivers and passengers forms of I.D. AS A RESULT OF REASONABLE SUSPICION becomes an act that is at the discretion of the officer – which is where this can run afoul, so caution must be exercised or the illegals will land in (kangaroo)courts and get out scot free!

Remember, there is an 800 number (or e-verify) where employers can call to verify the potential hire’s social security number, which is where the enforcement SHOULD HAVE as it’s main focus, SIMPLY because they come here to stay for the money they can earn!

Having said that, I heart AZ for finally stepping up to the plate, although now the illegals will head for Texas, NM, CA and the waters of the sea.

What really needs to happen is for the Federal Reserve to quit expanding the money supply so that this easy “credit card” monetized economy doesn’t keep eroding the value of an honestly earned wage, which would result in more of our young people being willing to work a physical laborer’s job because then those wages would ACTUALLY PAY for a house, a car, etc.

As it is: the Federal Reserve’s inflationary rate goes up faster than the working schlub’s wages do, hence the REAL REASON that only impoverished aliens will do those jobs!

This wage rate vs. monetary inflationary rate disparity, is also why the Federal government employees’ wages are higher than civilians – because their (federal employees) wage is an actual reflection of the inflation rate, as required by their own law!!

Now you know why the socialist government cabal, in cahoots with the private corporation of Federal Reserve thugs, need a false sense of security for the working schlubs, in the form of minimum wage laws!!


This ponzi scheme of this huge debt inflated economy that we CURRENTLY have, would fall apart the minute every workers’ wage ACTUALLY MATCHED THE RATE OF INFLATION!!

HELLO!!

DOESN’T ANYBODY SEE THIS!!??

Mcguyver on April 26, 2010 at 10:22 PM

Whew….

That was weird…

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 10:41 PM

Ragspierre on April 26, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Play along, and think of others….!!!!

…47 Hispanic males dressed in work clothes huddled together in a corner of a 7-11 parking lot at 7:00 A.M….is this a reason to check for citizenship???

opaobie on April 26, 2010 at 11:19 PM

It’s just common sense to carry some form of ID.

GrannySunni on April 26, 2010 at 8:31 PM

It’s normal to have pockets, too. Are you okay with the police going through them if they have any reasonable suspicion about you?

MadisonConservative on April 27, 2010 at 12:09 AM

What’s truly weird is you people who don’t understand that we haven’t had a truly free market system since the advent of the regional banking systems and subsidies of corporations as set up by Abraham Lincoln… and it’s successor: the Federal Reserve system and the subsequent special interest subsidies and bailouts of corporations since then.

True competitive free market systems really do work….whenever they are actually tried.

When George W. Bush said that he is “abandoning the free market system in order to save it” he should’ve said that he’s using socialist systems in order to save our fascist monetary system – because that is what the non-competitive Federal Reserve really is: PURE unadulterated fascism!!

The definition of fascism is a government controlled and sponsored non-competitive monetary system and the control of corporate business systems – which by the way is what the bailouts and subsidies do: they control the corporate business system.

Now who is weird here?

Answer: you are.

Mcguyver on April 27, 2010 at 12:35 AM

How Mexicans treat those who come up across their southern border illegally

So why is it good if Mexico controls immigration and bad if the U.S. does?

So, while demanding rights for Mexicans illegally in U.S. territory, Mexico defends its own territory by detaining illegal aliens from countries poorer than Mexico. Many Mexican officials abuse these illegal aliens.

And yet, you don’t see Central American illegal aliens marching through the streets of Mexico, demanding their “rights.”

You don’t see the governments of Guatemala and Honduras meddling in Mexican internal politics.

Why not?

Because they all know that Mexico wouldn’t tolerate it.

But up north, Uncle Sam tolerates illegal aliens in the streets demanding legalization and constant meddling in U.S. politics by Mexican officials.

No wonder they don’t respect us!

May a thousand fleas from south of the border fly up Obama’s nose.

MB4 on April 27, 2010 at 3:15 AM

This whole immigration law and race thing would be easier if the entire world was one race.

Problem solved.

Inanemergencydial on April 27, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Republicans are afraid to go after those who employe illegals. They don’t want to enforce the E-Verify program – strictly. Nor to they want to make use of the Social Security Mismatch Program. There needs to be armed, badged enforcers walking into businesses who violate these 2. HR directors others need to be hauled off in handcuffs. Do that a few times and the jobs that illegals come up here for will dry up and they’ll, for the most part, self-deport. DD

Darvin Dowdy on April 29, 2010 at 7:59 AM

Final note:

It seems that this entire story regarding Tancredo was cooked up by Jon Stewart on a comedy central piece.

What Stewart did was to slice up an interview to get the words he wanted to play on his show.

The people at Hotair, in this case under the name Allahpundit, need to check their sources far better!

Freddy on May 1, 2010 at 12:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2