AZ legislature “fixes” new immigration law

posted at 10:55 am on April 30, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

After becoming a nine-day wonder on the national political stage, the Arizona legislature has amended its new law on immigration enforcement.  Byron York notes that the conditions for investigating the residency status have gotten less ambiguous and more reflective of the intent of the legislature:

In the past days, some critics of the new Arizona immigration law have said that it will lead to Arizona becoming a police state. Many of the criticisms — some including the words Nazi and fascist — have been based on a general objection to the law and to the enforcement of the country’s immigration laws. But some have been specifically focused on a few key phrases in the law. …

The first concerns the phrase “lawful contact,” which is contained in this controversial portion of the bill: “For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…” Although the drafters of the law said that the intent of “lawful contact” was to specify situations in which police have stopped someone because he or she was suspected of violating some other law — like a traffic stop — critics said it would allow cops to pick anyone out of a crowd and “demand their papers.”

So now, in response to those critics, lawmakers have removed “lawful contact” from the bill and replaced it with “lawful stop, detention or arrest.” In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped draft the law. “So that term is now defined.”

I agree that this issues of this passage got exaggerated, but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law. Did they somehow think that opponents would not parse the language carefully?  After all, it wasn’t just people on the Left who objected to the vague notion of “lawful contact” in this passage.  Plenty of people on the Right also expressed concern about the potential for police to assume expansive powers to stop and question people with no probable cause other than assumptions about immigration status.  Even some of the police in Arizona objected to it.

The Arizona legislature could have saved everyone the trouble by defining the parameters from the beginning.  Governor Jan Brewer more or less had the same criticism, signing the bill but issuing an executive order to clear up the ambiguity by establishing rules for “lawful contact” simultaneous to the bill signing.  The change now makes plain the intent to have Arizona law enforcement check residency status while enforcing the other laws of the state, a common-sense approach that other states should also adopt — since the federal government stubbornly refuses to enforce their own existing laws.

The new clarifications are welcome indeed, and should defuse the controversy that threatened to distract the GOP from the larger issues of economic crisis and government encroachment.  But just as with the surprises that we keep finding in the ObamaCare bill, the entire problem could have been avoided had the legislature paid more attention to the details before voting it into law.


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 3

hmmm, the multiple times I have been pulled over for being white in a predominately poor black area were a violation of my rights?

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Crimes that happen in your imagination don’t count.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Arizona douchebag</strong

happyfeet on April 30, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Where do you live?

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:17 PM

This still ties the hands of law enforcement. If violating immigration law is illegal, then why do they get a free pass and must be stopped for another possible infraction before that particular legal violation is dealt with or even allowed to be dealt with?

I thought the Constitution demanded equal protection for all? These laws give illegal aliens special protections. You’re not allowed to investigate their particular law breaking unless you catch them doing something else first.

So, as a white male, I want to demand my own special protection. Police can’t investigate me for breaking and entering unless I happen to be committing a rape at the same time. If I commit a rape, only then can you even think about determining whether I illegally entered that woman’s home to begin with.

It’s absurd. All in order to kowtow to a bunch of idiot backers who seem to think, ‘gosh, they’re originally from the nation my people came from, therefore I must support their flaunting of the law!’

TheBlueSite on April 30, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Police can go straight to asking you about illegal immigration if there’s obvious evidence you might be one. (IE, if you’re in a Home Depot parking lot looking for day labor or they overhear you about running the border).

They can’t just pull you over while you’re driving to McDonalds to investigate you for illegal immigration.

Skywise on April 30, 2010 at 12:17 PM

I wasn’t talking about illegal immigrants, reading comprehension star.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Apparently you’re talking about an American or legal resident of hispanic descent being asked to show some ID. Man, that’s sooooo harsh.

If said American or legal resident of hispanic descent becomes upset at having to show ID then they should their anger towards illegals and the federal government. If illegals wouldn’t break our laws, and the federal government would enforce existing laws then no one would be asked for ID in the first place.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Why…why…how dare Arizona try to make things safer for its’ citizens?

Mr. Robert Krentz remains unavailable for comment.

kingsjester on April 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM

I would argue that amnesty/illegal immigration is another reason to repeal and that there is pretty much a complete overlap of pro-amnesty and pro-Obamacare legislators (even if some of the pro-amnesty types aren’t willing to admit their fondness for O-care).

Doorgunner on April 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM

I’m conditionally pro-amnesty and strongly anti-Obamacare. So is Mrs. Palin. I stand with her.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM

@doorgunner

Whom are you calling a “racist cracker?” What’s up with that?

The Race Card on April 30, 2010 at 12:22 PM

I’m conditionally pro-amnesty and strongly anti-Obamacare. So is Mrs. Palin. I stand with her.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM

Palin did very little about illegal immigration in her own state. Of course she’s pro-amnesty. She favors big-business.

I’d like to see sanctions for business and individuals breaking immigration laws.

The Race Card on April 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Crimes that happen in your imagination don’t count.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:16 PM

You always were the best mindreader in vegas! It happened. My work took me into the poor neighborhoods for the health department. After awhile LE got used to seeing me there.

Any other BS you want to dismiss out of hand, o emperor of insincerity?

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 12:25 PM

No, it was broader before. It’s INTENT was the same, but the language did, indeed, allow for the example given in the article, where a cop could have a “lawful contact” with someone for some domestic issue like lawn maintenance. These changes improve the bill.

DaveS on April 30, 2010 at 12:15 PM

I still disagree. If the argument is that police are no longer going to racial profile because they’re “pigs” this clarification doesn’t prevent the police from charging somebody with some trumped up charge (IE trespassing while performing lawn maintenance) and then investigating the immigration status. If the argument is that illegal immigrants will be afraid to come forth with witness testimony to crimes.. they’re still not going to go to the police with lawn maintenance issues and legal citizens of hispanic descent are going to have SOME sort of ID on them while at the house (or at least show home ownership).

Skywise on April 30, 2010 at 12:25 PM

If illegals wouldn’t break our laws, and the federal government would enforce existing laws then no one would be asked for ID in the first place.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM

No, if you are stopped for RS, then the police can ask for your ID, and you have to provide it. You could do that before this law was enacted. And if that’s all the law is now saying, then the law is meaningless. Congrats, Arizona! You just made a bunch of people angry so you could pass a law that is meaningless.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Palin did very little about illegal immigration in her own state. Of course she’s pro-amnesty. She favors big-business.

The Race Card on April 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM

I had no idea Alaska had an illegal problem.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Ed:

I’m not sure I’d rake the Arizona legislators over the coals because they didn’t come up with a provision saying that “looking like a Mexican” when you’re walking down the street does not constitute “reasonable suspicion” of a crime being committed. It might have been worth checking the language in the federal legislation their bill was modeled on before passing judgment too.

The Governor, as the executive charged with actually enforcing the terms of the legislation, is quite logically most qualified to identify the kind of ambiguities that would be problematic on the ground. She did so, and promptly set out to develop more specific guidelines.

Political histrionics could have been expected regardless of the actual contents of the bill. Kudos to the Arizona legislature for recognizing legitimate complaints and choosing to incorporate clarifications in the text of the law itself almost immediately. While the racist hue and cry from many on the left will not soon abate, the speed with which the legislators made corrections speaks to directly to the intentions their detractors have assailed.

All in all, it seems to me the process worked pretty well. The uproar may ultimately have focused welcome attention on fundamental issues which have been systematically ignored. While largely unnoticed, there is a remarkable, salutary, development in the public discourse here. For nearly the very first time, the practical issues of security have been dramatically severed from the ideological issues of amnesty. It may prove difficult, indeed, to put that political Humpty Dumpty back together again.

JM Hanes on April 30, 2010 at 12:28 PM

No, if you are stopped for RS, then the police can ask for your ID, and you have to provide it. You could do that before this law was enacted. And if that’s all the law is now saying, then the law is meaningless. Congrats, Arizona! You just made a bunch of people angry so you could pass a law that is meaningless.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Now they can inquire about legal residency.

But it doesn’t matter to you because all you care about is finding ways for even more illegals to flood the country.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:28 PM

Apparently you’re talking about an American or legal resident of hispanic descent being asked to show some ID. Man, that’s sooooo harsh.

If said American or legal resident of hispanic descent becomes upset at having to show ID then they should their anger towards illegals and the federal government. If illegals wouldn’t break our laws, and the federal government would enforce existing laws then no one would be asked for ID in the first place.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:19 PM

You need to re-read the Constitution — and, in particular, the 14th Amendment. Any law or order which places a particular burden on people (especially including citizens) of a particular race or creed is unConstitutional.

To get around this issue was why I advocated in previous comments that all people, regardless of appearance, be checked for citizenship upon conviction, regardless of whether “reasonable suspicion” exists. “reasonable suspicion” leads to racial/ethnic profiling, and is the weak point in this law.

If you are truly concerned about illegal immigrants, you’ll want to catch the guy from London as well as the guy from Tijuana.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

I’d like to see sanctions for business and individuals breaking immigration laws.

The Race Card on April 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM

You betcha.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

As a LEGAL United States Citizen…

… I have no problem with this law.

Seven Percent Solution on April 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

If you are truly concerned about illegal immigrants, you’ll want to catch the guy from London as well as the guy from Tijuana.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

No one has argued otherwise.

What is the problem again?

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

I had no idea Alaska had an illegal problem.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

It’s those pesky Russian Inuit. They act like there’s no border, just sailing their sealskin boats wherever they want.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:32 PM

No one has argued otherwise.

What is the problem again?

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 12:31 PM

You need to re-parse Darwin’s argument. He’s specifically mentioning Hispanics.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:33 PM

I’m not impressed with these Arizona losers.

happyfeet on April 30, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Why would you be? They don’t have their lips firmly planted against Obama’s buttcheeks.

jimmy2shoes on April 30, 2010 at 12:36 PM

The changes don’t tie the hands of law enforcement.
A stop for loitering is a lawful stop. All they need is a citizen to call in a complaint.
The whole point to the changes is to protect the law in court, not to appease mere critics.
Results matter. And as far as I can see, the law has already made an impact by uniting most Americans in it’s favor(even without the changes) and making many illegals leave of their own accord, therefor reducing the burden on police agencies along with saving millions of dollars. It will strengthen the economy, because illegals make money to send it out fo the country not to bolster Arizona’s,and reduce unemployment by opening much needed jobs for everyone.

LeeSeneca on April 30, 2010 at 12:39 PM

You need to re-read the Constitution — and, in particular, the 14th Amendment. Any law or order which places a particular burden on people (especially including citizens) of a particular race or creed is unConstitutional.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

I’m sorry, I don’t just don’t see pulling out a driver’s license as an undue burden.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:40 PM

You need to re-parse Darwin’s argument. He’s specifically mentioning Hispanics.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:33 PM

This is Arizona. The problem is specifically illegals of hispanic, mostly Mexican descent. It’s illegals themselves that are placing a burden on legal residents and citizens. Them and a negligent federal government.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:43 PM

I love how “oh stop being so nitpicky” is an argument now. Like, what if someone’s rights are trampled upon? OH QUIT BEING SO NITPICKY! Funny how no one cares when you personally don’t have to worry about losing your rights.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 11:53 AM

You’re on the wrong site — try Frum Forum; his ideas are as irrelevant as yours.

Richard Romano on April 30, 2010 at 12:45 PM

One of the big changes was cause the way you wrote the bill, illegal immigrants who were witnesses to a crime had every incentive not to step forward.

happyfeet on April 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM

So sappyfoot, you have data to back up your claim that illegals are falling all over themselves to step forward? I would love to see what you have.

Mr_Magoo on April 30, 2010 at 12:47 PM

You’re on the wrong site — try Frum Forum; his ideas are as irrelevant as yours.

Richard Romano on April 30, 2010 at 12:45 PM

I know, right? God forbid anyone disagree with anyone here.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM

I mean, wouldn’t it be awful if your ideology was challenged? Then you’d have to justify your line of thinking, and who likes thinking about things?

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM

But just as with the surprises that we keep finding in the ObamaCare bill, the entire problem could have been avoided had the legislature paid more attention to the details before voting it into law.

The bill was carefully crafted, as York and McCarthy pointed out, and all the AZ legislature did was clarify it in response to reasonable concerns from non-hyperventilating critics and demagogues. I suspect it would have withstood challenges as originally written.

irishspy on April 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM

Ed,

Smarmy. Very smarmy.

No amount of legislative deliberation would suffice here to silence the critics of this law.

Most of which can’t even READ the freaking bill, much less understand it!

Any other criminal law could have used the original language without the need to tighten it up.

Ragspierre on April 30, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Giving amnesty does not make the journey to illegal entry into the US any safer. Smearing refried beans on the state capital doesn’t protect illegals from the drug cartel.

If you support illegal immigration, then you have a responsibility to step up and fight the drug cartel and end the human smuggling. You need to be providing food, shelter, clothing and medical care to the poor in Mexico, so that they won’t be tempted to cross illegally.

Sitting behind a keyboard in your comfy home blasting hate messages doesn’t put food in some child’s belly. The politicians? The media? Where is the aid to the illegals? I don’t see any groups quickly organizing here to provide the illegals any type of assistance. Nope, but they’ll drive to AZ to protest – and on their way into AZ they were stopped at a US Border Patrol checkpoint – which they conveniently omit in their protests. Then they crowd into view of the news cameras trying to get their signs and faces shown.

Meanwhile, a 15 yr old boy and his mother, both illegal immigrants, are journeying into AZ with the assistance of a coyote (whom they have paid). The mother becomes sick and they are abandoned in the middle of the desert without food, water or directions. The boy survives, his mother dies.

The same day the mother died, another vehicle crammed with illegals was stopped. That same day, 70 illegals were found behing held hostage in a drop house. That same day, another drop house revealed 12 hostages severely beaten and had been held for a week. The list goes on and on…

Perhaps if the masters of the keyboard universe and media sound bites came to AZ, they would better understand the problem.

GrannySunni on April 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Why is it ok to stereotype all police as racist bigots who are just looking for an excuse to hassle some “poor Latino” but terrible to stereotype all illegals as drug connected gangbangers trying to rip off the US?

katiejane on April 30, 2010 at 1:00 PM

My wife and I were pulled over for a minor traffic infraction in Phoenix. After I showed him my license and insurance card and told him why I was in the neighborhood (dropping off a friend from the airport), he was honest about why he pulled my over: we were passing through a drug activity neighborhood.

I had no problem with this. I had propee ID, wasn’t doing anything wrong, and had actually committed the traffic infraction. He explained the infraction and told me to have a nice day.

We were in some respects profiled but I understand the issues and can come to a reasonable conclusion.

Mr_Magoo on April 30, 2010 at 1:01 PM

Legislate in haste, repent at leisure

Why not. It’s what the pols on the hill do. Except they haven’t the courage to admit that they made a big mistake.

jeanie on April 30, 2010 at 1:05 PM

I know, right? God forbid anyone disagree with anyone here.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM

Let me guess. All a need to know about life I learned in kindergarten?

Grow a pair, ok?

Mr_Magoo on April 30, 2010 at 1:07 PM

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM

The TTT thing is unbecoming, I have to say. Makes you look like an elitist prick. And I say that as a credentialist pedant myself…

DrSteve on April 30, 2010 at 1:09 PM

I know, right? God forbid anyone disagree with anyone here.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:48 PM

You want some cheese with that whine?

kingsjester on April 30, 2010 at 1:09 PM

catman:

In having prosecuted hundreds of DUI’s let me assure you RS and PC are two distinct and separate legal standards dictating the actions of police. In a case where you are stopped because of a broken tailight, not only is there reasonable suspicion for the stop, but also PC to charge you with a broken tailight.

In your example of a DUI, cops will use swerving, high speed, low speed, no headlights etc. as reasonable suspicion to stop a person to further investigate driving under the influence. Obviously each of those individual violations also constitute PC for being charged with those individual infractions. However, those alone don’t allow the cops to charge someone with DUI. The reasonable suspicion lets them stop you and investigate further, wherein they may see bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech etc. That may further lead to roadside maneuvers, all of which may be an accumulation of evidence, leading to PC for an arrest for DUI. Of course, blood or breath tests are also used as part of the probable cause for a DUI charge.

It’s a common misconception that PC is needed to stop someone. Only RS is needed.

hooligan on April 30, 2010 at 1:16 PM

I agree that this issues of this passage got exaggerated, but it points out some sloppiness on the part of legislators as they passed this into law.

Well, the President has been telling us how much DC will lead us and take care of us, when they decided to take care of themselves they just used the Congressional style. You know it right? Have staffers write it, don’t read it, and then rush to pass it. Personally, compared to DC they did a spectacularly brilliant job.

Sultry Beauty on April 30, 2010 at 1:17 PM

Once again law abiding citizens flog themselves instead of focusing on those breaking the law. They fixed up a few words in the bill. So what? The constant hand wringing in this country is beyond pathetic.

echosyst on April 30, 2010 at 1:20 PM

I mean, wouldn’t it be awful if your ideology was challenged? Then you’d have to justify your line of thinking, and who likes thinking about things?

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:49 PM

You mentioned earlier about someone’s rights being trampled on. What about the rancher’s right to protect and defend his property as thousands of illegal immigrants cross his property every year? Those rights matter to you at all in your little ideological world? Think now. Be honest. Would you approve of them crossing through your back yard or your apt?

And so where do the illegals end up? On the streets of Phoenix. If they are not stopped near the border, then they should be stopped on the streets of Phoenix.

Real life. Real issues.

Mr_Magoo on April 30, 2010 at 1:23 PM

Proud Rino, the TTT thing is really unbecoming. Makes you look like an elitist (and particularly illiberal) jerk. And I fully admit to being a credentialist pedant, so consider it immanent criticism.

DrSteve on April 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Proud Rino. I suggest a heavy dose of Doc Zero for what ails you.

Mr_Magoo on April 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM

and should defuse the controversy that threatened to distract the GOP from the larger issues of economic crisis and government encroachment.

Thinking fail, Ed. How did you get that lost? This won’t even slow it down, nor would it have if it was done in the first place.

Sure, everything should be perfect the first time, but you know what? People aren’t perfect, and I’d rather see things get done and then improved later than never get done at all because it has to be perfect the first time.

Merovign on April 30, 2010 at 1:38 PM

No, if you are stopped for RS, then the police can ask for your ID, and you have to provide it. You could do that before this law was enacted. And if that’s all the law is now saying, then the law is meaningless. Congrats, Arizona! You just made a bunch of people angry so you could pass a law that is meaningless.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

It mirrors the federal law on illegals, and that is pretty much meaningless as well, since they don’t enforce it. This law that Arizona passed, now enables the STATE to enforce a federal law already on the books. And was done only, and only after all other measures were exhausted. Obama wouldn’t even respond to letters from Arizona on the issue.

People are being killed there, kidnapped, raped, and other assorted violence is going on. It’s happening here in Texas as well, down by the border. What would you have these states, and cities do? Sit down, and offer themselves up to be victims of these crimes, so that God forbid we don’t offend a person here illegally?

I’m of German, French, Danish, and Czech decent. IF anyone from those countries is here illegally, by all means, treat them the same as anyone else here illegally. The fact is…this is offensive to Hispanics, because they, like we know….a lot of them are here illegally.

We cannot sustain the entitlements to illegals anymore. This has to stop. Arizona started it off, by enforcing a federal law in their state, because the federal level wouldn’t. It’s as simple as that!

capejasmine on April 30, 2010 at 1:47 PM

Proud Rino, the TTT thing is really unbecoming. Makes you look like an elitist (and particularly illiberal) jerk. And I fully admit to being a credentialist pedant, so consider it immanent criticism.

DrSteve on April 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I can’t think of worse place for inappropriate prestige-whoring than law schools, and given the current legal market and the overabundance, this is especially inappropriate. At least 180 law schools in the US should be shut down, right now. They’re useless. But the ABA keeps accrediting them anyway.

Really, even in your top 30 schools, you’re still looking at some pretty iffy places, and at this point, do Harvard and Yale even bother teaching actual law anymore? So much “theoretical” hokum, if you want to go get a PhD in jurisprudence, be my guest, but that’s not what a JD is for. Look at the quality of young lawyers coming out of Harvard, Yale or Stanford these days. Not impressive.

And the fact that this idiot is actually “teaching” people the law, Mr. “Let’s blame liberals for the terribly written statute” is a disgrace. His law school is a disgrace. TTTs all around.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 1:56 PM

overabundance of lawyers…whoops didn’t finish that thought.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 1:59 PM

Palin did very little about illegal immigration in her own state. Of course she’s pro-amnesty. She favors big-business.

The Race Card on April 30, 2010 at 12:23 PM

I had no idea Alaska had an illegal problem.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

Whiny critics of Palin, lacking the intellectual skill and the factual evidence to support their whining, have developed this talking point about Palin.

The Facts seem a little less…dramatic.

My favorite is population density, which to me seems like a key factor when considering the impact of illegal immigrants. Consider that our national sewer, Washington D.C., has 9,500 people per square mile, and the densest state, New Jersey has 87% less ppsm, 1,171. Then consider that Alaska, our least populous state, has 1.2 ppsm.

1.2 people per square mile. 5,000 illegal aliens, according to government estimates.

And from this, Palin critics somehow find a talking point to criticize proponents of border security. Palin Derangement Syndrome is a powerful thing, my friends.

Jaibones on April 30, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Gov Brewer told Greta that 1,000 illegals enter AZ every day and that 87% of them already have a criminal history before entering AZ.

Those of you so hung up on rights on RS or PC, I’d like to know where the rights are of Mr. Krentz, who was murdered on his own property? I’d like to know where the rights are of the little girl who was shot and killed by an illegal. I’d like to know where the rights are of the teenager killed by an illegal who was DUI. I’d like to know where the rights are of the women raped by the illegal alien sex offenders.

Illegal is a crime. Arizona population is approx 30% hispanic. We have hispanic police officers who agree with this law.

We are not without compassion. We help the poor in Mexico, we help the poor in AZ. We help the poor in Haiti. Just this morning they loaded pallets of supplies to ship to Haiti. If you don’t live in Arizona, don’t judge us until you come here and see the situation firsthand.

GrannySunni on April 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM

One of the big changes was cause the way you wrote the bill, illegal immigrants who were witnesses to a crime had every incentive not to step forward.

happyfeet on April 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Fox is reporting this morning that this is no longer true. If you are a victim or a witness, you will not be asked to provide proof.

(I hope there is some teeth left in this legislation by the time liberals are done whining.)

BTW, happyfeet and Proud Rino, do some research on the number of drop houses that exist in Arizona. Then step outside your house and look around your neighborhood and thank God if you don’t have any. In Phoenix, they are scattered all through neighborhoods – and not just the poor ones.

Mr_Magoo on April 30, 2010 at 2:31 PM

Fox is reporting this morning that this is no longer true. If you are a victim or a witness, you will not be asked to provide proof.

Fox might be wrong on that. What is a “lawful stop”? It’s not a detention, and it’s not an arrest, so what does that mean? Is it a seizure? I don’t know what would be considered a “lawful stop” in Arizona. My suspicion is that it’s the same standard as “lawful contact,” ie no standard at all, because otherwse…

(I hope there is some teeth left in this legislation by the time liberals are done whining.)

If RS is the standard, then the law does nothing. No teeth, no nothing. If it’s not RS, it’s unconstitutional. Lose-lose.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Rather – the controversial provision does nothing. The law does other things which may be useful in finding illegal immigrants, but most of it just seems stupid.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Maybe they just had to pass the law to “see what was in it”?

gullxn on April 30, 2010 at 2:50 PM

In an explanatory note, lawmakers added that the change “stipulates that a lawful stop, detention or arrest must be in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state.”

–So in other words, AZ could still set up checkpoints to make sure everyone’s car isn’t too noisy and ask for the papers for anyone they stop if they have “reasonable suspicion”.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 4:29 PM

–So in other words, AZ could still set up checkpoints to make sure everyone’s car isn’t too noisy and ask for the papers for anyone they stop if they have “reasonable suspicion”.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 4:29 PM

The border patrol actually does set up checkpoints and stops people. When I lived in NM you’d fing them waiting in the absolute middle of nowhere.

But really, you folks will carry this ridiculousness into infinity.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 4:32 PM

If RS is the standard, then the law does nothing. No teeth, no nothing. If it’s not RS, it’s unconstitutional. Lose-lose.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM

Why don’t you admit you don’t care what the law is you just don’t want immigration laws enforced.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 4:34 PM

If RS is the standard, then the law does nothing. No teeth, no nothing. If it’s not RS, it’s unconstitutional. Lose-lose.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 2:45 PM

All this huffign and puffing and not a peep on HCR…PR you are a world class asshole.

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Proud Rino, the TTT thing is really unbecoming. Makes you look like an elitist (and particularly illiberal) jerk. And I fully admit to being a credentialist pedant, so consider it immanent criticism.

DrSteve on April 30, 2010 at 1:24 PM
I can’t think of worse place for inappropriate prestige-whoring than law schools, and given the current legal market and the overabundance, this is especially inappropriate. At least 180 law schools in the US should be shut down, right now. They’re useless. But the ABA keeps accrediting them anyway.

Really, even in your top 30 schools, you’re still looking at some pretty iffy places, and at this point, do Harvard and Yale even bother teaching actual law anymore? So much “theoretical” hokum, if you want to go get a PhD in jurisprudence, be my guest, but that’s not what a JD is for. Look at the quality of young lawyers coming out of Harvard, Yale or Stanford these days. Not impressive.

And the fact that this idiot is actually “teaching” people the law, Mr. “Let’s blame liberals for the terribly written statute” is a disgrace. His law school is a disgrace. TTTs all around.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 1:56 PM

–It was about an eight page bill and he said that he specifically crafted this provision to stand up to legal scrunity. Oh well, he’s had better days.

–In the current environment, Dr. Steve, I’d say arguing about the prestige of various medical schools and residency programs is probably even more inappropriate than arguing about the prestige of law schools.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 4:43 PM

You just made a bunch of people angry so you could pass a law that is meaningless.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:26 PM

The asking wasn’t the important parts, delta alpha.

The important parts are:

1. Requiring that immigrants carry papers as a state measure.
2. Crime on a state level for being here illegally.
3. Removal of sanctuary city policies as a matter of state law.

Tim Burton on April 30, 2010 at 4:47 PM

The new clarifications are welcome indeed, and should defuse the controversy that threatened to distract the GOP from the larger issues of economic crisis and government encroachment. But just as with the surprises that we keep finding in the ObamaCare bill, the entire problem could have been avoided had the legislature paid more attention to the details before voting it into law.

The left are masters at misdirection, that is why they like to accuse their adversaries of all sorts of bad behavior. You have to stay one step in front of them all the time.

Terrye on April 30, 2010 at 4:54 PM

1. Requiring that immigrants carry papers as a state measure.

Already required in AZ before the passage of the law.

2. Crime on a state level for being here illegally.

Sure, but it’s already against the law, and a person arrested who is discovered to be illegal is going to be deported or jailed, presumably. Remember, now this is all based on “lawful stops,” which is still going to be based on the reasonable suspicion standard, for which the police have always been able to demand identification from someone.

3. Removal of sanctuary city policies as a matter of state law.

I guess, but you can be a de facto sanctuary city as much as you are a de jure sanctuary city, so it doesn’t actually do anything. Presumably the provision where you can sue the police for not enforcing the law protects that, but that’s just a terrible idea in every respect.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 5:08 PM

There’s over 400,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona. What percent are ever going to have contact with the police? Even if it’s 10% in any given year, there will still be hundreds of thousands and more every year.

This legislation smacks of political grandstanding.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 30, 2010 at 5:12 PM

There’s over 400,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona. What percent are ever going to have contact with the police? ……….
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 30, 2010 at 5:12 PM

–All of them, if the GOP has its way.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM

hmmm, the multiple times I have been pulled over for being white in a predominately poor black area were a violation of my rights?

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM
Crimes that happen in your imagination don’t count.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:16 PM

Got news for you Rino. The police pull you over to check for a drug purchase. I’m a property manager, so I go into some marignal to scary ‘hoods. I’ve been stopped. Produce my ID and business card.No problem.

katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Checkpoint, tail light out, it makes little difference. If you’re ok with the police using their supposedly lawful right to say…search your car for drugs on ‘reasonable suspicion’, no matter what the context of your contact with them…then this Arizona law makes no difference to you.

If you consider stop and frisk or checkpoints and the like, then this law will always reek.

ernesto on April 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Stop driving with a broken tail light while you are higher than a Georgia pine.

katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2010 at 5:27 PM

–In the current environment, Dr. Steve, I’d say arguing about the prestige of various medical schools and residency programs is probably even more inappropriate than arguing about the prestige of law schools.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 4:43 PM

Er, what? I’m an economist, silly.

DrSteve on April 30, 2010 at 5:33 PM

There was no need to change the law, because “lawful contact” has a specific legal definition. One of the changes will just inflame the opponents is “local civil violations” which includes things like tall weeds or too many people living in a house. Watch for statements like “Racists will call the cops on their neighbors, people who just want to do jobs that Americans won’t do.” That “jobs” argument might have worked when the unemployment rate was 3 or 4%, but when it is near 10% and when you include the people working part time when they need full time employment and the people that have run out of benefits and just gave up being over 20%, it just doesn’t fly.

As I’ve said before, if this law gets blocked somehow, the people of Arizona are going to pick up their guns, and I wouldn’t blame them one bit. The National Guard WILL be sent down there, either to secure the border or quell the violence. Odumbo needs to pick one.

darwin-t on April 30, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Ok libs who have no clue. I live in Arizona 6 miles from the border. I and everyone else drives through checkpoints to go north for shopping in Tucson or anywhere else. It is common practice and I am asked EVERYTIME, are you a US citizen. Also, the FED can enter any property within 50 miles of the border for any reason. No warrant needed unless they want to enter the premises. If you think this new law is intrusive you are dolts. You do not like the law, piss off and stay out of our state. Like I said before, I will buy any illegal a bus ticket to San Fran anyday of the week. Any nationality cause I am an equal opportunity xenophobe.

usarmyretired on April 30, 2010 at 5:38 PM

–All of them, if the GOP has its way.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 5:14 PM

Equal DOLT

usarmyretired on April 30, 2010 at 5:40 PM

The border patrol actually does set up checkpoints and stops people. When I lived in NM you’d fing them waiting in the absolute middle of nowhere.

But really, you folks will carry this ridiculousness into infinity.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 4:32 PM

Yes, but don’t they put up signs warning of a checkpoint ahead?

darwin-t on April 30, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Yes, but don’t they put up signs warning of a checkpoint ahead?

darwin-t on April 30, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Unless you plan on driving into the desert to bypass them you will hit one. They are on every road going north. Why do you think illegals hire coyotes to take them through the desert?

usarmyretired on April 30, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Yes, but don’t they put up signs warning of a checkpoint ahead?

darwin-t on April 30, 2010 at 5:41 PM

I don’t recall signs … maybe some cones.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Good ol’ Ed. Non-partisan, above the fray, moderate, independent. We need more of that.

misterpeasea on April 30, 2010 at 5:44 PM

don’t recall signs … maybe some cones.

darwin on April 30, 2010 at 5:44 PM

The signs are there only right before you get to the checkpoint and start funneling to the BP agents. If you make a U-turn you are guaranteed to have one of the agents pull you over and “politely” ask for ID.

usarmyretired on April 30, 2010 at 5:46 PM

hmmm, the multiple times I have been pulled over for being white in a predominately poor black area were a violation of my rights?

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM

Crimes that happen in your imagination don’t count.

Proud Rino on April 30, 2010 at 12:16 PM

I believe Inanemergencydial. My son who lives in a poor black area is pulled over and asked why he is there often! When he points out his address on his drivers license, he gets “huh”. Then he is asked why he is there that time of day (afternoon). He explains he owns his own business and has tools at home he needs for the work site. Again “huh”. Then he is asked why he drives a Cobra, at that point he tells them to issue a ticket or let him get on with his business. They get mad and ask to search his car, he says no, get a warrant. They have to let him go, no ticket, no search. Has happened at least 5 times in a year.

IowaWoman on April 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM

Illegal=Bad. Legal=Good.
Why do politicians have to make things so damn complicated?

HornetSting on April 30, 2010 at 6:11 PM

HornetSting on April 30, 2010 at 6:11 PM

Liberals can’t exist without some ’cause’, where they whine, simper, and complain. But when it comes to actually doing something about there cause, they’re nowhere to be found.

As I post earlier, every liberal should sponsor an illegal. And I’d be willing to grant amnesty, if the person and his/her family is sponsored by said liberal. That puts the lib on the hook, to vouch for the sponsee. If done by a corporation, that company has to pay the worker an average wage for the job being done, and show the illegal…er, immigrant…is employed.

Instead of Adopt-a-pet, libs can Adopt-an-illegal.

But not one single lib has stepped up to do it, though they simper and cry in their lattes about how ‘evil’ Arizonians are.

Liam on April 30, 2010 at 6:19 PM

They should have been more careful writing the original bill, but I doubt it would have mattered. The reaction would have been the same with opponents misrepresenting the substance of the law.

Mark1971 on April 30, 2010 at 11:02 AM

This is exactly what I would have said about this….

:)

JannyMae on April 30, 2010 at 8:20 PM

Yes, and some said I was “racist” in stating the errors with the law would force exactly that charge against the police trying to enforce such an overly written lawyer trying to be to cute effort.

I may not know a lot about everything but police work is in my wheelhouse and this law was a bad one.

Now if they would only move to criminalize business owners employing the illegals and the complaints would have no merit.

archer52 on April 30, 2010 at 8:39 PM

This has been a most excellent post illustrating how insincere proud rino is. All it wants to do is agitate and ridicule. It has an agenda and truth be damned.

Oh well, maybe its time you declare victory and smoke a pork butt?

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 8:46 PM

You need to re-read the Constitution — and, in particular, the 14th Amendment. Any law or order which places a particular burden on people (especially including citizens) of a particular race or creed is unConstitutional.

unclesmrgol on April 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM

I’m unaware of a “particular burden” clause….

Fighton03 on April 30, 2010 at 8:46 PM


In the current environment, Dr. Steve, I’d say arguing about the prestige of various medical schools and residency programs is probably even more inappropriate than arguing about the prestige of law schools.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 4:43 PM
Er, what? I’m an economist, silly.

DrSteve on April 30, 2010 at 5:33 PM

–Sorry. Thought you were an MD, not a Ph.D.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 8:58 PM

–Sorry. Thought you were an MD, not a Ph.D.

Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 8:58 PM

awww you blew your cheap gotcha statement… :(

Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 9:04 PM

ARIZONA will be wishing they were the Marsh islands of Louisiana by the time the Libs have finished SHREIKING ABOUT THIS.

And of course LARAZA….between CAIR for the Muslims and LARAZA (and the money behind them) IT WILL BE A MIRACLE IF THIS COUNTRY SURVIVES.

PappyD61 on April 30, 2010 at 9:12 PM

How is it possible that we have laws against being illegally in the country, but no way of determining someones status?

Answer – Puzzy Politicians.

BierManVA on April 30, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Yes, but don’t they put up signs warning of a checkpoint ahead?

darwin-t on April 30, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Last time we drove from AZ on I-8 to San Diego we passed through a big scary a$$ checkpoint in CA. Signs weren’t posted far enough in advance to allow someone to make a quick u-turn without being chased and stopped.

Driving from Yuma toward Phoenix there is a permanent checkpoint and weigh station. You’d have to cross the median to turn around and try to get away. You’d be caught, guaranteed.

A Pinal county sheriff was shot today when he stopped a carload of illegals near Stanfield. They shot him with an AK-47. He survived.

GrannySunni on April 30, 2010 at 9:42 PM

I wonder if the media elite will refer to tomorrow’s protesters as “dirty sanchez-ers”.

warden on April 30, 2010 at 10:18 PM

GrannySunni on April 30, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Quote of the Day material.

Hawkins1701 on April 30, 2010 at 11:00 PM

Those who are against the Arizona laws, would you favor immigration laws that Mexico, Canada, and most of the world uses? Since these nations are nearly perfect why not adopt their immigration laws? Isn’t it true with health care reform we will have to carry papers, why not with our immigration status. Let me know Proud Rino, if you would favor in changing our laws where it would be the same as Mexico.

garydt on April 30, 2010 at 11:06 PM

The Arizona legislature could have saved everyone the trouble by defining the parameters from the beginning.

Thank goodness: Now the Left will be at peace with the bill, the illegals will cancel their protesting and rioting, and lolipops with rain all over D.C.

My gosh, you are naive!

Do you think that the Obamanoids and all the rest will be satisfied now that this needless “definition” has been spelled out?

Get the rocks out of your head, please.

seanrobins on May 1, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Ragspierre on April 30, 2010 at 12:50 PM

Hey Rags. How does that crow taste?

: )

crr6 on May 1, 2010 at 12:28 AM

How does liberal crap sandwich taste? The low IQ liberal lawyers lost this one before they even opened their lisping lips. The law will stand and be a model for other states.

ray on May 1, 2010 at 12:50 AM

Hey Rags. How does that crow taste?

: )

crr6 on May 1, 2010 at 12:28 AM

LOL….we’re in the 9th circuit, where judges decide what the intent of the legislature was rather than actually listen to them. AZ just saw how the wind was going so the wrote the legal principle into the law too. It’s Department of Redundancy Department.

“It was the intent of the legislature for ‘lawful contact’ to mean arrests and stops, but people on the left mischaracterized it”

Fighton03 on May 1, 2010 at 1:02 AM

Yes, and I’m also impressed how this has shoved repealing health care to the back burner as well.

ExUrbanKevin on April 30, 2010 at 11:16 AM

Me too. They are using swarm tactics, and we are the dog frantically snapping at every locust as it passes, instantly forgetting the thousands that have already passed. It appears that several hundred marxists/traitors in the administration actually HAVE been busy. Plotting! Expect the deluge to continue, and accelerate, between now and November.

Are we this easily distracted? Yes, we’re still waiting for the Obama 2008 campaign to weed out and refund illegal credit cards from the only site on the entire WWW that did not match the CC number to a US address. Man, that seems like a thousand years ago…and at least a thousand lies, crimes, and misdemeanors ago.

Who is John Galt on May 1, 2010 at 5:05 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3