To wrapup coverage of the immigration issue which has been at the top of the news lately, I figured I\’d top it off with the issue that probably relight this smoldering powderkeg….the Arizona immigration Law (SB1070). Despite it being a relatively minor bill as far as actual legal impact, there has been a lot of demagoguery of the bill. I figured I\’d tackle some of the bigger myths, and conveniently, the Washington Examiner already collected a list of the 10 dumbest things said about the bill.
1. “The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.”
– New York Times editorial
Actually no it doesn\’t. The law doesn\’t take effect until after a police officer has already stopped, detained or arrested someone. It\’s only after this point, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is an illegal immigrant that he has to determine their immigration status.
In that sense the law is actually MORE restrictive than federal law, upheld by the Supreme Court (Muehler vs Mena 2005), which states that officers do NOT need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status. The Supreme Court has \”held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure\” under the Fourth Amendment.
2. “As the Arizona abomination makes clear, there is a desperate need for federal immigration action to stop the country from turning into a nation of vigilantes suspicious of anybody with dark skin.”
– Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Dana is correct that there is a desperate need for federal immigration action, and the federal government has repeatedly refused, under both Republicans and Democrats, to enforce their own immigration laws.
The other claim has absolutely no factual support. In fact the law (as amended by HB2162), specifically states that race, color or national origin can NOT be taken into consideration.
3. “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.”
– Cardinal Roger Mahony
Actually nobody is required to turn in anyone, and this bill mentions nothing of the sort. This bill only affects police officers, and then only concerning people they already have contact with in the execution of their duties. This bill never even comes close to mention ANYTHING like this.
The good Cardinal might want to read through his Ten Commandments again, as number nine specifically forbids lying. And considering this bill never even comes close to stating what he\’s implying, I can only interpret his remarks as willful misinformation.
4. “This law creates a suspect class, based in part on ethnicity, considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent. It makes it harder for illegal immigrants to live without scrutiny — but it also makes it harder for some American citizens to live without suspicion and humiliation. Americans are not accustomed to the command ‘Your papers, please,’ however politely delivered. The distinctly American response to such a request would be ‘Go to hell,’ and then ‘See you in court.’”
– Michael Gerson, Washington Post
Oh where do I start?? First of all, as I already pointed out, police can not even take ethnicity into account. Moreover, if is already a federal crime (8 USCS 1304(a) and 1306(e)) for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. And that has been the case since 1940….remember, back when we were actually dealing with Nazis?? Nobody has complained about it since.
5. “In case the phrase ‘lawful contact’ makes it appear as if the police are authorized to act only if they observe an undocumented-looking person actually committing a crime, another section strips the statute of even that fig leaf of reassurance. ‘A person is guilty of trespassing,’ the law provides, by being ‘present on any public or private land in this state’ while lacking authorization to be in the United States — a new crime of breathing while undocumented.”
– Linda Greenhouse, New York Times
(Greenhouse’s “trespassing” allegation was based on an early version of the Arizona bill that was not the bill that became law. Her mistake was later removed from the Times site, but you can see original version here.)
Granted this appears to have been retracted but I address it here, because so far, from what I\’ve seen, most of the people criticising the bill have no idea what\’s actually in it.
6. “Federal law treats illegal immigration as a civil violation; Arizona law criminalizes it by using the legally dubious mechanism of equating the mere presence of undocumented immigrants with trespassing.”
– Washington Post editorial
(This editorial makes the same mistake as Linda Greenhouse’s “trespassing” column above.)
Actually this bill just creates a state penalty that mirrors what is already a federal CRIME. But again, you\’re ill informed.
7. “I am saddened today at the prospect of a young Hispanic immigrant in Arizona going to the grocery store and forgetting to bring her passport and immigration documents with her. I cannot be dispassionate about the fact that the very act of her being in the grocery store will soon be a crime in the state she lives in…An immigrant who is charged with the crime of trespassing for simply being in a community without his papers on him is being told he is committing a crime by simply being.”
– Bishop Desmond Tutu, Huffington Post
I miss the good old days when you could rely on the word of a man of the cloth.
If this immigrant is here illegally, then yes their mere presence is a crime, and always has been. This Arizona law doesn\’t change that. And if that immigrant is here legally, they are already required to carry their documentation with them, and that\’s been the case since 1940. If you\’ve ever travelled abroad, you\’ll know that most other country have similar laws.
8. “It harkens back to apartheid where all black people in South Africa were required to carry documents in order to move from one part of town to another.”
– Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on ABC’s “This Week”
Actually it harkens back to 1940, which is how long this has already been required by federal law. Nothing is new here.
9. “You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona…suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”
– President Barack Obama
For being a legal scholar, you apparently don\’t know much about the actual…..well, law. For being in charge of enforcing federal law, you apparently have no idea what the federal law already is.
10. “This week, Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country which will allow police to demand identification papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. I know there’s some people in Arizona worried that Obama is acting like Hitler, but could we all agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying ‘Show me your papers?’ There’s never been a World War II movie that didn’t include the line ’show me your papers.’ It’s their catchphrase. Every time someone says ’show me your papers,’ Hitler’s family gets a residual check. So heads up, Arizona; that’s fascism. I know, I know, it’s a dry fascism, but it’s still fascism.”
– Seth Myers, “Saturday Night Live”
Again, aliens are already required to carry their documentation, and have been since 1940. Back when we were fighting real Nazis and fascism.
There is also another myth I\’ve heard, that\’s not so much a statement but a generally dismissal of one of the key parts of the language of the bill. That being that the term \”reasonable suspicion\” is a meaningless term.
Quite simply that\’s ridiculous. \”Reasonable suspicion\” is a legal term that\’s been defined by the courts for decades. Quite simply, it is when a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts. It\’s most well known application is in defining, when what\’s known as a \”Terry Stop\”, can be performed, as decided in Terry vs Ohio.
It\’s very instructive that opponents of this immigration bill have to use obvious mistruths as propaganda against this bill. It\’s comforting to know they apparently can\’t oppose it on it\’s own merits, or with actual factual arguments.
[Crossposted at True North, comments welcome]