Lo siento, yo no soy Hispano.
When I went to Cancun with a friend a couple years ago, I was taken aback a little bit when the local folks talked to me in Spanish. Not just a couple here or there, but a lot. Being mistaken for a Hispanic in the United States is one thing, as I attribute it to ignorant people, but to be mistaken likewise in Mexico just tells me that, perhaps, despite my tainted brownish Chinese appearance, I may really look like a fair skinned Hispanic.
Now, why did I bring this up? Imagine this: I go down to Arizona for a little touristy visit, and like a typical American, I bring just my Illinois state ID. No passport, no birth certificate and no certificate of naturalization. Furthermore, I nonchalantly rolled through a stop sign at an intersection instead of coming to a full stop for three seconds as required by most traffic laws. I get pulled over, and am asked for proof of my legal status. Unfortunately, I cannot provide this. So I get arrested without a warrant, and then later transferred to Homeland Security custody, instead of just being cited for traffic violation as usual.
This potential chain reaction started with the fact that I didn't carry on my person proof of legal status in the country, further compounded by the fact that I looked Hispanic. And this all could happen only because of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which amended a few existing Arizona statutes.
Arizona SB 1070 came about following the brutal murder of a third generation Arizona rancher, Robert Krentz near the border on March 27, which heated up the anger and frustration of Arizonans. The Republican senators, in response without looking like they're not doing anything, rushed through the creation of the bill and slammed it through the senate through its Republican majority seats of Senate. All Republicans, save for Carolyn S Allen, voted for the passage of the bill, whereas the Democrats either voted against or abstained. [The senate is made up of 18 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and 3 vacated seats. The vote breakdown was 17 Ayes (all Republicans), 11 Nays (10 Democrats and 1 Republican), and 2 Abstains (both Democrats).]
Please don't get me wrong. Like most Americans, I agree with the fact that this nation has an illegal immigration problem which desperately needs addressing. Furthermore, I am in full support of states taking measures to protect themselves in such regards when the federal government has been unable to address the issue. But, I am not in support of Arizona's new law. Specifically the amendment to Section 2, Title 11, Chapter 7 with the addition to Article 8, where provision B states:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE 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."
This provision forces all levels of law enforcement from state to county to city to subdivision to act as immigration officer, a jurisdiction held by the federal government, not anywhere else. The jurisdiction issue is not something I particularly care about, but I do care about the fact that anyone can be detained where "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."
Great! Now what? If you read the entire bill, nowhere did the legislature provide any assistance to law enforcement on the definition of "reasonable suspicion," nor provide any guidelines in understanding so. If I ask you to take a look at two women, one of whom is menstruating, and the other not, would you be able to tell which one is? Likewise, how can you tell the difference between someone who is here legally and one who isn't? Because, Arizona's law basically gave whether "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" as a probable cause. And nowhere in the bill do the Republican lawmakers explain what this "reasonable suspicion" is.
This poorly written and rushed bill is vague in its language, and certainly invites racial profiling as a tool that law enforcements will reluctantly employ in determining who is an illegal alien and who isn't. There is no way around it, given the vagueness of the bill.
Since 1995, there have been several joint programs between the federal and local governments known as 287(g) programs. Such programs were authorized by Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), enacted in 1995. Section 287(g) of this law authorized the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
In essence, 287(g) programs give local law enforcements the same powers as provided by Arizona Senate Bill 1070, with a couple differences: 1) requirement of training on the local law enforcement's part, and 2) the option to question someone of their legal status rests on the local law enforcer, as opposed to required all of the time.
Given that several programs have been created under this provision in federal law for 15 years, many of the participating local law enforcement agencies have advised Arizona Governor Brewer against endorsing SB 1070. Their reasons, which can be backed up by statistics, were: 1) No matter how much training their law enforcers had from the federal government, nearly half of them admitted that determination was so difficult that they ended up unknowingly and unintentionally employing racial profiling practices; 2) Only 9% of the 145,000 people arrested under this program were violent criminals; and 3) The program has a counterproductive effect on people as it creates distrust of law enforcement to the point where no witness, legal or not, is willing to report crimes or help investigators.
The most important thing to note here is that those with experience in similar types of enforcements have warned of racial profiling, a practice deemed unconstitutional in various courts, as it violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [The Fourth Amendment states: 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.] Proponents of AZ SB 1070, when discussing the merits of the law, seemed willing to give up such a civil liberty as if the right was not worth anything. Either that or they tend to downplay the severity of such practice. When publicly asked how the state's various law enforcement agencies can avoid racial profiling without the state legislature providing assistance either in language or provision of training dollars in the bill, Governor Brewer simply responded that racial profiling will not happen. As if her word alone is strong enough to prevent some of the most natural human tendencies toward racial bias. (Please don't confuse "racial bias" from a subconscious state of mind to active "racism.")
Another noteworthy point is that proponents of the law seem to buy into the notion created by the fear mongering of Republicans that illegal immigrants are all violent criminals, with the propensity to take a life. And this is further amplified by Conservative media, which just adds fuel to a raging fire. Just watch this incendiary Fox News report on the peoples' reaction to the rancher's murder, which conveniently left out the voices of those in the town hall meeting with an opposing (and cool-headed and objective) point of view:
What's important to realize is that those who commit violent crimes have no boundaries in skin color or even immigration status. I thought we have already learned the lesson from the misconception at the turn of the century when people assumed black people were the culprits behind any given crime when there are no suspects. But now, at the turn of the new century, instead of black people, illegal immigrants are being unfairly targeted and portrayed as violent criminals at large who will do anything and break common sense laws, such as murder.
I fully support states that adopt their own laws to protect its citizens when the federal government seemed unable to do so when it comes to border and immigration issues. So long as the laws are not unconstitutional. But the Arizona law gave an open invitation to racial profiling without constitutional probable cause, and thus lead to violation of the Fourth Amendment. It's not the idea behind the law I am against, but the vagueness of the verbiage and lack of provision to protect the civil rights of all people that I am truly against.
The United States was founded and based on civil rights, which Americans are so damn proud of because no other country can rival it even today. In the Declaration of Independence, it is stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." We further stated in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And we spelled out what these unalienable rights and blessings of liberty are, in the form of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.
Of so many laws pertaining to immigration enacted and adopted by many states in 2010 alone, the Arizona state law is the only one that not only draws criticism, but takes away a civil right protected by the United States Constitution by means of legalized racial profiling. The law does nothing more than make a mockery of our Constitution. For that, I cannot fully support or agree with how Arizonans chose to protect themselves from illegal immigration problems.
You know what one of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once wrote? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Now, why did I bring this up? Imagine this: I go down to Arizona for a little touristy visit, and like a typical American, I bring just my Illinois state ID. No passport, no birth certificate and no certificate of naturalization. Furthermore, I nonchalantly rolled through a stop sign at an intersection instead of coming to a full stop for three seconds as required by most traffic laws. I get pulled over, and am asked for proof of my legal status. Unfortunately, I cannot provide this. So I get arrested without a warrant, and then later transferred to Homeland Security custody, instead of just being cited for traffic violation as usual.
This potential chain reaction started with the fact that I didn't carry on my person proof of legal status in the country, further compounded by the fact that I looked Hispanic. And this all could happen only because of Arizona Senate Bill 1070, which amended a few existing Arizona statutes.
Arizona SB 1070 came about following the brutal murder of a third generation Arizona rancher, Robert Krentz near the border on March 27, which heated up the anger and frustration of Arizonans. The Republican senators, in response without looking like they're not doing anything, rushed through the creation of the bill and slammed it through the senate through its Republican majority seats of Senate. All Republicans, save for Carolyn S Allen, voted for the passage of the bill, whereas the Democrats either voted against or abstained. [The senate is made up of 18 Republicans, 12 Democrats, and 3 vacated seats. The vote breakdown was 17 Ayes (all Republicans), 11 Nays (10 Democrats and 1 Republican), and 2 Abstains (both Democrats).]
Please don't get me wrong. Like most Americans, I agree with the fact that this nation has an illegal immigration problem which desperately needs addressing. Furthermore, I am in full support of states taking measures to protect themselves in such regards when the federal government has been unable to address the issue. But, I am not in support of Arizona's new law. Specifically the amendment to Section 2, Title 11, Chapter 7 with the addition to Article 8, where provision B states:
"FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE 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."
This provision forces all levels of law enforcement from state to county to city to subdivision to act as immigration officer, a jurisdiction held by the federal government, not anywhere else. The jurisdiction issue is not something I particularly care about, but I do care about the fact that anyone can be detained where "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States."
Great! Now what? If you read the entire bill, nowhere did the legislature provide any assistance to law enforcement on the definition of "reasonable suspicion," nor provide any guidelines in understanding so. If I ask you to take a look at two women, one of whom is menstruating, and the other not, would you be able to tell which one is? Likewise, how can you tell the difference between someone who is here legally and one who isn't? Because, Arizona's law basically gave whether "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States" as a probable cause. And nowhere in the bill do the Republican lawmakers explain what this "reasonable suspicion" is.
This poorly written and rushed bill is vague in its language, and certainly invites racial profiling as a tool that law enforcements will reluctantly employ in determining who is an illegal alien and who isn't. There is no way around it, given the vagueness of the bill.
Since 1995, there have been several joint programs between the federal and local governments known as 287(g) programs. Such programs were authorized by Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), enacted in 1995. Section 287(g) of this law authorized the federal government to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, permitting designated officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions, pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), provided that the local law enforcement officers receive appropriate training and function under the supervision of sworn U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.
In essence, 287(g) programs give local law enforcements the same powers as provided by Arizona Senate Bill 1070, with a couple differences: 1) requirement of training on the local law enforcement's part, and 2) the option to question someone of their legal status rests on the local law enforcer, as opposed to required all of the time.
Given that several programs have been created under this provision in federal law for 15 years, many of the participating local law enforcement agencies have advised Arizona Governor Brewer against endorsing SB 1070. Their reasons, which can be backed up by statistics, were: 1) No matter how much training their law enforcers had from the federal government, nearly half of them admitted that determination was so difficult that they ended up unknowingly and unintentionally employing racial profiling practices; 2) Only 9% of the 145,000 people arrested under this program were violent criminals; and 3) The program has a counterproductive effect on people as it creates distrust of law enforcement to the point where no witness, legal or not, is willing to report crimes or help investigators.
The most important thing to note here is that those with experience in similar types of enforcements have warned of racial profiling, a practice deemed unconstitutional in various courts, as it violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [The Fourth Amendment states: 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.] Proponents of AZ SB 1070, when discussing the merits of the law, seemed willing to give up such a civil liberty as if the right was not worth anything. Either that or they tend to downplay the severity of such practice. When publicly asked how the state's various law enforcement agencies can avoid racial profiling without the state legislature providing assistance either in language or provision of training dollars in the bill, Governor Brewer simply responded that racial profiling will not happen. As if her word alone is strong enough to prevent some of the most natural human tendencies toward racial bias. (Please don't confuse "racial bias" from a subconscious state of mind to active "racism.")
Another noteworthy point is that proponents of the law seem to buy into the notion created by the fear mongering of Republicans that illegal immigrants are all violent criminals, with the propensity to take a life. And this is further amplified by Conservative media, which just adds fuel to a raging fire. Just watch this incendiary Fox News report on the peoples' reaction to the rancher's murder, which conveniently left out the voices of those in the town hall meeting with an opposing (and cool-headed and objective) point of view:
What's important to realize is that those who commit violent crimes have no boundaries in skin color or even immigration status. I thought we have already learned the lesson from the misconception at the turn of the century when people assumed black people were the culprits behind any given crime when there are no suspects. But now, at the turn of the new century, instead of black people, illegal immigrants are being unfairly targeted and portrayed as violent criminals at large who will do anything and break common sense laws, such as murder.
I fully support states that adopt their own laws to protect its citizens when the federal government seemed unable to do so when it comes to border and immigration issues. So long as the laws are not unconstitutional. But the Arizona law gave an open invitation to racial profiling without constitutional probable cause, and thus lead to violation of the Fourth Amendment. It's not the idea behind the law I am against, but the vagueness of the verbiage and lack of provision to protect the civil rights of all people that I am truly against.
The United States was founded and based on civil rights, which Americans are so damn proud of because no other country can rival it even today. In the Declaration of Independence, it is stated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." We further stated in the Preamble to the United States Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And we spelled out what these unalienable rights and blessings of liberty are, in the form of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution.
Of so many laws pertaining to immigration enacted and adopted by many states in 2010 alone, the Arizona state law is the only one that not only draws criticism, but takes away a civil right protected by the United States Constitution by means of legalized racial profiling. The law does nothing more than make a mockery of our Constitution. For that, I cannot fully support or agree with how Arizonans chose to protect themselves from illegal immigration problems.
You know what one of the founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once wrote? "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Labels: Arizona, immigration, law, politics, SB 1070
posted by StHalcyon at
18:30
0 Comments
