READER COMMENTS ON

"President's Homeland Security Appointment Opened Door to Arizona's Apartheid Regime"

(23 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... stumptownhero said on 5/29/2010 @ 9:01 am PT...





Can you say Blowback?

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 5/29/2010 @ 9:31 am PT...





The only problem I have, STUMPTOWNHERO, with the application of "blowback" is that word, as initially applied by the CIA, pertains to the "unforeseeable" future consequences of present actions--usually with respect to covert activity, such as the CIA-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in Iran (1953). Here, the results of appointing Janet Napolitano to head Homeland Security were not only foreseeable at the time the President made the appointment but were predicted by Brad Friedman before the President made the appointment.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Steve said on 5/29/2010 @ 12:33 pm PT...





It's laughable, the claim of "Apartheid Regime" in the headline, but it does serve the purpose of stirring up the loony crowd. Apartheid was oppressive and deadly to millions of people, this law is meant to protect citizens at absolutely no ones expense. But then, Brad and the rest of you folks already know that. Stopped for speeding? "Let me see your license and registration." Caught violating any other law, or suspected of violating the law? "Let me see some identification?" Yeah, how 'bout that apartheid??

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 5/29/2010 @ 12:51 pm PT...





No, no. Racial profiling can not be used in applying the "your papers, please" law. Why, that would be illegal! Heh. Heh. I'm racking my brains to try to figure out how an officer of the law could have "reasonable suspicion" that an individual in Arizona is in the country illegally without using racial profiling. Every scenario I come up with is full of holes. (Wait. They'll get them through the kids. Right? Kids trying to go to school, or not going to school for fear of being discovered. Kids being brought to the doctor or hospital --- or not being brought, but who need care. This is appalling to contemplate.) I'm guessing they will do it anyway, and those farms, factories and restaurants that don't buy off the cops will be targeted. It won't happen, but I keep hoping that the kid of some well-connected AZ citizen ends up in jail for a day or two because the kid has no proof of citizenship on his or her person, and the parents are off on some trip out of the country. Then we might see a repeal of this dreadful law.

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Steve said on 5/29/2010 @ 1:19 pm PT...





You're buying the media driven "version" of the law. It does not allow for profiling. Showing your drivers license or other approved state issued identification is proof that you are in the country legally. When people are stopped by the police for reasonable cause this is the first thing they are asked, to show their identification. And I agree, I hope some well-connected AZ citizen ends up in jail for a day or two because the kid has no proof of citizenship on his or her person, and the parents are off on some trip out of the country. Maybe then this law can be erased off the books and the Federal Government can start doing their job. Which they've ignored for decades.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Kenneth Fingeret said on 5/29/2010 @ 1:28 pm PT...





Hello Lora, I think that you might be correct if his bunkmate is named "Bubba".

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 5/29/2010 @ 5:41 pm PT...





"Bubba," hmmm? Steve, I know racial profiling is not allowed. Now kindly tell me, what would "reasonable cause" look like? Talking Spanish?

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Steve said on 5/29/2010 @ 6:44 pm PT...





Traffic violations, someone being questioned as a suspect in a crime, seeing a pickup truck driving down a back country dirt road with 20 people in the back. All of those are reasons for the police to stop anyone, and to ask these people to see their identification. When the person cannot produce identification this law comes in to play. It specifically forbids stopping someone for driving while brown, or speaking with a Spanish accent. Don't listen to the media depictions of the law, and don't listen to our governmental types who criticize the law... they're playing to a base of voters and nothing more.

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 5/30/2010 @ 6:56 am PT...





Steve @5 & 8. With all due respect, my friend, you are misinformed. AZ SB-1070 [PDF] is by no means limited to traffic stops. It provides, in pertinent part: A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, WITHOUT A WARRANT, MAY ARREST A PERSON IF THE OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE PERSON HAS COMMITTED ANY PUBLIC OFFENSE THAT MAKES THE PERSON REMOVABLE FROM THE UNITED STATES. Under this statute, any undocumented alien who is simply present inside the state of Arizona has committed a public offense that makes him or her "removable" from the U.S. As noted by the ACLU, explaining the lawsuit they filed to enjoin enforcement of SB-1070: The new law, which will not go into effect for more than 90 days, requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is in the country unlawfully. To avoid arrest, citizens and immigrants will effectively have to carry their "papers" at all times. The statute does not define what factors a police officer should look to in order to create a "reasonable suspicion" that one is an illegal immigrant, but you can bet dollars to donuts that blond hair and blue eyes will not form a "reasonable suspicion" of illegal status. SB-1070 is indistinguishable from apartheid South Africa's infamous "pass laws" except that where South Africa required non-whites to carry their papers whenever entering a whites only area, AZ ostensibly requires everyone to have proof of citizenship on their person at all times. The "reasonable suspicion" standard in no way prevents police from stopping someone for "driving while brown" with the failure of the individual to carry proof of citizenship as "probable cause" for the arrest.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 5/30/2010 @ 10:29 am PT...





Thank you, Ernest. Steve, the 20 people in the back of the pick-up truck are going to the fields to pick grapes. That's not (or shouldn't be) reasonable suspicion. What do you bet that the farmers will have a cozy relationship with the police? What do you bet that folks who don't "look like" undocumented immigrants will generally not be harrassed if they don't have the proper "papers?" What do you bet that folks who do, will? What do you bet that this law stinks to high heaven?

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Steve said on 5/30/2010 @ 11:22 am PT...





Respectfully Ernest, I'm not misinformed. I did not say that it was limited to traffic stops, I gave a few examples to Lora of when police would ask for identification and I included being questioned as a suspect in a crime with that. It can only happen when the person is being questioned by police for some other offense. To Lora @ 10, I used 20 people in back of a pickup truck on public roads because where I live this is a clear violation of the law. But I'll give you that it may have been a bad example because that may not be against the law in AZ. Just because the ACLU tries to embellish their case painting doomsday scenarios with the court is not evidence of this being a bad law. The ACLU statement "requires police agencies across Arizona to investigate the immigration status of every person they come across whom they have "reasonable suspicion" to believe is in the country unlawfully" is simply not true. The law does not allow police to just question people at random as the ACLU would have you believe. And again, I blame inaction of the Federal Government for AZ passing this in the first place.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 5/30/2010 @ 3:56 pm PT...





Perhaps, Steve, you've read a different SB-1070 than the one which was actually passed and I linked to. There is no requirement that SB-1070 be applied only when the police question a suspect pertaining to a crime, other than the crime of illegal status. To the contrary, the statute expressly provides "any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States." An undocumented alien's mere presence in the state of Arizona is a "public offense that makes" the undocumented alien "removable from the United States." If you had actually read the statute, as I have, instead of listening to right wing propaganda, you would understand, as many of the AZ police chiefs who are opposed to this law understand, that this law burdens AZ law enforcement with an obligation to demand that someone "show their papers" whenever there is a "reasonable suspicion" that they are undocumented aliens. Those law enforcement officers have complained that the "reasonable suspicion" standard "simply pushes law enforcement to use racial profiling as the only means they can think of to guess at undocumented status of any given person." The law does not describe what factors give rise to a "reasonable suspicion." It is not the ACLU but the shameless defenders of this apartheid "pass law" who have embellished the facts. Show me where in SB-1070 it says that the police cannot stop "anyone" whom they reasonably suspect of being an illegal! Finally, I find it interesting that you are so Hell bent on damning these economic refugees which the hard right has dehumanized with the "illegal alien" label; why you and the other immigrant bashers are so willing to militarize our Southern (but not our Northern) border; that you express no recognition of the real culprit which drove these brown-skinned economic refugees north in search of survival--NAFTA's dirty little secret in which some of the wealthiest U.S. citizens not only gorged themselves on public subsidies in order to flood Mexican markets with U.S. grown corn at well below the local cost of production; driving millions of Mexican peasants off the land, first to the cities just South of the U.S. border, creating an over-abundance of cheap labor which was exploited by the U.S. billionaire class in the first step to outsource everything we make except weapons. Instead of coming up with these race-based laws to scape goat these economic refugees, you and your fellow immigrant bashers should be focused on how the U.S. billionaire class exploited them in order to exploit us. So no, Steve, I don't blame Federal Government inaction. I blame corporate greed and racist dehumanization as the divide and conquer strategy of Right Wing Republicans and the billionaire class.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Sophia said on 5/30/2010 @ 6:04 pm PT...





I suppose the fact that Napolitano has a cozy relationship w/our fine upstanding Constitution-loving hippie dude Sheriff Joe Arpaio didn't give any clues as to Obama's real intentions early on... Puh-leez give me a bweak! My new T-shirt idea: OBAMA: tool or fool? Really-there's no QUESTION! That's all she wrote folks. BP/Halliburton have effectively destroyed the Gulf Coast, probably the East Coast & Great Britain, the health & livelihood of billions of creatures and millions of humans. He's going ahead with nuclear power, failing to halt deep sea oil drilling or the murderous coal mining Mafia, prosecuting whistleblowers and vilifying truth tellers like Goldsworthy (I may not have the name right, but it's the highly respected report to U.N. re: Israel's violations of international law and human rights that was quashed and delayed), and on and on for so long I could be here ALL NIGHT. Obama is doing what he's TOLD. The Dems are following ORDERS. It was clear day ONE of the Obama administration that NOTHING'S GONNA CHANGE. What in hell are we waiting for?! What more PROOF do we need that we are in DEEP DOO-DOO?!?!?! Sorry. Lost it there... Yep, Brad, you were right all along!

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... DanD said on 5/30/2010 @ 7:57 pm PT...





It all comes down to the question, DO YOU TRUST YOUR GOVERNMENT? Within itself, this Arizona, anti-Criminal Migant law IS NOT unconstitutional. Besides that, ANY law can be abused for an unconstitutional purpose. From all I've heard, seen, and experienced, For at least the past 50 years or so, the United States Constitution (especially the Bill of Rights) has been under incorporated attack. This is mostly because the United States Constitution requires that its "Rule-of-Law" application protect all "people" who were "created equal." Well, guess what ... corporations were never "created," instead, they were fabulized. So, for more than half a century, the fabulist slaves of the incorporated world have been buying up politicians while also inventing extreme circumstances of Constitutional doubt among the American population in order to make the United States Constitution functionally irrelevant. Now, if the Federal Government had been doing the job it was supposed to for around the last four dozen and two years, the xenophobic handjobs of Arizona would never had developed their phobia in the first place. But the very problem remains that, mostly poverty-stricken, brown-skinned people from south of America's southwest border keep violating United States sovereignty laws primarily for the purpose of economic enrichment. Some of those economic enrichment schemes involves trafficing in illegal drugs. The vast majority encompass severe job market destabilization. And please, don't feed me any tripe about the Latino day worker being willing to accomplish scut-work labor that all us more normal Americans are unwilling to do. Offer an appropriate wage within any protected economy, and you will always find somebody willing to do a job. Nope, the central theme here should be (and should have always been) "THE RULE OF LAW." Under the circumstances of America's migrant worker problems of the Southwest (and ever-so-regularly migrating towards the Northeast), Until the anchor-baby circumstance became truly problematic, virtually all American Citizens of Latino descent could speak a normal and understandable version of the English language. If they were legal migrants (not to be confused with legal immigrants), well, the government had provided them with official paperwork that identified them as such ... by Federal mandate, they should always carry this paperwork with them. I know that my step-mother from England ALWAYS carried her green card with her until she naturalized). But, if you don't trust your government to do the right thing in the first place, then that's probably because it hasn't been doing the right thing for the longest time anyway. Ultimately, it's not the law that is the problem, instead, it's the institution of government. Have you noticed in this particular circumstance that, while referring to the perrogative of Constitutional protection, that only the "rights" of criminal migrant invaders are mostly being insisted upon by that "Bleeding Hearts" division of the corporate media? What about the "Equal Protection" rights of U.S. citizen-workers (of whatever race or national origin)? Whose rights should be protected first? DanD

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Steve said on 5/30/2010 @ 9:19 pm PT...





Ernest @12. In the law section 2 subsection b explicitly states "For any LAWFUL contact made by a law enforcement official etc etc." That means the police can't stop a person for driving while brown, they can't ask the random person with an accent sitting next to them at the diner for identification. That is known as harassment and is against the law, therefore it is not lawful contact. But then you already knew that. The subsection goes on to state that, when reasonable suspicion exists they can make a reasonable attempt to determine that persons immigration status. What is reasonable suspicion? How about not being able to identify yourself. Subsection E states that the law enforcement officer may arrest if he has probable cause to believe that person has committed a public offense that makes that person removable from the United States. In other words, the person is here illegally. No where does it give police the authority to randomly stop or approach people and check their immigration status. But I'll say it again, you already knew that. You have no idea what my feelings are on immigration or any other issue for that matter so don't pretend to. And if you're going to toss third rate insults at someone for simply disagreeing with you at least get all the facts straight. Holding back the pertinent information which destroys the points you're trying to make is untruthful at best.

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Ernest A. Canning said on 5/31/2010 @ 8:12 am PT...





I am having difficulty in ascertaining whether you are being intentionally obtuse or simply naïve. Do you really think the "any lawful contact" provision prevents the police from stopping someone they have a "reasonable suspicion" of having committed the "public offense" of being an "illegal alien?" Why do you suppose the AZ police chiefs who oppose SB-1070 are concerned about the burden this law will place on their officers? And, as to your views on immigration, you already expressed them when you blamed federal government "inaction" for passage of this draconian, racial-profiling "pass law," which you characterized as "necessary," when, in truth, it is the same billionaire-connected politicians behind SB-1070 who (a) tout free enterprise while the billionaire class feeds at the public trough by way of subsidies, (b) uses so-called free-trade agreements to pillage other countries, like Mexico, where they destroyed the local agricultural system by dumping heavily subsidized U.S. corn into the Mexican economy at below the cost of production, driving millions of Mexican peasants off the land, creating the economic engine behind the northward migration, and (c) played off anti-immigrant hysteria to engage in "cultural cleansing" by passing an anti-ethnic studies law. (During the Reagan/Bush I years U.S. support for its surrogate brutal Central American regimes, whose military leaders were trained by us at the School of Americas led to a massive northward migration from that region). In both cases, the immigration "problem" that concerns you is a matter of our imperial exploitation of others come home to roost. Your suggestion that SB-1070 was "necessary" is patently absurd. Even before SB-1070 passed, local police had a right to notify federal authorities of undocumented status of any individual they take into custody for some "other" offense. If racism does not either consciously or subconsciously affect your perception of the "security of our borders," why are you, and other advocates of these so-called "necessary" laws, not clamoring for similar laws to be passed by states that border Canada? When is the last time, you or anyone else who supports SB-1070 complained about illegal Canadian immigrants? Sophia, sadly I'm inclined to agree. Instead of "change we can believe in," which got Obama elected, we got "more of the same" which supposedly defeated McCain. Of course, we all blew our chance for real change when we failed to pick Dennis Kucinich during the primaries.

COMMENT #17 [Permalink]

... Steve said on 5/31/2010 @ 9:44 am PT...





Ernest Yes, I believe the lawful contact described in section 2 subsection b prevents law enforcement from harassing law abiding people. And as a lawyer I suspect you know the same. I suppose what you are saying is that all these police chiefs in AZ who do not support this law (1 by your own link) are suddenly going to have their officers abuse it and demand identification of any hispanic person they see. As Dan said above, any law is subject to abuse, and this is why we have courts. As a lawyer I'm quite sure you already know that. The most factual point in your post is that local police had a right to notify federal authorities of undocumented status of any individual they take into custody for some "other" offense. Unfortunately, just like our federal government, local authorities selectively enforced our immigration laws. In fact, they had sanctuary cities where immigration laws were ignored. This law requires police to enforce it. But, as a lawyer, you already knew that. And you still don't know my stance on immigration. You attribute the word necessary to my take on this law three times in your rambling, redundant, and angry reply. In fact you use quotations for the word. So please sir, let me know where I said this was a necessary law because scanning through my several comments I did not see "necessary" anywhere. Granted I just scanned so I may have overlooked. Have a burger and a beer today, relax, try to take a break from your anger issues.

COMMENT #18 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 5/31/2010 @ 12:22 pm PT...





Steve, A couple of teenagers are seen running in the vicinity of a convenience store (somewhere in AZ). The manager of the convenience store had called police reporting a robbery. Let's say the teens have blond hair blue eyes. They are apprehended and have no ID on them. They say they were racing each other and were not even in the convenience store. They give their address located in some reasonably well-off part of town and ask the cops to call their dad, a small business owner downtown, to confirm. Now, let's say they are black hair brown skin, Spanish accent. Their address is in a barrio. Their mom is a factory worker and could get fired for leaving her post to answer a personal phone call. Their dad is in Mexico. Which pair of teens will be thoroughly checked as to their immigration status? Which pair of teens might spend some time in jail, regardless of whether or not they committed any crime, and regardless of whether or not they are in the country legally? Which pair of teens are even more open to harrassment than before, because of this law? *jeopardy music plays*

COMMENT #19 [Permalink]

... Sam Chianello said on 5/31/2010 @ 4:55 pm PT...





Tim Carpenter and Thom Hartmann hold ill-founded and naive opinions. In 1954, President Eisenhower dealt swiftly and decisively with the illegal alien issue. But In 1986, to America's detriment, former President Ronald Reagan signed the Simpson-Mazoli Act into American Law. This across-the board amnesty of 3.5 million Mexicans, resulted in unchecked, chained illegal immigration. Misinterpretation of America's 14th Amendment amplified this disaster with Birthright Citizenship for newborns of illegals. Today, the invasion continues, and explains why Americans must live with such catastrophe. "IT IS A SAD DAY IN AMERICA, WHEN LAW MAKERS SIDE WITH LAW BREAKERS, AGAINST LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"....Ezola Foster 1992

COMMENT #20 [Permalink]

... student aid said on 6/1/2010 @ 4:57 am PT...





[Comment deleted. Commercial spam.]

COMMENT #21 [Permalink]

... Lora said on 6/1/2010 @ 8:17 am PT...





Student aid (#20) writes: "...mostly poverty-stricken, brown-skinned people from south of America's southwest border keep violating United States..." That is the very definition of profiling. MOST poverty-stricken, brown-skinned people from south of America's southwest border are law-abiding citizens! They do not deserve harrassment due to some who are breaking the law. Why do you think our fruits and vegetables and meat cost so little? Why do you think these laws will not really affect those (corporate) farmers and meatpackers who use undocumented immigrants? What do you think would happen to our economy if the government were actually to crack down on those corporate enablers who are the reason for the continued migration of undocumented immigrants? Why do you think laws aren't passed that would really crack down on the corporations who survive on undocumented workers? Who do you think pays the steepest price? Is it the way it should be? Here's another take on why the AZ law was passed. Makes a lot of sense to me. GOP Game to Swipe the November Election

COMMENT #22 [Permalink]

... Steve said on 6/1/2010 @ 8:54 pm PT...





Sadly they will never crack down on the corporations which exploit undocumented workers. Not as long as corporate money is involved in elections. And everyone loses, except the corporations

COMMENT #23 [Permalink]

... DanD said on 6/2/2010 @ 10:20 pm PT...

