Furor grows over Arizona's illegal immigration law

by Sam Whiskey 213 Replies latest jw friends

  • blondie
    blondie

    http://abcnews.go.com/WN/protestors-arizona-immigration-bill-urge-boycott-state/story?id=10487582

    Ariz. Sheriff Says He Will Refuse to Enforce Immigration Law

    Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's Controversial Immigration Bill is Drawing Ire from Many Americans
    By EMILY FRIEDMAN

    April 27, 2010 —

    An Arizona sheriff said today that he has "no intention of complying" with the state's controversial new immigration law, calling it "abominable" and a "national embarrassment."

    The defiance by Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik was perhaps the sharpest rebuke to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer for signing into law last Friday a bill that empowers police in the state to stop people they suspect may be illegal immigrants and demand identification.

    Critics rallied around the country today, claiming the law fosters racism and was a bad policing measure.

    Dupnik told ABCNews.com that he'd like Brewer to know that "what she and the legislature has accomplished is morally wrong and a national embarrassment."

    "We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't," said Dupnik. "If we go out and look for illegal immigrants, they accuse us of racial profiling and we can get sued. And if some citizen doesn't think we're enforcing the state law, they can sue us too."

    "If the chief of police or sheriff takes a squad out and says to them that their only duty is to go out and round up illegal immigrants, they are going to racially profile," said Dupnik. "But we have never done that and we will never do that."

    Referring to the law, the sheriff said he "has no intention of complying with it."

    Others voiced their anger at the law during rallies in New York, San Francisco and Chicago. In Chicago, authorities arrested 25 protestors for disorderly conduct after they sat in a street blocking a van carrying deportees from a federal detention center.

    "The bill is extremely anti-immigrant , it legalizes racial profiling and criminalizes immigrants and does nothing to address the broken immigration system that has existed in this country for years," said Frances Liu, a daughter of two Chinese immigrants who now works at the New York Immigration Coalition.

    About 40 people attended the lunch time rally in Manhattan's Federal Plaza, where most mornings immigrants form a line that stretches out of the buidling and across the plaza waiting their turn to have visa requests taken care of.

    At her first public appearance since signing the law, Brewer said today she was not concerned about the impact it could have on the state's economy.

    Most Arizona residents agree with her. According to a Rasmussen poll, some 70 percent of state residents say they support the new law.

    Brewer said that when she meets with companies interested in moving to Arizona they are "concerned and want to know we have a safe and secure environment."

    While Brewer spoke inside a Tuscon hotel, hundreds of protestors rallied outside.

    Criticism Builds on Arizona Immigration Law

    Former Republican Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told POLITICO of the law, "I think it creates unintended consequences."

    "It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law," said Bush. "It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well."

    Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress today that the law doesn't take effect for 90 days, "which permits time, I think, for the Justice Department to really look at whether the law meets constitutional safeguards or not."

    Napolitano, who repeatedly vetoed the immigration bill during her tenure as governor of Arizona, said it may waste law enforcement resources and tie up federal courts with illegal immigrants.

    "We have some deep concerns with the law from a law enforcement perspective because we believe it will detract from and siphon resources that we need to focus on those in the country illegally who are ... committing the most serious crimes in addition to violating our nation's immigration laws," she said.

    Attorney General Eric Holder said that he feared the new law would be "subject to potential abuse."

    In Federal Plaza in Manhattan, the bill was seen as anti-American.

    "Immigrants across this country are coming here for a better life and to contribute to this nation socially and economically, and this law doesn't move in the direction that we should be, of recognizing immigrants for what their contributions," Liu said.

    Disagreement over the legislation has even split political families. Arizona Sen. John McCain has taken a hard-line stance in favor of his state's new law, but his daughter Meghan blogged her disagreement.

    "I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate," wrote Meghan McCain.

    Hasan Mohammed, who immigrated to New York from Ghana three years ago, said that the law does not make sense to him.

    "Why should they sign a bill to deport immigrants? America is a state of immigrants," he said. "It's inhumane."

    Joshua Epstein, an attorney for the Immigrant Defense Project, told ABCNews.com that as a member of an immigrant family he feels personally targeted by the bill.

    "It tears me apart, it tears me apart that my country would purposely destroy families and people that are here to live and contribute to our great country of immigrants," said Epstein.

    Calls To Boycott Arizona Over New Immigration Law

    The state may pay for the legislation with a loss of business.

    Elizabeth Barna, a lawyer with the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said that the organization voted nearly unanimously to cancel a convention scheduled to be held this fall in Arizona.

    "The law is terrible. It's going to foster racism and there will be racial profiling, there is no doubt," Barna said.

    The San Francisco Board of Supervisors will also consider today a resolution that would result in the city ending contracts with Arizona-based businesses, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

    "We want to send a message," Supervisor David Campos said at a rally today. "There are consequences when you target a whole people."

    Even a lawmaker from Arizona is urging a boycott of the state. Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva from Tucson released a statement late last week urging conventions not to come to Arizona until the state overturns the immigration bill.

    "Just as professional athletes refused to recognize Arizona until it recognized Martin Luther King Jr., we are calling on businesses and organizations not to bring their conventions to Arizona until it recognizes civil rights and the meaning of due process," Grijalva said.

    Los Angeles' Spanish daily newspaper La Opinión called for a national boycott of Arizona in an editorial, writing, "We call on those who believe in the U.S. Constitution to boycott the state of Arizona."

    "The anti-immigrant bill signed yesterday in Arizona is a violation of our right to be free from police harassment based on the way we look," the paper stated.

    All these boycot calls have some Arizona business owners worried. For the first time since he opened Portland's Restaurant in Phoenix nine years ago, owner Dylan Bethge is concerned about his business.

    "It could take about a quarter of our business away if we lost some big conventions," Bethge said today.

    President Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon have both criticized the new law, and Mexico's foreign relations department issued an advisory today urging Mexicans in Arizona to "act with prudence and respect the framework of local laws."

    "It should be assumed that any Mexican citizen could be bothered and questioned for no other reason at any moment," according to the travel alert.

    ABC News' Barbara Pinto, Jason Ryan and The Associated Press contributed to this report

    Copyright © 2010 ABC News Internet Ventures

  • sammielee24
    sammielee24

    I like Arizona and I wouldn't boycott it because people are having temper tantrums. I think the issue is valid and needs to be addressed and while certainly it could be abused, what law can't be? Nobody wanted to do anything about illegal immigration for years so no matter where it starts, it's going to cause a lot of unrest. I don't like the way it's starting but at least it's pushing the debate into the open full throttle.

    sammieswife.

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips

    According to this poll, the measure is very popular in Arizona. The libs are calling for a boycott. If they clear out that makes Arizona sound like a great place to vacation.

    BTS

  • betterdaze
    betterdaze
    House lawmakers call for National Guard at border

    By the CNN Wire Staff

    April 28, 2010 11:02 a.m. EDT

    Washington (CNN) -- A largely Republican group of House lawmakers said Wednesday they have sent a letter to President Obama asking for the National Guard to be deployed along the border between the United States and Mexico.

    The request comes amid a heated debate on Capitol Hill over a comprehensive immigration reform bill -- one of the president's top domestic priorities.

    "We want the National Guard on the border," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas. "This country protects the borders of other nations better than it protects our own border."

    Poe said the president needs to "enforce the rule of law."

    The Texan and a handful of other lawmakers asserted the Mexican border has become a virtual war zone, plagued by violence from Mexican drug cartels expanding their reach into the United States. They also noted that border state governors have made similar requests for a National Guard deployment.

    Local sheriffs and border agents are "outmanned, outgunned and outfinanced" by the cartels, Poe said.

    "Right now the cartels dominate [the border region] through violence and intimidation," said Rep. Dan Burton, R-Indiana. "It is long since time to protect our populations on the southern border."

    Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, said her constituents were "sick and tired" of the federal government failing to protect the border. The current situation is "completely unacceptable," she said.

    Story continues here.

  • Gregor
    Gregor

    Just two quick poll questions,

    1. If you were a rancher who had an orchard full of pears that had to be picked and were able to get good workers, and you paid a fair price per box, and some of your crew have shown up for years at harvest time and you trust them to do a good job and not damage your trees or your crop, would you carefully check their ID before hiring?

    2. If you were an able bodied, hard working person taking care of a family in a poor country where you might be able to earn a dollar a day locally, would you try to cross into the US and make your way to Oregon where you had a months work picking pears for a rancher who provided decent housing and make $2000.00 ?

    (I know the real people behind these two profiles.)

  • JWoods
    JWoods

    Gregor - No. I don't think people should ignore and break immigration law just because it is convenient.

    There has long been a legal way to hire immigrant workers here in the U.S.

    The illegals bypass that process and in so doing take advantage of people who obey the law.

  • bluesapphire
    bluesapphire

    I don't like this stuff any better than anybody else - but I generally support the law enforcement people who are just trying to do their jobs.

    Law enforcement people NEVER misuse their power. NEVER EVER EVER!

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Cesar Conda, writing in National Review. . .

    . . .

    The bottom line is that this new law places enormous discretion in the hands of local police officers, since there are any number of circumstances in which an interaction between a police officer and a private individual is "lawful contact"; indeed, there are very few in which it is anything other than lawful contact, according to Mr. Otis.

    This is why conservatives like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Tunku Varadarajan, David Boaz of the Cato Institute, Bob Barr, and others have raised concerns about the Arizona law, and specifically that this "reasonable suspicion" standard could lead police officers to unreasonably single out legal immigrants and American citizens. Some proponents of the new law contend that the only likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop. But what appears to be a speeding van filled with illegal immigrants could also be an American family of ethnic origin driving through Arizona on vacation and going a little over the speed limit.

    We all want to stop illegal immigration, but I'm afraid the Arizona law will cause more problems than it solves, and it certainly should not be used as a model for other illegal immigration control legislation.

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTg0ZWJiMzM4NDM3OWM2ZDc2N2M2Yjk0N2EzOTFiZWY=

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    Law enforcement people NEVER misuse their power. NEVER EVER EVER!

    In my personal experience, it is clear that they do. However, that makes the case to carefully monitor law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties. It doesn't, in itself, make the case that we should have no law enforcement.

    With the immigration issue, we have a lesser of two evils situation.

    Which is the lesser evil? That is the question.

    My considered opinion is that looking after the interests of our own citizens is the lesser evil. That is what we have contracted our government to do on our behalf. And individually, our duty towards those in our own country is of a higher priority towards fellow citizens than it is to foreigners.

    BTS

  • TD
    TD

    Just a couple random observations from someone who lives in AZ:

    Realistically I don't think the law will ever be enforced and I don't think that is its intent. The Arizona population is frustrated with Repulican and Democrat adminstrations alike doing nothing while we have gun fights between rival coyote factions on our freeways with fully automatic weapons.

    But even if the law is not struck and/or tied up permenantly in legal challanges, I think the rhetoric has been a little shrill:

    Hispanics/Latinos and Anglos are different ethnic groups of the same race --Caucasian. (That is, if you accept the outdated concept at all....)

    I agree that SB1070 creates a huge potential for ethnic profiling and within the corpus of American law, is over the top, but I really think commentators who are portraying this as a "Racial issue" are barking up the wrong tree even if you forgive their confusion on anthropology.

    If you assume that every singe Anglo supports the Bill (Which they don't --AZ is almost a dead 50/50 split between Liberals and Conservatives) and forget about African American, Native American, and Asian American segments of the population entirely, support for the Bill is still far higher than the Anglo population could sustain by itself.

    In Phoenix, Hispanics and Latinos of all extractions make up 41.5% of the population. The figure for Tucson is 39.5% Those are substantial segments of the population, which include police, teachers, lawyers judges and lawmakers.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit