Intended Consequences of SB 1070, and the Pain it Will Cause.

Today, azcentral.com ran a story about one of the very predictable results of the new Arizona immigration law (SB 1070); illegal immigrants going even further underground than they currently do.

The article is here.

The first thing about this article that caught my eye was the headline: "Arizona immigrants move deeper into the shadows".  The story is about a Mexican born naturalized US citizen, who is married to an illegal alien, also a Mexican and their US born daughter.  In the context that the wife is an immigrant, I suppose the headline is technically correct, I still resent the title because only those who are here illegally or those who are aiding and abetting illegal aliens in their efforts to remain here illegally have to move deeper underground. Legal immigrants who are following the law have nothing to fear from SB 1070.

The summary of the story is that the wife fell in love with her husband to be and had already made plans to marry him when he revealed that he was in the US without permission.  Since then, they have been carefully controlling their daily and weekly activities to keep a low profile. They keep a neat yard. They dress nice. He works hard. They obey all other laws. They immaculately maintain their vehicle in order to avoid traffic stops. In other words, they sound like nice people. People that I would like as neighbors.

But, he is still here in violation of the law, and she is aiding and abetting him. Their daughter is growing up believing that her family are all US citizens, a lie.  One day, be it tomorrow or in ten years, he may be found out and when it happens, he will be deported with the inevitable result that their family will either be ripped apart or they will leave together to go to Mexico, where they will have far fewer opportunities.

This is the consequence breaking the law. He entered the country illegally, and she has supported and aided him ever since she found out that he was an illegal alien.  Until proven otherwise, the US and Arizona are both governed by laws, and justice must be blind when upholding it.  Either that, or we abandon the law. To do so would be, in my opinion, just as unjust if not more so to the millions of people that have become naturalized US citizens by following the law, or the hundreds of thousands more who continue to follow the law and are still patiently awaiting naturalized US citizen status.

The story is tragic. But it is not a tragedy of injustice. It is the tragedy of a nice little family that turned a blind eye with regards to immigration law and are both daily paying the price.  And potentially to pay the highest penalty for breaking it.

CNN's Reuben Navarette: American Flag wearers were "Disobedient Brats".

Reuben Navarette's article was in regards to the Live Oak High School incident where five students who wore American flag inspired clothing were ordered to reverse their t-shirts or be sent home for the day. The boys refused, recognizing that their clothing is an expression of political speech and therefore protected under the First Amendment.

The main point of Reuben's argument is that wearing the American flag at an American high school on May 5th is disruptive behavior. Cinco de Mayo is not even a US holiday, for crying out loud. How is wearing US national colors on any day of the year in school "disruptive"?  These boys were making a political point. "Celebrate your Mexican national roots but don't forget that you are Americans." Or should be, who knows today with so many illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America in our nation? 

He then cited three cases that came before the U.S. Supreme Court that upholds the right of school administration to restrict speech. However, his citations of case law is disingenuous and I'm disappointed.

In Bethel School District v Fraser (1986), the court upheld that schools have the right to uphold community standards and were right to stop a speech that was filled with sexual innuendo. This was not a political speech issue and therefore not protected to the same standard. 

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier (1988) documents a case where Hazelwood School District was determined to be innocent of violating student's First Amendment rights when an article about teenage pregnancy and use/non-use of birth control was edited from a high school paper, again because the subject matter was deemed inappropriate for the younger class members of the school. Not a political expression issue, and therefore not protected to the same standard.

Morse v Frederick (2007) was a school speech case in which the Supreme Court that First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing student speech, even at school supervised events, that can be reasonably viewed to promote illegal drug abuse.

Hey Reuben, how about citing some case law that actually deals with freedom of expression of POLITICAL views? Your argument is pathetic and I, a non lawyer, was able to rip it to shreds in fifteen minutes of Google searches.

To sum up, these boys were expressing their POLITICAL views by wearing those shirts on May 5th and as long as the display of the national colors is in good taste the wearing of such colors should never be deemed disruptive.

USCD panel of legal professors state that SB 1070 probably passes Constitutional muster.

Leslie Berestein of the San Diego Tribune reported on May 14th that a panel of three law professors discussing Arizona law SB 1070 could well pass constitutional muster, although violations could occur during enforcement. 

The article is here.

The primary points made by the professors were:
1) It does not appear to give law enforcement more authority, contrary to claims by opponents of the law.
2) The the law was carefully written by Russel Pearce with the help of Constitutional law professor Kris Kobach of the Univ. of Missouri. It mirrors federal immigration laws. Because immigration law is adjudicated  by the federal government, the Arizona law could be pre-empted because federal law overrides state law. Arizona is essentially notifying the federal government that it will enforce the law until the federal government explicitly orders them to stop doing so. Since there is no conflict, the likelihood that the federal government will "pre-empt" the enforcement of this law is unlikely.  Further, if SB 1070 is found fail constitutional muster, that means that federal law ALSO fails constitutional muster, an unsavory consequence for the federal government.

The Danger of Playing Economic War When you are DOWNSTREAM

Interesting, considering the situation that exists between both Southern California and Arizona. They both are states that border Mexico. Their electorate are mutually groaning under tremendous budgetary shortfalls that are pushing our public programs to their very limit. 

However, Arizona in recent years has become a virtual highway into the United States for migrants from Mexico. Specifically, Arizona is now dealing with rampant human trafficking, kidnapping, drug-related murder and other crimes, and vehicle theft.  Phoenix is the kidnapping capital of the United States.  Five of the last eight Arizona law enforcement officers that we have lost in the line of duty were killed by illegal immigrants.  Two prominent ranchers have been killed and the evidence strongly indicates illegal drug activity associated with Mexicans in our state illegally. 

For these reasons and others the state of Arizona, a state somewhat more 'red' than our neighbor to the west, has decided that if the federal government of the United States will not enforce existing laws with regards to immigration, then Arizona will.  This was a bold step by Governor Jan Brewer and Arizona state senator Russel Pearce.  Both of them have publicly lamented the need to do this.  But citizens who have earned the right to live here because they have declared allegiance to this great country have an expectation to be protected by their government, and "Uncle Sugar" ain't making the grade.

Enter SB1070, or the (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).  Nearly everybody that has proclaimed (loudly) that this is racist legislation that will open the doors to the dreaded phrase "Papers, please!" has also now admitted that they have themselves not even read it yet.  I have done an analysis of the law (which you can find on this blog), which clearly shows that police may only act on this law in the course of an already existing "contact" between themselves and a potential perpetrator. Since I did that analysis, the law has been even further modified to put further restrictions on what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion'. 

Nonetheless, the liberal main-stream media, in cahoots with their progressive brethren and constituents in the Latino community, La Raza, the Reconquistas, and their fraternal friends in the civil rights movement have whipped up a completely false picture of how this law will be implemented.  President Obama, US Attorney-General Holder, Dept. of Homeland Defense Napolitano have all rebuked Arizona over the law even though all of them now admit they haven't even read it.

Now several cities in Washington, Illinois and California have decided to boycott Arizona originated goods and services.  With regards to California the Los Angeles City Council, strongly led by Mayor Villaraigosa, has decided to jump on the bandwagon. 

However, there can be, from time time, found even in offices of politicians and bureaucrats individuals who have the strength of character to respond forcefully and yet without emotion or irrationality.  Arizona Corporate Commissioner Gary Pierce has decided enough is enough and wrote a little missive to Mayor Villaraigosa, reminding him the Southern California buys a lot of our power.  I think that the Commissioner's stand on their own:


May 18, 2010


VIA FACSIMILE & US MAIL


Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa
Office of the Mayor
200 North Spring St., Room 303
Los Angeles, CA 90012


Re: Los Angeles boycott of Arizona


Dear Mayor Villaraigosa:


I was dismayed to learn that the Los Angeles City Council voted to boycott Arizona and Arizona-based companies--a vote you strongly supported--to show opposition to SB 1070 (Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act).


You explained your support for the boycott as follows: "While we recognize that as neighbors, we share resources and ties with the State of Arizona that may be difficult to sever, our goal is not to hurt the local economy of Los Angeles, but to impact the economy of Arizona. Our intent is to use our dollars--or the witholding of our dollars--to send a message." (emphasis added)


I received your message; please receive mine. As a state-wide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona's electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the "resources and ties" we share with the City of Los Angeles. In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.


If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona utilities would be happy to take those electrons off of your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona's economy.


People of goodwill can disagree over the merits of SB 1070. A state-wide economic boycott of Arizona is not a message sent in goodwill.


Sincerely,

Commission Gary Pierce


The City of Los Angeles may regret that they didn't build more nuclear power plants in the 1970's, 80's and 90's.

If you want to see the actual facsimile copy of the letter, you can go here to the Arizona Corporate Commissioner's website.

Factoid of the day.

I typed "miserable president" into Google search engine today (May 17th @ 10:11 AM MST), and here's what I got:

Well, for once I agree.

The Unbelievable Media Bias

NewsBusters reports that when prompted by Katie Couric during an interview, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg speculated that the person responsible for the failed car bomb in Times Square was "somebody with a political agenda who doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.” Yup, Mayor Michael thinks it might be one of those "tea party" people, you know, an angry WHITE guy. I can only imagine how disappointed President Obama was to find out that in fact, the guy is actually a naturalized American citizen of Pakistani decent. Sorry Mister President, you won't be able to blame this one on those angry gun-toting white males.

Of course, Arizona's new illegal immigration enforcement laws are whipping up angst all over the United States. The day of the bill's signing, pro-illegal-immigration supporters were throwing water bottles and other objects at Phoenix police. Looters have damaged stores in several cities during these protest marches during the May day weekend. Yet the press is characterizing them as "unfairly repressed", yet when tens of thousands of tea party people march on Washington DC and other U.S. cities, even though no crimes were reported, they are characterized as full of "hateful, racist and bigoted" people.

Speaking of Arizona's new law, I've read it in it's entirely and there is absolutely no provision for a police officer to lawfully stop somebody and ask them for their papers. Period. These new laws may only be acted upon in a situation where a person has already been legally detained for other reasons (traffic stop). The only possible cause for concern is that it makes the hiring of day laborers from the road side illegal, which in my opinion is good law.

Speaking of peaceful assemblies, several thousand American citizens had a rally in Arlington, Virginia where each and every one of them was wearing or carrying a firearm. I can't speak as to whether any of them actually had any bullets in them, although even an unloaded firearm can really smart when you use it to butt-stroke some idiot. But while the press was lamenting the implied threat of these citizens who were, in fact, doing nothing more than exercise their 2nd Amendment right, I note that nobody was shot or killed or even just injured by some kind of firearm discharge. What?! How can that be? Guns KILL people right? I guess this shows what the NRA people have been talking about for a long time. People kill people, and these people decided to be lawful citizens on that particular day.

So, just so I can call it right out where people can either praise or pillory me for it.

Large group of white people assemble to protest Obamacare, or lack of illegal-immigration law enforcement, or to lawfully assemble with their firearms, is a bunch of racist, bigoted, bible clinging members of hate groups just brimming with hate and ready to explode into seditious violence.

But large groups of non-white people who clearly support illegal-immigration, who break store windows and throw objects at the police, who threaten reporters, slap them and then tell the police that THEY have been assaulted (look it up on the net, it actually happened just this weekend), they're just "unfairly repressed" people.

And the main-stream media talking heads actually have the temerity to look me in the face and wonder why Fox News is kicking the living crap out of all the other news sources?