Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

IMMIGRATION: Tacoma should boycott Arizona

Letter by Anders C. Ibsen, Tacoma on May 4, 2010 at 9:33 am with 55 Comments »
May 5, 2010 9:39 am

How many of us actually carry a birth certificate on our person? In Arizona, failing to do so may subject you to arrest if you “look” like an illegal immigrant.

Now what exactly does an illegal immigrant look like?

In reading this letter, did you imagine an Irishman or a Swede when you read the phrase “illegal immigrant”? Or, like many of us, did the image of a Latino person come to mind?

There lies the problem. This law is so hopelessly vague that it has the effect of making someone criminally suspect just for being brown. Some might say it was intended to do just that. As a devout believer in the ideals of our nation’s Constitution, that very idea makes me sick.

The City of Tacoma should lead by example and boycott the state of Arizona until this hideous law is repealed.

Tags:
,
Leave a comment Comments → 55
  1. LuckyCharm says:

    Nice letter, Anders. Prepare for the right-wing hysteria in response….

  2. mister253 says:

    Arizona would not need to have any law in place if Washington DC got off there butts and took care of this. California and New Mexico could care less who comes into their state illegally Arizona and Texas do. The law does not say you have the right to stop people because they look like immigrants. may want to read it before you label something racist.

    Also Swedes and Irish immigrants have to arrive by boat or plane. mexican immigrants just have to cross through someones farm, just a little different and may even kill the rancher whose farm they are crossing through.

  3. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    Why do you people keep insisting that SB0170/HB2162 requires you to carry proof of citizenship? Why do you keep insisting that it allows profiling? And why, when faced with the actual text of the law, do you insist that the sensational untruths being repeated by the media are facts?

    The law does not require anyone other than legal immigrants to carry their ID. This is nothing new, the federal government has required that for decades. Citizens don’t need to carry anything. If you are stopped, detained or arrested for another offense, the police will ask you to identify yourself and will ask some questions like where you live, when/where you were born. This has always been the case. The only difference is that if you answer that you were born outside of the US and you don’t have an ID that they can check to verify your immigration status (that is HAVE an ID, not have an ID on your person), the police can detain you until they verify it. This is as simple as calling the jail and asking a 287(g)-certified deputy to look you up on their ICE database. It takes a couple of minutes.

    NO ONE CAN BE STOPPED BECAUSE OF THEIR APPEARANCE!!! Not wearing a seatbelt is not a primary offense, so the police can’t stop you for that. The same is true for immgrant status in AZ. Do really believe that the police have nothing better to do than look for brown people and harass them? If the police in AZ actually did that, they would be so busy racially profiling that they wouldn’t ever respond to 911 calls.

    Will Latinos be more effected by this law than Canadians? Probably. But that doesn’t make it illegal. The fact that AZ has more Latino immigrants, both legal and illegal, than it does Candian immigrants is a matter of geography. If this law were passed in MN, Somali immigrants would likely be more effected by it than Latinos. If it were passed in WA, Russians or SE Asians may be the most effected group. In FL, probably the Cubans. The fact that one group is effected by a law more than another group does not make a law unconstitutional or unfair. It is the application of a law that determines that, but in the case of the SB1070/HB2162, racial profiling is specifically prohibitted. A very minor fact that EVERY single person opposed to this bill seems to gloss right over because it completely negates their argument.

    The laws that criminalize rape disproportionately effect men more than women. Does that mean that rape laws are gender-biased? Of course not. Use a little common sense, and for God’s sake, read the law before you mischaracterize it.

  4. tubbythetuba says:

    Hysteria, LC?? ROFLMAO!! You are sadly mistaken if you think illegals are a Right Wing Only issue. Between crime, and the GNP they syphon out of this country they are sucking the US dry. While I don’t lump Drug Gang activity with ordinary folk illegally coming over, they do use the same methods to get here and sell their poison and turning the border into a killing field. It’s should barely be a blip on the screen to ask folk wanting to come to this country to do so legally. Heck, let them thru at a couple centrally located positions and chip them so we can keep track…

  5. the3rdpigshouse says:

    The uninformed and the anti-American leftists like LuckCharm just will never be satisfied until their anti-American actions affect themselves!!!! Anders – become informed and don’t join the typical leftist anti-American sickos in our society – try a little patriotic nationalism – it won’t hurt you!!!

  6. FreeAmerica says:

    The ability to read, write, and speak english are required under federal law to become a citizen.

    •Knowledge of the principles of the U.S. Constitution
    •Favorable disposition towards the United States

    Maybe liberals should be checked? or would that be profiling?

  7. LuckyCharm says:

    APNS, so all an illegal immigrant has to do, when questioned, is say he was born in that town, and they’ll let him go? Not in Maricopa County, I’ll bet!

  8. jrdndd says:

    The TERM everyone should be concerned with is ILLEGAL immigrant. If someone is here legally, no problems.

  9. dm63ford says:

    In reading this letter, did you imagine an Irishman or a Swede when you read the phrase “illegal immigrant

    A gambler would call catching a Swede or Irishman as an illegal immigrant in AZ would be a long shot.

  10. geeterpontiac says:

    Hehe, a letter writer who believes the same media sources LC listens to.

    Sorry LC, couldn’t resist the temptation :)

  11. Roncella says:

    Most of the folks who actually live in Arizona are supporting the new immigration law, and their Governor.

    She had so much more courage then either President Obama, John McCain and others to actually try and protect her citizens from violence and robbery and illegal Mexicans coming through Arizona.

    Let Al Sharpton and the other trouble makers go back to where they came from and get a real Job for a change.

  12. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    LC:

    No, I never said they’d let you go. I said that if you’ve gotten to the point that the police are trying to determine your immigration status, you’re already either being issued a citation or going to jail. Either way, you’re legally required to properly identify yourself at that point. You can lie if you want to, but if you do you’ll not only get charged with whatever you were stopped, detained or arrested for, but you’ll also be charged with obstruction.

    They’re not just going to ask where you were born, and if they do ask that, it won’t be the first question. First they’ll ask for ID. If you don’t have any ID (on you or otherwise), then they’ll ask more specific questions to get information that can be used to positively identify you. Place of birth is just one of the many possible questions.

    Others include: “Where do you work,” “Where do you live,” “Do you have a SSN/TIN,” “Are you a student anywhere,” “Do you have a library card,” “Do you have any bills or credit cards that may establish who you are?” If you answer no to all of these questions, there is reasonable suspicion that you are not in this country legally because all naturalized citizens have a citizenship document issued to them, and all natural born citizens have some record, somewhere that they reside in the US, which can be used to verify identity, even if it is not carried on them.

    Finally, Sheriff Joe is just one person in a city of over 1.5 million, a county with 3 million, and a state of 6.5 million. Just because he’s a blowhard, and arguably racist, doesn’t mean the other 4,000 people in his department are, or the thousands of other law enforcement officers throughout the state. Joe Arpaio may be the most recognizable figure in Maricopa County, but he is no way representative of it.

  13. frosty says:

    Oh well, what’s the use? The libs will never get it. But I really want to comment on the left wing state-run news media covering this terrorist in New York.Just as I expected they are already worrying about whether or not he was read his Meranda Rights, Wolf Blitzer to be specific. But hold on there will be more of them jumping on to the band wagon. I have a suggestion for something that I believe will actually save this country from total ruination. Let the pot smokers and small time crooks out of prison and replace them with the likes of Blitzer, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Ed Shultz, Rick Sanchez, and the rest of the commie news people. They are more of a threat than any dope smoker.

  14. blakeshouse says:

    Not sure what constitution you are a devout follower of, but the US CONSTITUTION extends the rights ,privilages and benifits to US CITIZENS and those here LEGALLY, not to every Tom Dick and Jose that can sneak in or over stay their visas. Maybe Az should provide a one way bus ticket to here and supply them with your address. That way you can feel good in your bleeding heart by paying what the rest of us are forced to pay to accomodate these ILLEGALtrespassers

  15. mollyhughes says:

    Yes, by all means the city of Tacoma and its Government entities should boycott the state of Arizona AND all of the businesses within. They need to cut off the traffic camera enforcement companies first and foremost, by this means we would know that they (Tacoma) take this seriously. If they are NOT willing to cut off this cash cow, to set a good example for us well then I certainly won’t bother with a boycott, either.

  16. LuckyCharm says:

    It’s already happening, APNS. This Fresno-born truck driver showed his CDL and provided his SSN, but was arrested and taken to an ICE facility for saying his mother lived in Mexico. His wife had to leave work and drive an hour to retrieve his birth certificate to get him out. And it’s only going to get worse. You can say all you want about what will or won’t happen, but this is what IS happening, even before the law goes into effect. Do you honestly think it’ll get any better after that???

  17. LuckyCharm says:

    Oh, and bh, please tell us how the US Constitution protected that legal citizen’s rights….

  18. :). Keep spinning it. Great law, we are planning on a company trip to Sedona just to make sure we support the fine state of Arizona and their rights to protect their citizens. Take this time to support the State of Arizona if you believe this law is a good thing. It will offset the goofballs that somehow think this law is “misguided”.

  19. LuckyCharm says:

    I hope you forget to bring your birth certificate… tee-hee! Just imagining your whole company in pink undies and striped pajamas….

  20. A message to the great Americans in Arizona. Keep it up! At least there’s one state with the guts to tackle this invasion. Don’t pay attention to the very few liberal commies that post here, they don’t represent the majority. They won’t be satisfied until Obama is crowned as the king.

  21. marine says:

    Well Anders,
    You have never read the law or you would know that it is just a re-hash of the federal one.
    And as for the “Sweeds” and “Irish”. They came through Ellis Island.
    Oh, and when has a liberal ever read anything either?
    Luckystrike, your clue-less!

  22. simsgirl50 says:

    People are idiots. The Arizona law (which mirrors federal law) does NOT, contrary to what our fear-mongering president has said, allow police to stop anybody while they are “going out for ice cream.” A “brown” person cannot be questioned by police just for standing there: the person has to be in suspicious circumstances; for example, running away from the scene of a crime (and that is for ANYBODY — black, brown, white, etc., etc., etc.). You people are idiots to listen to all the garbage put out by the left. Why don’t you start thinking for yourselves? Basically, all this does is allow police officers to ask for identification papers (which aliens are required to have on their persons, anyway, by the way — and that’s federal law) and to deal with the person if he/she is illegal instead of having to let them off scot-free. Go Arizona! As a new saying goes — Don’t boycott Arizona; BUY-COTT Arizona. Maybe I’ll vacation there this summer ………

  23. Concernedfather says:

    Boycott Anders Ibsen. Delete him from Facebook, refuse to do business with him, and remember his name. If you disagree with his views, boycott HIM.
    That is the message his preaches.
    Do NOT inform yourself as to the facts, just boycott him as a person; because you do not share his opinion.

  24. hansgruber says:

    Arizona Govenor Jan Brewer said. “Our law mirrors federal law. So, why is it bad for Arizona to mirror federal law? No one was crying out in the wilderness about the federal law being wrong or racial profiling. I don’t get it. It’s spin.”

    Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/04/30/20100430arizona-immigration-law-governor-signs-revised-bill.html#ixzz0n48gHZ24

    Just ask yourself this,

    If the Arizona law mirrors the Federal law, why did Arizona pass this law?

    Why doesn’t the Obama Admin enforce the immigration law? Why hasn’t President Obama’s auntie been deported yet?

    You know, Zeituni Onyango, the half-sister of Obama’s late father, moved to the United States in 2000. Her first asylum request was rejected, and she was ordered deported in 2004. But she didn’t leave the country and continued to live in public housing. She is still living in Boston today in 2010.

  25. LuckyCharm says:

    If the new law is really so innocuous, and nothing they’re not already doing, then why are AZ cities lining up to file suit? It’s going to place an additional, unfunded burden on law enforcement, hamper criminal investigations, and open them up to lawsuits galore for false arrest.

  26. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    LC:

    Nice try with your spin, but not quite enough. The story you linked to is about a commercial driver being stopped by federal agents. There is no weigh station on the 202 at Val Vista, but there is a US Border Patrol checkpoint there. He wasn’t detained by an AZ cop under AZ law, he was detained by federal agents under federal law, whether legitimate or not. So actually, no, it (brown people being detained by AZ cops under 1070) is not happening now.

    As for your question, if I think it will get any better, well, I can’t say how its going to go on the federal side. The feds are uneffected by 1070. I can tell you that yes, I do think this sort of thing will be rare, if not non-existent, when 1070/2162 goes into effect on July 28th. But of course, that won’t stop you from posting videos of people who were lawfully detained and caught being in the US illegally via 1070/2162 who insist that they were profiled.

    I’m sure you’ve heard there are no guilty men in prison… if you ask the inmates. So when a Latino gets pulled over later this summer for driving a car that has truck license plates, or exipred/no tabs, and the cop discovers in the course of their investigation that the driver is here illegally, I’m certain that driver will be screaming racism and saying he was profiled. And people like you will line up behind him because “there’s no way that the cop could have pulled him over for any other reason than his nationality.” Nevermind the fact that police stop every car they observe with improperly classified plates, or no current registration, because that is a pretty solid indicator that the car is stolen. It has to be racism, right?

  27. The good thing about this letter and others like it is that I never have to listen to Progressive Talk Radio in order to know what left wing talking points are currently on the air.
    .
    Nice work APimpNamedSlickback, Cheryl found some off the wall youtube clip not even related to Arizona’s new law and she seems to think it’s the silver bullet… posting it over and over and….

  28. “why are AZ cities lining up to file suit?”

    Because a bunch of bed-wetters are running those cities?

  29. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    LC:

    The reason cities are lining to file suit? They’re not. Individual politician in various AZ cities are, because they’re up for reelection this fall and they want to look good to some of their constituents.

    As for the cost, it really won’t cost that much. Doing the checks is free. Its as simple as having the same deputy at the jail who checks the immigration status of all arrestees do another computer search. As for the cost of housing these people, well, in most cases they would be under arrest anyway, so you can’t say its an increased incarceration cost, except in the few cases where they were being cited. But still, they’re not going to hold onto those people at the county jail any longer than it takes to transport them to ICE.

    And as for hampering investigations, the law provides a specific exception for anytime the officer feels asking will hinder the investigation. That means enforcement of immigration laws is secondary to enforcement of the incident law. In practice, the only people who will be asked their immigration status will be people suspected of committing a crime. The training the police will receive will instruct them not to ask any victim or witness. Thus, it will not deter reporting crimes…. Granted, some people may think, erroneously, that victims and witnesses will be checked too. But that is not what’s in the law, and the state can hardly do more to instruct the public other than publishing the law as they have. People think all kinds of things that aren’t true. You think this law permits racial profiling, even though it doesn’t. The state doesn’t have a responsibility to correct people that choose to ignore facts.

    Finally, false arrest lawsuits will be minimal, if not non-existent. No one will be detained under 1070/2162 unless they’re being detained for something else first. If you’re arrested for auto theft and subsequent to that arrest they check your immigration status and find out you’re a citizen, that doesn’t make your arrest improper. You’re still under arrest for auto theft.

  30. LuckyCharm says:

    APNS, you’re overlooking the part where it says citizens can sue law enforcement for not investigating complaints of illegal residence/entry. So, in practice, I could report you as “suspicious” just because I don’t like you (I could always say you “looked illegal” to me), and if the cop blows me off, I can sue him and his department. You don’t have to be arrested or even be doing anything wrong. Imagine the burden this is going to place on the entire enforcement/judicial system.

    Tucson and Flagstaff are currently planning their legal strategy — whether to file joint suits or separate. The Phoenix mayor wanted to file suit but couldn’t gather enough support from the City Council, so that might change if any councilmembers change their minds.

    Personally, I can’t wait to see this law take effect. It will be fun watching AZ implode before they finally cry uncle and repeal it.

  31. Luckystrike:
    You and the author of this dumb letter share the same brain. All this is doing is re-hashing a federal law. They have to since Obama is too much of a coward to do anything. Bush didn’t do much more but at least they started putting a fence up under his watch. Which “The Obamanation” thought about halting.
    You liberals show your ignorance by arguing this law. And by the way, the “Sweeds and Irish” came through Ellis Island not via the Rio Grande.
    If you people want open borders, move to a country that has them and get out of mine.
    The more you comment on here, the more I doubt your service Luckystrike. Haven’t you ever heard the saying: “Freedom has a sweeter taste for those that have fought for it.” How you comment it must taste pretty plain to you.

  32. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    LC:

    That’s not how it works. First of all, you can’t sue for individual instances of non-enforcement. The law (A.R.S. 11-1051{H}) reads that individuals can only bring suit against an agent or agency that “adopts or implements a policy that limits or restricts enforcement.” That means there has to be a standing order to not enforce the law.

    Second, the police can only establish reasonable suspicion subsequent to a lawful stop, detainment or arrest. They can’t respond to calls from neighbors saying they think the guy next door is illegal.

    Third, the police cannot use race or national origin as a basis for reasonable suspicion, so even if you could call them and say I “look illegal” to you, they would have an affirmative defense to any claim you made because: 1) I was not stopped, detained or arrested for another offense, 2) you are not legally tasked with enforcing immigration laws, 3) your personal assumptions had no legal basis as a reasonable suspicion that I was here illegally, and 4) their agency didn’t have a standing order to not enforce the law as written.

    Even if you brought a claim because the police didn’t respond to your complaint, there would be no extra cost to the government. The county attorney or city attorney is tasked with defending the agency involved. They get paid the same no matter what. All that would be involved is having one of their attorneys draft a response asserting their affirmative defense and filing it. Your complaint ends there.

    Now, I know you’re going to say “but they’ll need a whole bunch more attorneys to handle all those claims,” and you’re probably right. They’ll have an overabundance of qualified people willing to do it for free. Before my wife went to work for the AG, she was a volunteer attorney at the county attorney’s office. She, along with dozens of other attorneys looking for work, handled low level complaints like this would be, free of charge, on behalf of the county. In addition to this, this kind of low level complaint can be handled by a second or third year law student under the supervision of an attorney. And the county and city attorneys in the major metropolitan centers in AZ have lots of 2L & 3L interns from ASU, UofA and PLS who will gladly do it. No extra cost to the government.

    You keep spouting off all sorts nonsense as if it were fact, and I have no idea where you’re getting it. Stop getting your information from the news. Read the law.

  33. APimpNamedSlickBack: Killer Name!
    You could write it in crayon and they still wouldn’t get it.
    They listen to Chris Matthews and all of the other bone heads that are Obamanites.
    And maybe you could answer this for me. Why would a sitting president think about challenging a law that he is responsible to enforce? Since it is pretty much a mirror image of the federal law? I already know my version of the answer but since I took a detour rather than law, please enlighten me.

  34. To Imjim: Does anyone really listen to progessive radio? Those shows are becomimg some exstict than a U.S. Quarter with silver in it.
    Oh, and has anyone heard any news on the Bush Impeachment trials? I was just wondering if they had a start date yet.

  35. klthompson says:

    The first two sentences of this letter by Mr. Ibsen says it all. The Arizona law does not mention a requirement to carry a birth certificate. To try to state otherwise is just plain silly. I just do not understand the left wing upset with carrying ID that states Nationality. I carry a card issued by the USA which I am required to show whenever requested by a law enforcement officer at any level. Among all the usual information it shows my Nationality. It may soon show my picture. In fact, in 1950 a supplemental card was required that showed my picture and thumbprint. That requirement was ultimately dropped. I have been required to show this card on a number of occasions and have never felt that I was being put upon. The card I carry has nothing to do with the military or government employment. It does clearly show my Nationality.

  36. LuckyCharm says:

    APNS, I’m looking through your law now with its most recent changes. Up till now, it still requires of every person detained by law enforcement one of the following:

    1. A valid Arizona driver license.
    2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
    3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
    4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.

    That means I couldn’t travel to AZ with just my WA DL, for fear of getting a ticket and getting thrown in jail because my legal status couldn’t be immediately determined. Of course, if I carried my military ID, that would suffice, but what about people who don’t have one?

    Furthermore, your law states: “It is unlawful for a person who is unlawfully present in the United States and who is an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in this state.” In a subparagraph, it says, “‘Solicit’ means verbal or nonverbal communication by a gesture or a nod that would indicate to a reasonable person that a person is willing to be employed.” So if I were standing outside Home Depot near a group of Latinos looking for day labor, trying to remember what I came there for before going inside, and someone walked up and said good morning and I nodded, a policeman could interpret that to mean I was looking for work and jail me if I happened to forget my military ID card that day?

    As far as the employers section, it says, “An employer shall not knowingly employ an unauthorized alien. If, in the case when an employer uses a contract, subcontract or other independent contractor agreement to obtain the labor of an alien in this state, the employer knowingly contracts with an unauthorized alien or with a person who employs or contracts with an unauthorized alien to perform the labor, the employer violates this subsection.” So let me relate this to a personal incident — I had my crawl space insulation replaced last winter. I went to TPU and filled out their paperwork to get their rebate, then selected a contractor from their preferred list who would agree to do it (my job was on the “difficult” end of the spectrum, and the first contractor’s workers flat-out quit before they even started). The guy I signed the paperwork with spoke English, but when the workers came out, they could not. They were very proficient and honest (and I don’t have time to relate all the details of what happened to convince me of that), but had I lived in AZ, would it have been incumbent on me to verify their citizenship? I’m not registered on E-Verify. Or was it the subcontractor’s, or the utility’s job? According to the law the way I read it, it was MY job. Let me tell you, in the dead of winter, when I’ve already had one contractor show up and quit abruptly, I couldn’t care less where the guys come from who want to put in my insulation, as long as they do it right. Yet, had I lived in AZ, my neighbor could have turned me in for hiring suspected illegals, and I would have had to defend myself.

    Like I say, I can hardly wait for this law to start playing out in real life. It will be interesting to watch the steady exodus of laborers, businesses, citizens and tourists from AZ. Maybe eventually they’ll change their state motto to: “We don’t have much, but at least no illegals can touch it!”

  37. LuckyCharm says:

    marine, I oppose a fence only because it would never keep illegals out, but would seriously disrupt fragile ecosystems and species around the border. A better solution, in my opinion, would be to put all of AZ’s NG troops along the southern border if they’re so sure they’re being invaded. Just demand them back from the Middle East, ’cause we got our home front to worry about. Much better than harassing citizens after the fact. Ever heard about closing the barn door after the horse is already out?

  38. All the hooplah about this is ludicrous. Get the border crossings under control (and take aim at the folks exploiting these illegals) or expect people to do what’s necessary to protect their property, their jobs and their families.

    As for racial profiling, targeting “brown people” and all THAT hysteria (and it IS the left here that appears to be hysterical LC!) — how about a modicum of realism about the situation? Like it or not, it’s Mexican folks (for whom many of us do have empathy) who are trying to ILLEGALLY enter the country in AZ. Yes, they are brown, but unless they are doing something suspicious, they will not be harrassed by the cops.

    Will there be an itchy or errant cop from time to time who blows it.?No doubt, but how about we use our heads and realize that these will be exceptions…and if the person questioned is legal, he or she will be released with apologies.

    I’ll say it again, the hysteria is NOT coming from conservatives on this one. Quite the contrary.

  39. soundofmuzegit says:

    Tacomans should send $$$ to Arizona

  40. LuckyCharm says:

    sozo — “Released with apologies”??? Try “deported to a country they’ve never been to, and rearrested trying to get back to the US with a valid passport”!

    Yes, it’s happened, and I’ve posted sources all over this debate, and it’s only going to happen more often with this law. Now, if they’re not going to target only brown people, then that means white people like you and me (I’m making an assumption here) would be equally suspect, should we be stopped for, let’s say, an expired tab. And what if we didn’t happen to have ID on us that satisfied what that particular cop thought proper? Just to make it even, let’s pretend we have brown skin and speak halting English with a thick accent, and don’t understand some of his questions. Because that shouldn’t be a determining factor, right? But don’t you think that if that ever happened to you or me or anybody else, we’d be in big trouble if we couldn’t produce, on the spot, whatever “papers” it might take to convince that cop?

  41. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    LC:

    As to your first point, you read the law incorrectly. It does not require every person to present those four documents you listed. It says that those four documents are presumed to establish legal presence in the US, but they are not the only documents that do that. A WA DL does not establish legal presence because WA does not require you to show proof of legal presence to obtain a license. AZ does.

    As to your second point, when you explain to the officer that you were nodding hello in response to someone’s greeting, that removes any reasonable suspicion that you were soliciting work.

    As to your third point, your example of hiring someone in WA to do a job is inapplicable. WA does not require the use of E-Verify for all employment. AZ does. EVERY person who employs ANY person for ANY job, for ANY length of time in AZ is required to use E-Verify to verify right to work in the US. OF course, this process of verification is just unique to AZ and other states that have similar requirements (if there are any). But the requirement that you have the legal right to work in the US is derived from federal law. It is illegal to work anywhere in the US without having filled out an I-9 form within 3 days of employment and having it submitted to the Dept. of Homeland Security. The I-9 form requires you to produce one document that establishes your ID AND legal presence in the US, or one that establishes ID and one that establishes legal presence. But again, here in AZ, employers must use E-Verify before employing anyone…. And again, the police can’t act on tips from suspicious neighbors.

  42. pazzo242 says:

    Boycott!! No way, my next vacation will be in Scottsdale. Hooray for Arizona!

  43. Bank of America, can I help you?

    Customer: Yes, I want to cancel my account. I don’t want to do business with you any longer.

    The Bank: Why?

    Customer: You’re giving credit to illegal immigrants and I don’t think it’s right. I’m taking my business elsewhere.

    The Bank: Well, Mr. Customer, we don’t want to see you do that, but we can’t stop you. I’ll help you close the account. What is your account number?

    Customer: (gives account number)

    The Bank: For security purposes and for your protection, can you please give me the last four digits of your social security number?

    Customer: No?

    The Bank: Mr. Customer, I need to verify your information, but in order to help you, I’ll need verification of who you are..

    Customer: Why should I give you my social security number? The reason I’m closing my account is that your bank is issuing credit cards to illegal immigrants who don’t have social security numbers. You are targeting that audience and want their business. Let’s say I’m an illegal immigrant and you’ve given me a credit card. I have a question about it and call for assistance. You wouldn’t be asking me for a Social Security number, would you?

    The Bank: No sir, I wouldn’t.

    Customer: Why not?

    The Bank: Because you would have pressed ‘2’ to speak in Spanish. We don’t ask for that information when calling in on the Spanish line.

    Doubters, check with Snopes and/or Truth or Fiction.
    http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/bankofamerica.asp

    http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bofa-creditcards.htm

  44. gmborting says:

    Have you looked at any news coming from any border state in the last several years??? Don’t see too many Sweds coming across the Rio Grande. Schmuck

  45. beerBoy says:

    ij – homeland security is responsible for the implementation of ID checks when opening/closing acccounts.

    How about Kris Kobach and Russell Pierce who authored/introduced the AZ law – both are known for their racist connections ……just a mere coincidence right?

    http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/profiling-arizona-legislator-russell

    http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/04/28/hate-group-lawyer-drafted-arizona-anti-immigrant-law/

  46. LuckyCharm says:

    APNS, here is the exact wording: “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the following:

    1. A valid Arizona driver license.
    2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
    3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
    4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.”

    So if I don’t carry one of those (and most nonmilitary Washingtonians won’t have any of them), I’d just better watch my back if I visit AZ?

    “…when you explain to the officer that you were nodding hello in response to someone’s greeting, that removes any reasonable suspicion that you were soliciting work.”

    In your mind, it might. Do you presume to speak for every AZ police officer who’s perhaps just been disciplined for “letting one get away,” and has a chip on his shoulder? After all, the law states, “Except in relation to matters in which the officer is adjudged to have acted in bad faith, a law enforcement officer is indemnified by the law enforcement officer’s agency…” So if he wants to get back at his department, he could just go hog wild slapping cuffs on people, knowing it’s his department that’ll bear the brunt of any resulting lawsuit.

    As far as E-Verify (which still allows illegals to slip through), whose responsibility was it in my example to check the workers’ credentials? Mine? The contractor’s? The city’s for listing that contractor as “preferred”?

    Oh, and under section 23-212, anonymous complaints are permitted. So, if I have workers on my property, is it incumbent upon me to verify their status and keep such verification for 3 years, just in case one of my neighbors decides to turn me in?

    jim, I don’t know why anybody would still have money in BofA anyhow. There was a big push recently for people to move their money to more scrupulous, not-too-big-to-fail community banks and credit unions. That’s the way to go — BofA is going to do whatever it takes to fatten its bottom line, regardless of whether it’s right or wrong.

  47. Roncella says:

    LuckyCharm/Liberal/Progressives

    illegal means= not legal, contrary to law, violating official rules.

    This covers what the illegal Mexicans are doiing when they cross our southern borders illegally.

    This is not to difficult to understand for most Americans.

  48. LuckyCharm says:

    Ron, legal citizens should not be jailed, or even worse, deported, if they have committed no crime. This is not too difficult to understand for most Americans.

  49. APimpNamedSlickback says:

    LC:

    Either you’re too stupid to understand the wording of the statute, or you’re intentionally mischaracterizing it to incite opposition.

    “A person is presumed to not be an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States if the person provides to the law enforcement officer or agency any of the followiing:…”

    No where in that passage does it say that those are the only acceptable forms of ID. It only establishes that those forms definitively establish legal presence. Clearly there are others that are not listed. A birth certificate, a passport, a resident alien card, etc… the four listed in the statute just establish without a doubt legal presence.

    Regarding the bad faith clause, once again, you’re misunderstanding the law. “Bad faith” means the officer is intentionally acting outside the law. The statute says that the officer is indemnified by his department (that means they must defend him against any claims) except when he acts in bad faith. The example you gave of the officer slapping cuffs on anyone and everyone to get back at his department is a clear case of acting in bad faith. He wouldn’t be getting back at his department, as he would be liable to defend himself in that case.

    Regarding E-Verify and ARS 23-212, as I said, your example is inapplicable. WA does not require E-Verify, but AZ does. 1070/2162 is an AZ law, not a WA law. But assuming your example took place in AZ, you would have the responsibility to E-Verify, unless you hired a licensed contractor to do the work, in which case he would have the responsibility to E-Verify his employees. If you hire an unlicensed contractor, you have the responsibility. Does that seem like an unnecessarily cumbersome system? Yes, of course. That’s the point. It’s intended to discourage using unlicensed labor.

    As to the annonymous complaint, you’re right in that they are permitted in the case of employing illegal immigrants. But once again, and this is no surprise, you didn’t read the whole statute, just the part that supported your opinion. Read about half way through subsection B and you’ll see that it specifically prohibits the AG or county atty from investigating a complaint based on race, color or nationality. That means that for the AG or county atty to follow up on any complaint, annonymous or otherwise, the complaint must include some sort of evidence that the employee is illegal. An annonymous complaint that says “my neighbors gardener looks illegal” is expressly prohibitted from being investigated.

    Honestly, I think you’re just trying to piss people off by intentionally ignoring the facts that negate your opinion. i get it, you’re opposed to 1070/2162, but not because there’s any legal deficiency in it. You just don’t like it, and that’s okay, that’s your right. But I’m exhausted pointing out reality and applying logic to the facts for a person who has no interest in a serious and reasoned debate. You just want to keep spreading untruths, so I’m done here. On to another thread.

  50. Roncella says:

    LuckyCharm, legal citizens should have a drivers license or some form of ID on them just the same as you or I do. That shouldn’t be too hard for most Americans to understand.

  51. LuckyCharm says:

    APNS, which document(s) would you recommend I carry on my person should I ever decide to visit AZ again, to avoid arrest?

    “Bad faith” is a subjective judgment, and it would be up to a court to determine. An officer could come up with many plausible excuses for harassing any particular individual (wearing the wrong kind of shoes, for example, as cited by one supporter of the law).

    The context of my E-Verify question was meant to assume we’re operating under AZ’s law, as if the exact same situation had occurred there. Now what is your answer?

    “That means that for the AG or county atty to follow up on any complaint, annonymous or otherwise, the complaint must include some sort of evidence that the employee is illegal.” The law makes no such stipulation. If I’ve missed it, please cite the paragraph.

    And if there’s “no legal deficiency in it,” then why are so many jurisdictions filing suit against it? I guess we’ll see soon enough whether it holds up legally….

    Ron, a WA DL is expressly excluded from documents acceptable as proof of citizenship. Which document(s) would you plan to carry, then, in case you were to travel to AZ?

  52. This makes absolutely no sense! This immigration law that was passed in AZ coincides in what the federal government passed…who controls the federal government DEMOCRATS! They own the presidential seat, the house and the senate. If everyone is so up in arms about it, contact your federal representatives and tell them you do not like it! It’s that simple, I’m still going to visit AZ because I like the desert, I like the weather. Who cares!

  53. LuckyCharm says:

    qwert, where in federal law does it mandate local law enforcement personnel to enforce immigration laws?

  54. klthompson says:

    You guys are all nuts.

  55. Beerboy, interesting links (no bias of course ;) One of the photos looks photoshop-ed (I wonder why the lame stream media hasn’t picked it up?

    I do find it very interesting how B is suddenly concerned about “connections” considering the “connections” associated with Barry and Co.

    (selective outrage?)

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0