Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ARIZONA: Look at law from other direction

Letter by Michael E. Arndt, Tacoma on May 20, 2010 at 12:50 pm with 26 Comments »
May 20, 2010 12:50 pm

Let’s reverse this Arizona law concern and look at it through other eyes. Say I, a white Anglo, cross the border into Mexico. There is word out on the street that some Anglos are in Mexico to pick up drugs, and they are on the run.

I, in my haste to meet friends, forget my I.D. at the hotel and have absolutely no proof of automobile ownership in my vehicle. Say I match the appearance of the drug suspects. I am, after all, an Anglo. A Mexican policeman doing his job spots me and pulls me over.

Have I been profiled or did common sense dictate hey, this may be one of the guys? With no I.D. and no proof the car is mine does he just send me on my way, no harm no foul, or does he throw my Anglo tush in the hoosegow until some sense is made of the situation?

Leave a comment Comments → 26
  1. LuckyCharm says:

    Now try to concoct a similar reverse analogy for a truck driver, a US-born citizen who stops at a weigh station as required. The cop notices his Hispanic appearance and thick accent and demands proof of identity. The truck driver produces his CDL. Not good enough for the cop. So he provides his SSN. Still no good. The man is arrested and not released until his wife can be contacted at work and drive 40 miles to deliver his birth certificate. Meanwhile there’s a customer wondering where his shipment is, and an employer wondering where his employee and equipment are. Don’t you think this case of mistaken identity will result in consequences further on down the line? What if, while the driver was hauled off, his truck was vandalized and the contents stolen? Or what if the buyer decided to reject the shipment for arriving so late, and terminated his contract with that company? The lawyers are going to have a field day with these cases, coming up with settlement amounts for the municipalities. But I suppose the municipalities could argue that they were mandated to take the actions they did, per state law, so perhaps the state itself would be held liable for the present and future loss of business.

    AZ’s economic consequences have only just begun…. ;-)

  2. Roncella says:

    The lack of senseable reasoning ability in the Liberal mind is astonishing. example/LCharm posted 2:44

  3. That lameass truck driver story again Cheryl? And you didn’t link it this time? Who was it that debunked that one… I’ll have to search…

    It IS nice to see how concerned you are for Arizona…

  4. Pacman33 says:

    Oh no ……………………………………

    ……………….Cheryl looks foolish again.

  5. witchiwoman says:

    Michael Arndt, you nailed it. Tacoma should have stood by its original plan to boycott.

  6. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    I’m the one that debunked it. The case LC was citing is not as she portrays it. The truck driver was not at a weigh station. There is no weigh station where he was arrested. He was a Border Patrol checkpoint, and he wasn’t stopped or arrested pursuant to SB1070. Whether it was right or wrong, he was arrested by federal agents, pursuant to federal law. A SSN is not proof of identification and, at least here in Arizona, stolen or forged SS cards are about as prevalent as a $1 bill.

  7. Thanks P! Nice work.

  8. LuckyCharm says:

    What difference does it make, APNS, where he was arrested? The fact is that a legal, US-born American citizen was wrongfully detained. And thanks for pointing out that it happened even before SB1070 goes into effect — don’t you think that when it does, many more rightful citizens stand to be wrongfully detained?

    Immigration lawyers are gonna have a field day, while law enforcement will be exposed to more claims…. Wonder what Jan Brewer’s connection with the legal community might be, now that I think of it.

  9. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    What difference does it make? It makes all the difference in the world.

    The person in your example was arrested by FEDERAL AGENTS pursuant to FEDERAL LAW. It could have just as easily happened in WA, ID or MT. It makes a difference because you’re using that example to imply that the state of AZ had something to do with it when, in fact, AZ had absolutely nothing to do with it.

    If you got arrested by the feds for tax evasion, would you imply that WA state had anything to do with it? Of course not.

    To answer your question though, no I don’t think many more citizens stand to be wrongfully detained. Could it happen? Sure. Will it? Maybe. But I apparently have more faith in law enforcement to follow their training than you do. I’ve already stated that I work for the state agency that is developing the training program to implement this law. Believe me, your assumptions of how it will be handled in practice are completely unfounded.

  10. “The fact is”… the story misrepresented what really happened, it was pointed out to you yet you continue to use it. “The fact is” he was at a border crossing and didn’t have proper documentation! Shall we NOT check status at our borders either? Cheryl.

    If you think lawyers are going to have a field day I’d think you’d be happy! They contribute mostly to the democrat party. Heck, you should be encouraging Arizona and other states…

  11. LuckyCharm says:

    This article reports it as a weigh station. From the other details of the story, it sure doesn’t make sense that he was at a border crossing, although it was ICE agents that approached him. They claim it was “standard procedure.” I find that highly doubtful, since trucking was the guy’s occupation, and this was the first time it’d ever happened to him. If it was standard procedure that ICE agents would demand proof of citizenship at every weigh station, of every driver, you’d think a bulletin would have been put out or something, alerting them to that. Employers, at the very least, wouldn’t want to risk having shipments held up because of a case of mistaken identity.

    And does anybody really imagine that AZ cops will somehow be better able to “intuit” somebody’s citizenship status than ICE agents are?

  12. “The new birthers: Arizona truck driver arrested, forced to show birth certificate”

    No bias there… just the facts … ;)

  13. Funny, the “Colorado Independent” ran the exact same story… word for word… what was that you mentioned the other day about “straight from Fox” something or other???

    A representative at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) returned 3TV’s calls after researching the incident and she said this was standard operating procedure. (For the federal law)

    The agents needed to verify Abdon was in the country legally and it is not uncommon to ask for someone’s birth certificate. She also said this has nothing to do with the proposed bill or racial profiling.

  14. It appears this story has been cut and pasted to 100’s of web sites.

    I have to admit, it is refreshing to know that with all the fear being ginned up from the left this is about all they can come up with… and it was the feds… run by Barry, Nancy, and Harry…


  15. APimpNamedSlickback says:


    The article you just linked to does call it a weigh station, but the link to the video you provided a week or two ago specifies the location, where there is no weigh station. There is a Border Patrol checkpoint at that location. To be perfectly clear, it was not at the border. It was a US Border Patrol checkpoint. We have those all over the place in AZ, even hundreds of miles away from the border, like this one. Those checkpoints are usually manned by 10-15 USBP agents and 3 or 4 ICE agents. No state, county or local law enforcement though.

    Of course, that doesn’t seem to make any difference to the person who wrote that article, seeing as though they printed plainly false information elsewhere in the article.

    As for why they would ask a commercial driver at a USBP checkpoint for identification, well, perhaps the federal government thinks that a commercial driver operating in a border state on a route that international truckers use might possibly be going on an international trip. It’s not that unusual for coyotes to use commerical trucks to smuggle drugs and humans. That would certainly explain why an ICE agent made the contact, as they are specifically tasked with customs enforcement. If the truck had an international tag, like 90% of the commercial trucks in AZ do, the ICE agent had every right to stop and question the driver. I’m not saying the arrest was valid, but the stop absolutely was. The important thing to remember, though, is that this was an arrest made by federal agents, under federal law, and it was at a federal checkpoint (not that the last point matters, as the feds could stop him anywhere they choose).

    While I can’t speak for the federal government’s immigration training, I can speak for AZ’s, and yes, I know that the police will be able to implement SB1070 fairly and lawfully.

  16. LuckyCharm says:

    APNS, nobody’s (or hardly anybody is) worried about a simple stop. Yes, that can be an inconvenience. But when somebody is arrested and taken into detention until a family member can come up with documentation, that’s more than an inconvenience. What if his wife had not been able to be located for days? The guy was driving a truck — what happens to all the cargo, sitting there spoiling or whatever? AND WHAT ABOUT HIS CIVIL RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN?

    My point is that if you multiply this by dozens or hundreds of times over, which is the situation the AZ law is set up to create, you set the stage for crippling lawsuits as well as a climate of fear and mistrust.

    But if AZ wants this, so be it. I don’t have to visit there, and I sure hope my city doesn’t send anybody there on official business, which tacitly supports them — let them sink under their own regressive policies, and don’t come crying to the rest of us.

    Oh, and if you want to complain that the feds just aren’t doing the job, the Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants than any previous administration, and is set to deport a record 400K this year. So either they’re doing the job and doing it better than anyone else has, or simple deportation isn’t the answer. Take your pick.

  17. LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 09:20:28 AM:
    What if YOU decided to go visit AZ…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 12:04:43 PM:
    (what) if the cops stopped you in AZ…
    And what if your E-Verify…
    What if, unbeknownst to you…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 12:43:48 PM:
    (what) if Latinos are afraid to even walk to school or…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 02:01:27 PM:
    (what) if you were a Mexican family who had fled …

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/25/2010 11:29:30 PM:
    (what if) you stop to get an Egg McCoronary, and the cop in line behind you…

    LuckyCharm wrote on 04/27/2010 07:39:24 PM:
    (what) If you were a Mexican farmer…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 17, 2010 at 9:29 am
    (what) If a crime had just been committed in my vicinity…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 17, 2010 at 11:30 pm
    What if they don’t want to come back…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 16, 2010 at 9:57 pm
    (what if) imagine a high school track team practicing…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 18, 2010 at 8:57 am
    (what)If a cop responds to a vandalism complaint, say, and notices…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 21, 2010 at 8:02 am
    what if you had a sign in your front yard…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 21, 2010 at 7:58 am
    (what) If you find a line of ants across your kitchen floor…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 20, 2010 at 6:31 pm
    (what if) A police officer responds to a complaint…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 20, 2010 at 11:20 pm
    (what) If two suspects are apprehended together for some reason…

    LuckyCharm says:
    May 20, 2010 at 2:44 pm
    What if, while the driver… Or what if the buyer…

    what if… you’ll see this again … fer sure…. but updated of course….

  18. what if… Cheryl really cared about Arizona… much less the United Staes of America???

  19. LuckyCharm says:

    jim, caring about someone or something doesn’t mean automatically supporting every bat-crap crazy whim they come up with. Sometimes it means saying, “I don’t think that’s such a good idea…. You might be sorry!”

  20. … unless it’s your man Barry…

  21. LuckyCharm says:

    jim, first of all I don’t “care for” Obama — I support him. And even his wife, who most definitely does care for him, doesn’t agree with everything he says and does.

    Second, there are a number of his policies I deeply question, if not strongly oppose: his support for expanding offshore oil drilling, his apparent acceptance of the “clean coal” fiction, and his administration’s attempt to continue illegal wiretaps, to name three. But on balance, I support his overall agenda and trust that he’s reasonable enough to listen and even switch course when the situation, the good of the nation, and popular sentiment demand.

  22. … then I guess he hasn’t noticed how many people support the Az immigration law… or what the subjects think about forced participation in his healthcare… or how Americans feel about him going around the world apologizing…

    “I don’t “care for” Obama”??? Your quote implies different Cheryl…

    Submitted by LuckyCharm on October 21, 2008 – 9:19pm.

    Good night everybody. I’ll be dreaming of the fairy tales come true on Nov 4!

  23. LuckyCharm says:

    As far as healthcare, jim, all the polls I saw showed increased approval once it was passed. And I’m unaware of any around-the-world “apologizing,” nor of any polls on that topic.

    Not that I place much faith in polls. After all, the same Pew Research group found that only 26% of all Americans knew how many Senate votes it took to break a filibuster, and if the less than one thousand people they polled for your “majority” were anything like this, I’d hardly want to shape public policy around their opinions.

    According to the poll, the majority of respondents supported:

    “Allowing police to question anyone who they think may be in the country illegally” (they didn’t specify what they meant by “think” — did the respondents assume they’d be acting on a tip or some sort of credible lead, or did they bother to consider that in a state plagued by drug cartel violence from south of the border, many cops might automatically suspect Hispanic-looking people for no reason?)

    “Requiring people to produce documents verifying their legal status if police ask for them” (It doesn’t specify “on the spot” — did respondents assume they’d simply be issued a warning, and maybe a deadline for showing up at any police station with required documents? Did they realize that their own state DL’s might not qualify as proof under this law?)

    “Allowing police to detain anyone who cannot verify their legal status” (Again, did most respondents realize that this wasn’t a thing where, if you didn’t have it on you, the police weren’t going to go home with you and wait for you to dig it out?)

    Out of the 994 people polled, chances are that very few, if any, had ever been harassed by police on racial grounds. So they simply imagine, like so many here do, that it would be a matter of asking for ID, and that would be it. What’s the big deal?

    Polling people who haven’t had a chance to think through all the implications of an issue shouldn’t be the basis for policy decisions, especially in a country where even 79% of elected officials don’t know that the Bill of Rights expressly forbids establishing a state religion, and 43% don’t know what the electoral college does! Go out to your favorite mall, park, or other public gathering place tomorrow, and watch the people, and ask yourself whether you would trust them, collectively, to vote wisely on national security decisions. That’s why we don’t put everything up to a vote — we elect representatives, who hire staffs to study issues before they make up their minds on it. Most Americans don’t have a staff to do that for them.

  24. Sort of long winded Cheryl…

    It’s interesting to me that you use so many words to explain why you don’t trust polls… but then use poll numbers to support you argument.

    I love the last part which provides insight into how the community organizer wound up in the Oval Office… as commander in chief…

    “Go out to your favorite mall, park, or other public gathering place tomorrow, and watch the people, and ask yourself whether you would trust them, collectively, to vote wisely…”

  25. Roncella says:

    imjim, Trying to reason with a liberal/progessive is almost impossible.

    Their thinking process seems flawed when it comes down to good old fashioned common sense.

    It is interesting to see how “some” of the Liberals/Independents who voted for President Obama are now seeing him in a different light.

    HIs appointments for the Supreme Court, and his cabinet selections say alot about his true beliefs and core principles. Obama’s long assication with the Rev. Wright for over 20 years, an angry, bitter, man yelling his dislike for America, Whites, Jews over and over again.

  26. Jim and Roncella, I’m not a regular listener of Michael Savage but when I have heard him, he continually points out that liberalism is a mental disorder. At first I thought he might be exagerating a little, but the more I read some of these posts, I have come to the conclusion thay he is absolutely right. No matter how much you try talk logic and present proof, they just won’t / can’t get it. That’s why I don’t try to play their little mind games. I’m a man of few words and can usually voice my feelings in a paragraph or two. Discussion is out of the realm of possibilities with them.

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