Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

ARIZONA: Not everyone supports discrimination

Letter by Wendy C. Wright, University Place on May 20, 2010 at 11:26 am with 43 Comments »
May 24, 2010 10:18 am

Why is the tea party not protesting a law that allows government officials to enter a person’s car, home and even into a church? These government officials can stop people who are not even suspected of a crime if the official (police officer) believes the person is an illegal immigrant.

What happened to the right “to remain secure in one’s own person” (Article IV, U.S. Constitution)? Aren’t members of the tea party against government intruding into people’s lives? Does this only apply to white people?

The law in Arizona is racist and discriminatory in a democracy.

Leave a comment Comments → 43
  1. Roncella says:

    Wendy, You have not read the bill. Your like President Obama, and his attorney General Holdner. You are making statements about an immagration bill that you have not read nor have they.

  2. Read the law Wendy
    … then look up “probable cause” and get back to us. (forward this to Barry and Eric and Janet and Mr. Crowly… they haven’t read it either and they are looking just as uninformed as you…

    The Arizona Law does not single out any race… you are the racist.

    The TEA party people believe national security IS the role of government.

  3. tubbythetuba says:

    Illegal…..Probable cause. Duh!

  4. Pat_riot says:

    Why do we support it? Because it doesn’t do any of that, it enforces a law that keeps us safe and our tax dollars from being spent on people that don’t contribute to the system.

    Why do you blindly not support it? Why haven’t you read it before you make accusations about it? Must be following dear leaders lead eh.. blindly not support something that you know nothing about. A perfect lemming.

  5. Volks253 says:

    So the hard right media is screaming over and over ‘they haven’t read the bill’.
    I know this because the minions parrot what they hear, it’s all they can do.
    “GOP, no original thought since 1936″.

  6. LuckyCharm says:

    I’d like to ask everyone who’s responded so far: “What would constitute, in your mind, probable cause if it were up to you to decide whether or not to charge someone with violating this law?”

  7. LuckyCharm ask an attorney, not the ACLU though. They only believe in branding militia members as criminals without probable cause.

  8. Wendy, duh? what are you talking about? Tell whoever it was that woke you up to let you go back to sleep again, o.k.?

  9. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, policemen are not attorneys, and they are unlikely to consult one before deciding that this or that individual looks “suspicious.” Furthermore, suspected illegal aliens do not have the right to an attorney and most times represent themselves in court. Caught up in a bureaucratic system under which they are presumed guilty, not innocent, they are often unable to adequately defend themselves.

    How would you feel about this system if it were YOU who some cop decided didn’t “look right” and hauled you in after rejecting any type of documents you might be carrying as not credible or valid? Oh, I know, you can’t imagine that happening to you, can you, because you’re the right color and speak with the right accent, huh?

  10. Roncella says:

    Volks, Its Your hero’s, President Obama and his Attorney General, Holdner, and Napalatano, and so many others who kept appearing on the Cable channels giving their opinions and saying, They Had Not Read The Bill !!!

  11. No toyotaman… it’s because the tools themselves said they haven’t read it…

  12. Cheryl, why do you constantly pick on the strawman?

    “What would constitute, in your mind, probable cause if it were up to you to decide whether or not to charge someone with violating this law?”

    It’s a faulty premise… read the law, and the federal law while you’re at it… and re-read the letter. The writer asks…
    ” Why is the tea party not protesting a law that allows government officials to enter a person’s car, home and even into a church?”… faulty premise/strawman… take your pick.

    She then asks…
    ” What happened to the right “to remain secure in one’s own person?”
    An individual’s forfieture of that right is based on probable cause… of a crime.
    If an illegal alien isn’t committing a crime, then there is no basis to investigate immigration status.

  13. LuckyCharm much to your surprise, police officers, not police(men) as you put it, actually receive training, surprise, surprise, surprise., and I bet you thought only the military received training. There’s no shortage of useful idiot groups out there who are more than willing to provide free legal services to illegal aliens. As to how I would feel if that happened to me? Well if I went to Mexico and was walking around minding my own business but forgot to bring my I.D. and they stopped me, what do you think would happen? Huh?

  14. imjim pardon me but I believe you meant to say “fools” not tools.

  15. … I meant “tools”… but the latter works just as well…

    “Tool” … someone who is being used by an establishment willingly (as a sycophant), or unwillingly (as one who blindly conforms).

  16. witchiwoman says:

    Right on, Wendy. You said it perfectly.

    It’s too bad the people who are supporting the law now, won’t realize they were the ones who allowed our country to become a dictatorship later. In some cases there is no 20/20 hindsight. Not when people are blind to begin with.

  17. witchiwoman says:

    “imjim says:
    May 20, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Cheryl, why do you constantly pick on the strawman?”

    imjim, why do you constantly pick on Cheryl? Are you jonesing for her?

  18. R U jealous :) :)

  19. LuckyCharm says:

    jim, it’s not a strawman, it’s completely relevant. A police officer (thanks frosty for reminding me to be PC about it) responds to a complaint and discovers a person or persons nearby matching whatever description the complainant was able to provide, if any. They make “lawful contact” by questioning the people. They also, as required by law, demand proof of citizenship. If those people cannot provide whatever documentation is demanded by that police officer, whether it be driver’s license, SS #, birth certificate, passport, etc., they are taken into custody and transferred to the nearest ICE facility, where they will sit until they are either deported — even if it’s to a country they’ve never even been to — or somebody comes to their rescue with the legal muscle to spring them. And they could be perfectly innocent.

    Is this what our nation has come to?

    And don’t say they’d have to have “probable cause” that wasn’t based on race or ethnicity, because the police will have to prove, once the lawsuits start pouring in, that their questioning and detention didn’t follow any pattern of targeting any particular ethnic group. So once a few municipalities get their hands slapped and pay hefty penalties for violations, they’ll establish policies mandating that enforcement must be carried out evenly across all races and so on. So white people who speak perfect English will also be required to carry proof of citizenship wherever they go, or risk being locked up.

    This is not the same thing as enforcing a federal law. There is no federal law mandating that every citizen must carry proof.

  20. Wendy, Wendy Wendy, which of your teachers fed this nonsense to you. You can actually read the law yourself, and I urge you to put it right next to federal law which permits far more liberty w/re to questioning people suspected of being in the country illegally.

    And tell your teachers to do their homework before they make those lesson plans up.

  21. beefthorsen says:

    The problem with this law is not what it says, it’s that it steps on the toes of the feds, which a state can’t do. You know, kind of like if Arizona decided to opt out of the military and send their own troops to Afganville.

  22. Yep, the difference , Cheryl, is the federal law allows immigration status to be checked WITH OUT probable cause… you can misinform and knock down the strawman all day for all I care.

    Have fun kids… thankfully, most Americans realize the value in upholding law and maintaining border security.

  23. Barry and co. are just digging themselves deeper in the hole…. ;)

  24. I think Cheryl is confused between immigration enforcement and Obama’s plan that made it a crime not to carry health insurance…

  25. LuckyCharm says:

    You’re the one who brought up probable cause, jim: “An individual’s forfieture of that right is based on probable cause… of a crime.
    If an illegal alien isn’t committing a crime, then there is no basis to investigate immigration status.”

    Let’s start from the premise that it cannot be known, upon the commission or suspected commission of a crime, what the individual’s immigration status is. So that person is either grilled and citizenship documents demanded, or not. If two suspects are apprehended together for some reason — let’s say me, a white, green-eyed woman who’s fluent in English, and a Hispanic individual who’s more comfortable with Spanish — which one do you think is going to have to do more to prove citizenship?

  26. witchiwoman says:

    Cheryl there’s no point in engaging in an intellectual battle with an unarmed man (imjim, who is still changing his name I see. Can’t seem to keep himself out of trouble with the censors I guess.)

  27. witchiwoman, can you speak Spanish? If not , you’d better learn, just Google “grupo tacoma” to see what these people are up to. If you are satisfied with what you read about “one America” get back to us.

  28. blakeshouse says:

    It is obvious that the letter writer gets all her talking points and “FACTS” from the Daily Kos.. It is also patently obvious that if she had a brain she would take it out and play with it, there certainly isn’t enough power there to support even automatic functions much less cognative thought. Wendy it is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you a fool than to open it and remove any doubt.

  29. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, in a nod to my inner masochist this morning, I decided to take your bait. I Googled “grupo Tacoma” with and without quotes. Coming up with nothing, I even added the phrase “one America” — still nada. Why don’t you go ahead and post whatever shocking and outrageous stuff you’ve got on them instead of making vague allegations and expecting everyone else to take your word for it? Put up or shut up, in other words.

    (Besides which, I am very intrigued at how anybody would feel threatened by the concept of “one America.” Doesn’t our pledge of allegiance refer to “one nation, under God, indivisible”? What about that, exactly, gives you the heebie-jeebies?)

  30. I did bring up probable cause, because as you have hackneyed stated joggers could be randomly harrassed and asked for proof of citizenship (just to name one of many ‘scenerios’.

    Well at least we are making progress Cheryl. Now you seem to understand until a “commission or suspected commission of a crime” occurs, the police cannot investigate legal status.

    “which one do you think is going to have to do more to prove citizenship?”
    This is a toughy… the one most likely to be a foriegner?

  31. I googled grupo Tacoma w/out quotes and there 126,000 results in 0.25 seconds…

  32. LuckyCharm says:

    jim, officers routinely question bystanders and people within the vicinity of a crime scene. This is a form of “lawful contact,” i.e. in the course of their police duties. They don’t necessarily have to suspect the person of committing the crime, unless, of course, the person says something suspicious. But, in the course of this lawful contact, if the officer suspects the person might be in the country illegally, he or she is bound by SB1070 to investigate citizenship status, regardless of any connection with the original complaint.

    Now, we’re getting warmer…. How do you determine someone is “likely to be a foriegner”? Umm, are we talking skin color here? Accent? In other words, “racial profiling”?

  33. Dailey214 says:

    Do you stand in line at the airport to be searched before getting in? Why? Are you relieved when you get on the plane that these precautions were taken? While I see the sadness in the need for so much law enforcement, I welcome it as long as it is done in a respectable manner. If we don’t create laws when needed, as we have always done our country will turn to mush and chaos. We can handle law enforcement don’t be so afraid of it.

  34. LuckyCharm says:

    Airport security is a whole different issue, and no, I’m not grateful to have to purchase water at $5/bottle on the plane because we’re not allowed to bring our own. (Do they think terrorists are stupid? If you want to catch someone by surprise, you don’t do exactly the same thing you did last time — even they know that.) But I do know that I will have to deal with security precautions should I choose to fly. There’s a big difference between airport security measures, and having myself, my neighbor, my brother, or my friend hauled into jail when they were just peacefully going about their business, for failing to carry the proper “papers,” whatever the authorities decide they’ll accept as convincing enough that day.

  35. Give us another “what if” Cheryl…

  36. L.C., if you think border security is not as important as airport security, why don’t you talk to the family of that rancher who was killed by a illegal alien, and while you’re at it check out the other crimes that they are committing, i e; prison populations and why does Yakima have one of the highest auto theft records in the country? BTW did you ever find grupo tacma? It’s there if you are really interested. To clear up your misinterpretation of what “one America” means that would be “open borders”, that’s what they are talking about. I don’t believe our pledge of allegiance includes Mexico and illegal aliens.

  37. LuckyCharm says:

    frosty, I never said border security wasn’t important. In fact, I have questioned why border states like AZ are enacting regressive, discriminatory laws that jeopardize legal citizens’ rights, while ignoring border security. Wouldn’t it have made much more sense to station all their NG troops on the border? Why aren’t theytaking border security more seriously?

    And I found a number of results mentioning Grupo Tacoma, but none seemed to be the one you were referring to. Why don’t you just post the link? Which really isn’t relevant anyway — they don’t represent any official government and have no legislative authority. They can advocate for whatever they want, no matter how crackpot it might be.

  38. Cheryl, if Az did use NG onthe border, are you really implying you would support that? Do you believe the people that have their panties in a twist now wouldn’t be in even more of state of paranoia and so forth?
    Do you remember those border patrol agents (Ramos and Compean) that were prosecuted for doing their job and the wounded drug trafficker that was given full immunity in exchange for testimony?

  39. LuckyCharm says:

    I’m not saying I’d support it, nor would I necessarily oppose it, but it sure would be more consistent with her stated goal of reducing illegal immigration. You don’t “reduce” cancer with chemotherapy and radiation; that’s just treating it. You reduce cancer through preventive measures, and this law is anything but a preventive measure.

    As far as Ramos and Compean, I’ll quote from the US DOJ FAQ on it:

    “In America, law enforcement officers do not get to shoot unarmed suspects who are running away, lie about it to their supervisors and file official reports that are false. That is a crime and prosecutors cannot look the other way.”

    “Agent Compean failed to arrest Aldrete when he attempted to surrender; instead, Compean tried to hit Aldrete with the butt of his shotgun, at which time Aldrete began to run towards the border. The agents shot at him 15 times, hitting him once, knocking Aldrete to the ground. Compean and Ramos chose not to walk over to the wounded Aldrete and arrest him; rather, they re-holstered their guns, turned around and left the scene. When Aldrete then got back to Mexico without having been apprehended and identified, there was no longer any way to tie him to the load of marijuana, except through his own admissions.”

    “Testimony … revealed that Agents Compean and Ramos never took cover nor did they ever warn the other agents to take cover. This action demonstrates that they did not perceive a threat. In his statement to investigators, Compean admitted that Aldrete had attempted to surrender with both hands open and in the air.”

    Etc. etc…. The drug trafficker wasn’t given immunity — no case could be made against him because of BP’s actions.

  40. klthompson says:

    This letter is beyond belief! Is reading no longer taught in our public schools? Arizona’s SB 1070 is readily available on the internet. Although, at seventeen pages it will take longer to read than the current issues of the Tribune, I suggest that Ms Wright take the time to read up on the subject. A little knowledge will address her concerns.

  41. Roncella says:

    LuckyCharm, Why and how can you think you know more than the Governor of Arizona and a majority of the citizens of Arizona when comes to the new immagration law and how to deal with illegals that are crossing their borders ????

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