Yep, AZ’s new immigration law is a sham and a scam. And a dream come true for unscrupulous employers and rapists.

30 Apr 2010 09:12 pm
Posted by: Donna

Luis Heredia had a great piece up at HuffPo the other day.

It’s a sham because the Republicans who drafted the bill, SB1070, know it does nothing to protect Arizona. They know it doesn’t help secure the border. And they know it makes law enforcement’s job even harder. Local police who are busy solving crimes and catching criminals will now have to enforce federal immigration laws. But Republicans passed the bill anyway – it’s an election year, after all — and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed it into law on Friday.

Yep, it’s a sham. It’s also a scam because former John Ashcroft lackey Kris Kobach realized that crafting this type of legislation was a massive rainmaker for, none other than Kris Kobach:

And as a lawyer for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) — an anti-illegal immigration organization that the SPLC lists as a nativist hate group — he’s carved out a niche as the go-to legal expert for governments looking to craft draconian immigration laws. Kobach wrote local laws for towns including Hazelton, Penn. and Farmer’s Branch, Texas, designed to crack down on citizens who rented property to illegal immigrants. The Hazelton law was struck down as unconstitutional by a federal judge in 2007.

No surprise, then, that when hard-line anti-immigration sheriff Joe Arpaio — himself a big winner in Kobach’s bill — was looking for someone to train his deputies in how to enforce immigration laws, he turned to Kobach. And it looks like Kobach is being compensated generously for his work.

Let me just say that most of the business owners in Arizona are good and legit people who want to do the right thing. Really, they are. I personally know several. But let’s face it, there are a minority who see undocumented workers as ripe for exploitation. Want to keep your job and not be deported? Well then you’d better work for less, work off the clock, and work in unsafe conditions. Get a finger cut off on the job? You’ll get dumped off at the county hospital ER while your employer pretends he never knew you. You will be replaced in a hot second with another desperate economic refugee willing to put up with his abuse for a wage.

This is why SB 1070 should really be called the Unscrupulous Employer Enabling Act. By way of providing background, let me point out that the so-called “harshest in the nation” AZ employer sanctions law passed in 2007 has turned out to be a complete farce. They stripped out the ability of County Attorneys to subpoena employment records and as of now, only a small percentage of Arizona employers have complied with the e-Verify requirements. Russell Pearce cut a deal with the AZ Chamber to, once again, strip the subpoena powers from County Attorneys in exchange for silence on SB 1070.

So the bad employers are safe. Assuming the law isn’t overturned by the courts quickly, there will be a few high profile raids and arrests of undocumented workers but eventually the smoke will settle. Cops will have to go back to prioritizing real crime at some point. The community will push back against economy-killing police state shenanigans. But exploitive employers will retain even stronger leverage over workers they know to be undocumented, though they still get to use the “knowingly” dodge to protect themselves for having hired them. Isn’t that nice?

And now we get to the subject of rape. I realize I am opening myself up to accusations of being a shrieking harridan engaging in the most overwrought sort of hyperbole. I don’t care. I am speaking the truth here. Consider the last three paragraphs in this post and think of the hundreds of thousands of girls and women trafficked as drug mules and sex slaves (yes, I realize men and boys are victimized too). Think about a recent Amnesty International report that 6 in 10 women are raped as they make the grueling trek from Central America through Mexico to our borders. Think about immigrant women working on farms being raped. Think of all that, and everything we know about the history of humanity. Know that when any group of people is deemed to be unworthy of basic legal protections, that there are other people in positions of power who will exploit them. And know that the girls and women among them face a very high probability of being sexually abused. It has always been the case.

Congratulations Governor Brewer and Republicans in the Arizona Legislature, you have passed a sham and a scam into law. You have made it easier to be an unscrupulous employer and a rapist. I hope you are proud of yourselves.

24 Comments

  1. Comment by Truth08 on May 1, 2010 8:08 am

    I recently brought this very question up to your blog, about the deal between, Pearce and The Az Chamber?

    Why was the Az Hispanic Chamber, excluded?

    Why are the two entities, NOT working together on this very same issue?

    Why is one entity, Publicly condemning the new law? While the other is eerily absent?

    Do you, or have you had a chance to speak with anyone from either chamber? If so plz, enlighten us.

    Regards,
    Truth08

  2. Comment by Alan Scott on May 1, 2010 10:39 am

    Donna,

    ” Congratulations Governor Brewer and Republicans in the Arizona Legislature, you have passed a sham and a scam into law. You have made it easier to be an unscrupulous employer and a rapist. I hope you are proud of yourselves. ”

    As you said to me on the ” Frivolous ” thread on April 17 .

    ” Get off the cross, Alan, other people need the wood. ”

    Logically if you cut down on the large volume of illegals being smuggled by drug gangs and other criminals, the crimes against illegals will also go down .

    Since your HERO Obama will not secure the border, Arizona is forced to do this .

    Tell me do you think Arizona can take a couple more million illegals without harm ? It seems to be what you want . Think of it, new voters for the Democratic Party . :)

    You also are aware that Mexico is pretty strict with illegals coming across ” it’s ” Southern border ? Or don’t you want to deal with that unpleasant fact ?

  3. Comment by Appleblossom on May 1, 2010 11:34 am

    Alan, name the amount of people found to be registered to vote while not legal to be registered.

    And then name the amount found ever to have voted fraudulently. And I mean actual convictions. Not accusations of it. Not even filed charges-convictions.

  4. Comment by Appleblossom on May 1, 2010 11:34 am

    Then, get off your high horse of claiming it is to get new voters.

    We do not have to do anything to get Hispanics to vote for us-you Republicans/Conservative are doing all of the work for us.

  5. Comment by Alan Scott on May 1, 2010 4:37 pm

    Appleblossom,

    Do not even get me into illegal voters . Conservatives believe that voter fraud is a way of life for Democrats . It is the only way Al Franken got in . Of course I cannot legally prove it .

    But you have offtracked me . Democrats are thinking long term .
    Once Amnesty kicks in, 15 million new Americans will vote your way . Then every 20 years another 15 million will come in and constantly dilute the voting population .You guys could run the Country for the next 100 years . By then we will be at 500 million citizens easy . You environmentalists should worry a little about the pollution that will cause .

    That many people, if they all stay in the West could even unbalance the Continent and capsize it like Guam .

  6. Comment by Mark Manoil on May 1, 2010 7:32 pm

    I guess, Alan, you are suggesting (as the leading Republican talking point goes) that the “federal government” is doing nothing about immigration (for a change). We need to elect a Republican president, say, George W. Bush, and a Republican legislature, like the “federal government” elected in 2000, after a campaign based in large part on the need for immigration reform. So we can have immigration reform. Six years passed with a majority in both the House and Senate and the Presidency and the “federal government,” ie., the Republicans, were not able to get anything accomplished on this issue. After blocking health care reform for the last year, maybe they could just get out of the way this time.

  7. Comment by Appleblossom on May 1, 2010 10:15 pm

    *snorts* Of course you cannot prove that someone steals an election when the recount is done on live on the internet with the very ballots themselves scanned online to look at by anyone who wants to.

    Good lord, if the Republicans did not have conspiracy theories to make up, they might actually get something done and we cannot have that now can we?

  8. Comment by Alan Scott on May 2, 2010 6:53 am

    Appleblossom,

    What does internet ballot counting do when those ballots were cast by voters who are suspect ? That is why you people always go ballistic when identification is requested at the polls . It makes it a little harder to bus voters from county to county or voting districts to get the results you need .

    Mark,

    Unlike you Liberals I do not shrink from criticizing my Party. They did not secure the borders either . All I can say is that as bad as the GOP was, the Jackass Party is always worse .

  9. Comment by Appleblossom on May 2, 2010 2:29 pm

    Again Alan-the process on the recount was open, transparent and honest. They did everything they could to ensure that every vote cast was legal and counted.

    You merely want to claim that there was fraud because otherwise you would have to admit that you are either racist or your party has driven people away by giving the impression it is racist.

  10. Comment by relive_regret on May 3, 2010 1:32 pm

    Every single post has some highly comical feedback. I love it!

    Also, thanks for posting about SB1070. With so much disapproval, its a wonder that the bill hasn’t been repealed. It’s basically hatred put into law, and it sickens me.

  11. Comment by Alan Scott on May 5, 2010 2:25 pm

    Appleblossom,

    ” You merely want to claim that there was fraud because otherwise you would have to admit that you are either racist or your party has driven people away by giving the impression it is racist. ”

    If the illegal aliens were of any race we would be against them. The country cannot absorb 15 million people with out problems, which is what your Party refuses to face .

    So because you cannot win a debate based on facts, you resort to calling those you disagree with, names .

    relive_regret ,

    ” With so much disapproval, its a wonder that the bill hasn’t been repealed. It’s basically hatred put into law, and it sickens me. ”

    What sickens me is people who do not know the truth about the Bill . It merely enforces existing laws . Laws that our useless President does not enforce. State some facts to prove me wrong .

  12. Comment by Abolition on May 5, 2010 10:47 pm

    DD,
    You are a shrieking harridan (somebody had to say it). And your logic fails, too.

    The report you cited identifies immigrants raped in Mexico, who are hoping to make it to the US. If the US wouldn’t let them in, they wouldn’t come, and wouldn’t get raped along the way.

    This is the point that the open border activists always miss. Honest, hard working people born in countries to south of the US are victimized repeatedly, and it is the open border that encourages it. And it’s not just rape…it’s kidnapping, robbery, and murder, too.

    If you would spend your time changing the archaic, bureaucratic, and byzantine path to citizenship, rather than telling poverty stricken people to become victims in order to live a decent life, perhaps some actual progress could be made.

    But no…that would be too easy. It’s so much better to spew thoughtless hyperbole attempting to demonize anyone who dares to disagree with you.

    The world has no need of a democrat Rush Limbaugh.

  13. Comment by Donna on May 6, 2010 11:37 am

    Abolition, I love how you are ascribing positions to me that I do not hold. I’m an open borders advocate? Since when? Perhaps you should read my posts on immigration before you engage in useless strawman (or straw-harridan, if you prefer) and ad hominem arguments. Not to mention the transparently obvious concern trolling: “The world has no need of a democrat Rush Limbaugh.” I’m flattered, but the use of the modifier “democrat” gave you away.

    How about actually defending SB1070 which, I noticed, you neglected to do.

  14. Comment by Alan Scott on May 6, 2010 4:51 pm

    Donna,

    ” How about actually defending SB1070 which, I noticed, you neglected to do. ”

    Do you mean stating details and truth, as opposed to what you do .

  15. Comment by Donna on May 7, 2010 10:59 pm

    What details and truth, Alan? What rational defense has Abolition given for SB 1070? I’m all ears.

  16. Comment by Abolition on May 8, 2010 1:13 am

    Donna,
    I had no intention of defending SB 1070. I thought this was the place for comments on your blog post, therefore I posted comments on your blog post.

    I did not ascribe to you a position that you do not hold. I did not write that you are an open borders advocate. I said that open borders advocates miss the same point you are trying to make. I also didn’t realize that “open borders advocate” qualifies as an ad hominem attack.

    But if you want me to defend SB 1070, I am happy to do so.

    It is just my personal opinion, but I believe the true value of SB 1070 is the message it sends, both to the Federal Government and to the drug cartels that profit from the human smuggling of illegal aliens into the US.

    First, for the feds: the message, I believe is that we are tired of ineffective enforcement. What is the point of a law not enforced? The system is broke, and needs to be fixed. This message appears to have been received well.

    Second, to the cartels: the message, I believe for them is that their crop of potential customers has shrunk. With a REAL threat of arrest, illegal aliens will be less likely to acquire their services, and less likely to be raped, robbed, held for ransom, or murdered.

    The only negatives are brought about by democrats like you who have completely misconstrued this law and turned it into a civil rights issue because you believe that police will use this law to racially profile.

    The state law mirrors the federal law, but nobody was so worried about the feds racially profiling…probably because everyone knew the feds weren’t doing anything. For a local cop to make an arrest they must attend ICE training, so in essence, all the law does is allow local police to do the same thing federal police could do, but don’t do.

    In other words, it allows the law to be enforced, and provide the REAL threat of arrest that has been sorely needed to prevent the continued victimization of the people you are supposedly trying to protect.

    But none of the loud protesters are actually trying to protect anyone. If protection was their goal, they would focus on changing the laws and developing a manageable procedure to become a citizen, or at least get permission to work.

    Instead, they march and chant and make boycotts because racial profiling is wrong.

    Of course, racial profiling is wrong! Nothing in the law allows or encourages the wholesale roundup of Mexicans, or any other race.

    The law does not allow stopping anyone based on race. All stops are still under the same rules as always…but once there is a stop, police can further investigate if there is reasonable suspicion.

    This is the same standard identified by the US Supreme Court in 1968 during the landmark trial of Terry v. Ohio. Cops need reasonable suspicion to pat down a person for weapons. This same standard has carried over to traffic stops in other precedent. It is not new.

    And brown skin has never, and will never be an element of reasonable suspicion for anything other than having brown skin, which, as we all know, is not a crime, and never will be a crime, at least not in this country, under this constitution.

    Yet, if a person were to listen to the media, or Phil Gordon, or read the Democratic Diva, they would think that Mexican internment camps are right around the corner.

    It is not the law that is causing all the fuss…it is the lies about the law that causes the fuss. The lies you tell, and the lies others tell…like this law is a dream come true for rapists.

    I have no idea how you can suggest that you are standing up for the rights of anyone, or you care about the poor hard working immigrants. You would rather encourage them to come here, knowing it is illegal, knowing that they are very likely to be raped or worse, and knowing that it puts money in the drug cartel’s pockets further encouraging the rampant corruption that makes it so difficult to lawfully emigrate into this country in the first place.

    If you had a compassionate bone in your body you would be screaming at them to stay home…PLEASE stay home. It’s not worth the risk!

    Which is exactly what SB 1070 does.

  17. Comment by Alan Scott on May 8, 2010 3:36 pm

    Donna,

    Abolition can speak for himself. Lets talk about you . I want you to give details and truth, not what you imagine is in the Bill . Not how you imagine Law enforcement will misuse the Bill .

    You know if you’d be honest ,you would just support giving the Southwest back to Mexico . I wonder how your ideas would float if you were a citizen of that country . I bet they would love to have you tell them how to treat illegal immigration on their Southern border .

  18. Comment by Donna on May 8, 2010 5:38 pm

    Abolition, what constitutes probable cause that a person is in the country illegally?

    Also, noticeably absent from your lengthy defense of SB 1070 is any reference to the employers. Are you uninterested in going after them for some reason?

  19. Comment by Donna on May 8, 2010 5:39 pm

    What’s in the bill, Alan? What does it do?

  20. Comment by Abolition on May 9, 2010 6:57 pm

    Donna,
    I find it very interesting that your responses avoid the issues altogether, and instead point out some new topic that was “noticeably absent”.

    Such a technique invariably is used to hide one’s lack of knowledge on the topic, particularly when they’ve shot their mouth off too early, without knowing what they are talking about.

    It really isn’t that hard to say you were wrong. People will respect you more if you are intellectually honest.

    To answer your question, probable cause is a fluid concept that cannot be neatly fit into a box. There is no checklist. In this particular setting, it is simply the facts and circumstances known that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a person was in the country illegally.

    Keep in mind that the law requires the decision to arrest be made by an ICE officer, or a person trained by ICE to make the decision. (liberals seem to hate to mention this part).

    You might not like the “reasonable person” standard, but it has been a part of American jurisprudence since the beginning. It’s actually nothing more than saying probable cause to arrest a person for being in the country illegally is exactly what a jury says it is.

    Just my opinion, but I think a cop will look at the facts known to him or her at the time, and decide if they could convince 12 strangers in a court that the person is here illegally. If so, there’s probable cause. If not, then there isn’t.

    As for employers, the only part of SB 1070 that applies to them is that it adds entrapment as an affirmative defense. I can’t say I fully understand the benefit of this additional language, since entrapment is an affirmative defense in all criminal prosecutions. In other words, reiterating it here doesn’t change anything, as far as I know.

    Would you like to broaden the topic, again, to include all enforcement activities related to illegal aliens? First, I thought I was just commenting on your post, but apparently I was supposed to address the whole Bill. When I address the whole Bill, apparently I was supposed to address all enforcement efforts.

    Rather than point out the made up deficiencies in my comments, perhaps you can address the actual deficiencies in yours.

  21. Comment by Donna on May 10, 2010 8:52 am

    Abolition, IOW you can’t define what probable cause/reasonable suspicion is without racial profiling (which the law disallows). If this law holds up in court Arizona is going to get the pants sued off of it.

    The original language of the bill included the ability of county attorneys to subpoena the records of employers and take depositions from witnesses. The Republican sponsors of the bill cut a deal with the AZ Chamber of Commerce to remove those provisions in exchange for their silence on the bill. So it’s not a “made up deficiency” at all and if you were actually following the process of this bill you’d know that. And talking about illegal immigration without talking about employers is a pointless exercise, if you really want to address the problem. But if you mainly want to scapegoat brown people, then you only want to talk about the workers.

  22. Comment by Abolition on May 11, 2010 12:31 am

    Donna,
    You have no idea what I want.

    Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two different standards of proof, and both can be easily defined without skin color. The law, in fact, requires it (as you noted).

    And I thought we were talking about SB 1070, not illegal immigration in general. But, then again, when you’re on the losing side of an argument, it’s in your nature to change the subject…

    If you really want to address the problem, you’d petition your democratic president to fix it, rather than whine about how those darn police keep enforcing the law or how those darn politicians keep doing what their constituents want them to do.

    I’ve yet to see any protest on this topic suggest or do anything that might actually be productive. Instead, there are only self-serving displays of ignorance.

    You are obviously no different.

  23. Comment by Donna on May 11, 2010 1:12 am

    So define either probable cause or reasonable suspicion without using skin color as a basis, Abolition. Give me an example of how you could enforce this new law in Arizona without racially profiling.

    And I was talking about SB 1070, which is about illegal immigration, is it not? It originally included a provision to allow county attorneys to subpoena employers’ records and take depositions from witnesses. That has been stripped out, because key Republican sponsors of the bill cut a deal with business leaders to remove that provision. You’re the one changing the subject, not I.

  24. Comment by Abolition on May 12, 2010 10:18 am

    I wouldn’t be enforcing this law, or any other, but I can give you an example of how this law might be enforced in Arizona without using skin color:

    A police officer stops a car for speeding and upon approaching the driver, asks the typical question: “Can I see your driver’s license, registration, and proof of insurance?”
    The driver tells the officer that he does not have a license, so the officer asks for his name, date of birth and social security number so he can check if there is a license, but the driver says that he does not have a social security number, either.
    The officer asks why not, and the driver says “because I’m not American”.

    If the driver does not have the proper passport, visa, or immigration documents, then SB 1070 would come into play.

    As for the backroom deal cutting you imply, it is pointless. County Attorneys can subpoena records and depose witnesses any time a criminal matter is submitted to them for prosecution, whether it is specifically mentioned in SB 1070 or not.

    This bill is not about immigration. Immigration is the legal process by which citizens of other countries become US citizens. This bill is about people who illegally leave their home country and illegally enter the US. If those people would follow the immigration process, they would not be violating the law, and would not be subject to arrest.

    The real issue, anyway, seems to be based entirely on the fear that law enforcement will engage in the ethnic cleansing of Latinos from Arizona, but this could not be further from the truth, and the bill expressly forbids it.

    The bill allows State and local police to enforce a law that the Federal Gov’t has been enforcing, although not effectively. Any danger of ethnic cleansing, or civil rights violations, or racial profiling is not new. The possibility has existed ever since the federal law was enacted, and has already been extended to local law enforcement through the 287(g) program.

    And, if we are to be honest, the possibility has existed ever since governments employed police. Racist police have been a problem in this country for at least 100 years, but great strides have been made and we, as a country, have progressed to the point that racism is not tolerated.

    50 years ago, I wouldn’t be so optimistic, but nowadays, you have no reason to be so pessimistic.

    And you certainly serve no one but yourself when you lie about this law.

    You do have an amazing opportunity here, though. You could spend your time and efforts to enact meaningful changes in immigration policy that would allow immigrants seeking a better life to quickly navigate the bureaucracy and legally live and work here.

    If you actually cared about the people like you pretend to, that is exactly what you would do. The same goes for every other critic of this bill, too.

    But your objective is clear: bash republicans. After what they did to Bill Clinton, I can hardly blame you, but you can hop off your high horse any time, now.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Democratic Diva is proudly powered by WordPress and WPDesigner.