Other states taking cue from Arizona law

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/10/other-states-taking-cue-from-arizona-illegals-law/

Monday, May 10, 2010
Other states taking cue from Arizona law
Chuck Neubauer

A controversial law passed in Arizona giving state and local police the right to arrest anyone reasonably suspected of being an illegal immigrant is catching on nationwide, with lawmakers and others in several states considering similar legislation.

Concerned about the federal government’s failure to secure the nation’s borders, legislators and political candidates from Georgia to Colorado have introduced bills to beef up local immigration enforcement, have promised to do so or said they would support such legislation if offered.

“With the federal government currently AWOL in fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities to protect American lives, property and jobs against the clear and present dangers of illegal-alien invaders, state lawmakers … are left with no choice but to take individual action to address this critical economic and national security epidemic,” said Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe.

Mr. Metcalfe, a Republican who introduced legislation last week modeled on the Arizona law, said his bill would give “every illegal alien residing in Pennsylvania two options: Leave immediately or go to jail.”

His bill would, among other things, give state and local law enforcement officials full authority to apprehend Pennsylvania’s estimated 140,000 illegal immigrants and require law enforcement officers to attempt to verify the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants. It also would make it a criminal offense for illegal immigrants to fail to register as foreigners or to have proof that they did.
South Carolina state Rep. Eric Bedingfield, a Republican, has sponsored a bill in that state allowing the verification of a person’s immigration status and providing for the “warrantless arrest of persons suspected of being present in the United States unlawfully.”
Mr. Bedingfield’s bill also would target illegal immigrants who fail to complete or carry legal registration documents and would criminalize “hiring and picking up workers at different locations while impeding traffic.”

He said his constituents are concerned about illegal immigration and that he had received numerous communications from constituents asking when South Carolina would take the additional step as lawmakers did in Arizona. The bill, he said, has 20 to 30 co-sponsors and is pending in the House, but it might be difficult to get it to the Senate floor before the end of the session June 1.

In Oklahoma, state Rep. Randy Terrill said he and some other lawmakers still hope to pass a bill similar to Arizona’s new law this session and “go beyond it.” Mr. Terrill, a longtime advocate for tougher immigration laws, said his group also would like the legislation to include tougher penalties for illegal immigrants caught with firearms.

Mr. Terrill, a Republican, said Oklahoma used to have the toughest laws against illegal immigrants but that Arizona is now No. 1.

“We are runner-up,” he said. “The states have to act because the federal government has refused to enforce our nation’s borders and turned every state into a border state.”

Similar efforts are under way in Minnesota, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Missouri, Nebraska and Idaho.

Several political leaders, immigrant advocacy rights groups and others have said they will challenge the Arizona law as unconstitutional.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, also asked Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, to delay the legislation while Washington works on comprehensive immigration reform. Mrs. Brewer declined, saying her state had no choice but to act in the absence of federal reform.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Sunday said the Justice Department is considering a federal lawsuit against Arizona’s new immigration law. He told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the lawsuit could challenge whether the law would lead to civil rights violations.

The Arizona law is set to take effect in midsummer and authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to determine during lawful stops the immigration status of people for whom there is “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. Known as Senate Bill 1070, it was enacted in response to a dramatic rise in violence along the Arizona-Mexico border.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard requiring that before someone is arrested or detained there must be reasonable belief that the person has been, is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.
A recent Rasmussen Reports poll found that 70 percent of likely Arizona voters approve of the legislation, while 23 percent oppose it.

Ann Morse, who monitors immigration legislation for the National Conference of State Legislatures, said most attempts to pass legislation modeled on the Arizona statute probably will have to wait till next year. She said it is too late for most state legislatures to consider such a measure, since most are already out of session or winding down.

She said many states will be watching what happens in Arizona regarding pending and threatened lawsuits and a ballot initiative. She said she was not ruling out a similar stand from other states “to push the federal government to take responsibility.”

Utah House Speaker David Clark said he expects an Arizona-type bill to be introduced next year when that state’s legislature returns to session. Mr. Clark, a Republican, said Utah residents are “concerned” and “frustrated” about immigration and that Congress needs to act.

“In Utah, we don’t have the right to deport anyone,” he said. “I think that Arizona gave a size 13 boot to the federal government to try to spur it into action.”

In Georgia, Republican gubernatorial candidate Nathan Deal said he would support as governor legislation that mirrors Arizona’s new immigration policies.

“I agree with the Arizona governor and Legislature that the federal government has failed miserably at protecting our borders and enacting sensible solutions that would protect our states, counties and cities from bearing the enormous costs associated with illegal immigration, from emergency-room visits to public schools to the criminal justice system,” Mr. Deal said.

Mr. Deal was active in the fight against illegal immigration while a member of Congress. He was elected in 1992 to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat, switched to the Republican Party in 1995, and resigned in March to run for governor.

Brian Robinson, Mr. Deal’s campaign press secretary, said the veteran lawmaker, if elected, would “seriously push” for an Arizona-type law if the federal government continues the “status quo” of failing to secure the border.

"We don’t see we have a lot of choice, Mr. Robinson said. “This action has to be taken.”

Scott McInnis, a candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Colorado, also pledged to sign a bill like the Arizona legislation, “given the failure of the federal government to deal with illegal immigration,” said spokesman Sean Duffy.

During a recent KHOW radio interview in Denver, Mr. McInnis said, “We are stopping the retreat. No more retreat. Federal government, if you are not going to do it, we are going to do it.”

Arizona is leading the way these days.

Now the rest need to follow in this.

now THAT is change I can believe in! lol

Yeah, it’s a nice side effect and I’ll gladly support more of it. It’s nice to see the states stand up and take charge. After the constant failures (and more on the horizon) of the federal gubberming the states are going to have to step up and save this country.

I feel that the Federal government wont stand for this. This is the same sort of thinking that the southern states had in the years before the Civil War. I took History of the South for 2 semesters in college because I needed 2 history electives and it was interesting… this is coming around again.

Well it’s their own damned fault and they deserve it. When the legislative branch spends more time worrying about baseball than they do the wanton violation of our sovereignty, they deserve a swift kick in the ass. :mad:

very proud to call myself a resident of Arizona! hopefully the feds stay out of our business and allow the new law to go into effect

I don’t know - this gets into some fuzzy areas around folks who are “reasonably suspected” of something.

Remember not too long ago, the Tea-Partiers were being equated with the same militia groups that were arrested. What if someone was reasonably suspected of being a domestic terrorist and they started rounding up folks based on “reasonable suspicion”?

What if they started ID’ing just folks who drove 4x4s or searching only rural houses for weapons.

Probably close to everyone on this board could be considered a terrorist based on some pretty bad misconceptions by some of the less-scrupulous folks making laws these days.

I definitely don’t think we should sit around and do nothing about illegal immigrants, but I’m not sure if this is the right thing to do from a libertarian standpoint.

Plus, its not like the state needs to make a law like this in order to deport the illegals that they catch every day in the normal duty of LEOs - they just often don’t have the budget to deport them (why not just add money in the budget to deport them when caught through the normal police channels?).

I just get a little nervous when laws that could later be used against me as a law-abiding citizen start making their way in front of legislators (while at the same time, these same legislators continue passing laws that trample the US Constitution and Bill of Rights every day).

If you’re a legal US citizen then you have nothing to fear from these laws. You see you can easily prove you’re a citizen or resident alien. Prove to me, however, that you’re not a member of a right-wing nutcase group wanting to take over the government.

It’s harder to disprove the latter. Much easier to have your civil rights violated for something that can’t be proven or dis-proven but which the government says they can round you up for.

Your argument is apples and not-quite apples.

All the law does is require state LEOs to enforce existing Federal immigration law. WTF is so controversial about that? Where are the civil liberty violations here?

Stands a good chance of passing the Missouri legislature - then we’ll see if Nixon has any balls…

That’s the best news I’ve heard in a long time. Let’s hope the states considering it will follow through.

This is a little off track but we have a Cargill plant here in Beardstown, IL. It’s a relatively small town, however It has the largest population of illegal immigrants in the state. I know a couple of guys who work there and say that Cargill has advertisments down at the US-Mexico border telling people (illegals) to come up to Beardstown for work. That dosent seem legal at all and raises a bunch of questions.

Thank you. Where was gloria estefan, shakira, al sharpton and whoever when the federal government passed the same law? :eek:

pls. ask them to dump their senior senator. and yours too while you’re at it…

That’s actually not true - it does add some blurry lines and the “reasonable suspicion” stuff leaves a lot to be desired (check out the text from the bill):

http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070p.htm

I guess I just don’t see the need for a new law to do something that these agencies (state/local) should already have the authority to do.

Why add a bunch of language for stopping people in the US to verify if they are or aren’t a citizen - that just smacks of something that can be presented as case-law for future agencies to go overboard with.

I guess my concern is that we’ve already got several agencies that are trying to over-step their boundaries based on rule-changes from the current administration (look at some of the attempted rule-change side-stepping of the-laws from OSHA, IRS, BATFE), and this just sort of feels like a “test the waters” for pushing the limits of what city/state agencies can do.

I always think of these things in the mindset of “if the Federal government can F@!#$ something up, they damn sure will” and in my opinion, this is laying the groundwork for stopping someone with no probable cause - just “reasonable suspicion”.

What was wrong with probable cause (or any of the other laws that already existed) in the first place?

I’m always an advocate for enforcing (or fixing) existing laws vs. creating new ones.

I hope I’m wrong.

Indeed. But they got no beaches :frowning: I’m torn.

Lake Havasu :smiley:

I am glad that AZ has taken a step forward to enforce these issues and that other states are following. Hopefully it will send a message to the Potentates in Washington. Election time is the chance for all of us to get rid of those who fail to their job. Hopefully, Americans will remember to consider their next Presidential candidate more carefully. After all, it is the President who elects members to the Supreme Court. Those are lifetime appointments that affect each one of us for the rest of our lives. Our country has regressed and its time to stand up for what’s right. Thought for the day? Do illegal immigrants deserve the right of freedom of speech? Do Terrorist deserve to have Miranda right’s read to them? I say NO! If you don’t like it, too bad, the door heading south is open. There are those who come here to work hard for a better life, I support that, especially since we have so many who fail to do so, but do it legally or face the consequences. Consider this photo while you mull Arizona’s new law and the thought for the day over.

That photo looks photoshopped.

Its also not uncommon for people of the opposition to infiltrate rallies and do things like this. Like someone going to a tea party rally, yelling the N word or other remark so it can be captured on tape and then shown to the world so everyone can point their fingers.

But I have no doubt that many of them probably feel that way.

What do you think they will do? File suit in Federal Court against AZ?