Comments on: Arizona’s Fugitive Immigrant Act of 2010 http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/ History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:41:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2 By: Gone fishin’ : Historiann : History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-626430 Fri, 28 May 2010 02:06:37 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-626430 [...] Justice and current cowgirl Sandra Day O’Connor shares some horse senseon Elena Kagan, Arizona’s Fugitive Immigrant Act, and taking criticism from the President at the State of the Union [...]

]]>
By: Benito http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-616984 Wed, 12 May 2010 19:15:29 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-616984 “All Men are created equal”! The founders had it right, when attempting to form a perfect union and they also knew that they were not there yet but knew we one day would get there. Lincoln moved us forward as did JFK and LBJ. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

It is my contention that this AZ law is not constitutional and will fail when challenged (unless they add more amendments), pretty funny for this so called perfect law.

]]>
By: Emma http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-615662 Mon, 10 May 2010 01:39:42 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-615662 Again, this: this law really just reinforces a long-existing and perfectly legal federal law is not a position I took or one I endorsed as correct. If you read my comments, you will see they are narrow and meant only to address specific issues.

]]>
By: Emma http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-615657 Mon, 10 May 2010 01:36:40 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-615657 United States citizens cannot be required to carry papers around with them.

And the law doesn’t require them to do that now.

This law effectively changes that. That is not a bug, it is a feature.

This is an “as applied” argument that won’t become true until the law is applied in the way you envision.

Characterizing this law as somehow “less” dangerous in order to move on to critiquing the teacher rule is entirely unnecessary and misguided.

It is less dangerous because the outcry over it will make it go away. Thus, its ability to work the changes you envision through it’s application will be cut off at the knees. Since no such outcry is threatening the teacher rule, that rule will continue and expand.

Neither law is illegal on its face. That’s the genius of them. They may be illegal as applied, but challenges to the teacher law will be few and far between because of the genius with which the rule was crafted.

You can be as insulting as you want. It doesn’t change the facts or the reality.

]]>
By: anon http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-615430 Sun, 09 May 2010 19:07:25 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-615430 this law really just reinforces a long-existing and perfectly legal federal law

No, this is false. It’s possible to believe this only if one accepts, verbatim, every word of the hack op-ed by SB1070′s own hack drafter.

Luckily, most thinking people do not seem to be getting their information about the contents and effect of the bill from the hate-group-connected anti-immigrant activist who wrote it (deliberately intending to expand police powers in a way that is currently unconstitutional).

SB1070 CERTAINLY does NOT simply lay AZ state law over the top of existing federal law. It is dangerous and unprecedented.

Currently (only since 2004′s Hiibel, and only by a 5-4 split in the Supreme Court), if you are suspected of having just committed, or being about to commit, a crime, the police MAY detain you until you identify yourself (IF a state statute provides for their ability to “stop-and-identify”) — BUT the meaning of this is strictly limited to providing your NAME.

Not paperwork, not date or place of birth, not a social security number. Simply your name. That is ALL you are required to provide, until police have a warrant to search or arrest you, or probable cause sufficient to support one. Currently, United States citizens cannot be required to carry papers around with them.

This law effectively changes that. That is not a bug, it is a feature.

Characterizing this law as somehow “less” dangerous in order to move on to critiquing the teacher rule is entirely unnecessary and misguided.

]]>
By: AsstProf http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-614902 Sat, 08 May 2010 22:22:37 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-614902 Sorry for not reading your initial post carefully enough and thanks for the citation.

]]>
By: Emma http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-614795 Sat, 08 May 2010 19:34:32 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-614795 I understand what I’m quoting from. Again, I never said I endorse the viewpoint, just that it purports to answer questions raised in the comments here.

Also, I quoted from the Federal statute which requires resident aliens to carry certain documents with them at all times and makes it a misdemeanor to not carry those documents.

Again, here’s the Federal law that’s been on the books since the 1940s:

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties
Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

So, yes, the law is on the books, as my repeated quotation of it shows.

Please don’t spend any time trying to make me out to be a right-wing hack. I’m not interested in those types of BS comment wars.

Frankly, the (mostly uninformed) outrage will probably mean that this law is repealed. That will be fine with me, because, as I said above, I think the law is motivated by bad intent.

But the public’s and media’s addiction to outrage politics, at the expense of actual information, means that a much more dangerous law will remain on the books and will, IMO, find fertile and unprotected ground in which to expand. In 15 years, when Title VII no longer protects teachers who aren’t native english speakers, you can trace that back to this moment, when you were more interested in being outraged and taking me down in blog comments than you were in being informed and thoughtful about what is being done.

For a blog populated mostly by persons who make their living teaching, I find the lack of attention to the school’s actions very, very puzzling. But, again, it’s mostly women who teach in primary schools, so whatev, I guess.

]]>
By: AsstProf http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-614293 Fri, 07 May 2010 22:57:58 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-614293 @ Emma: This op-ed you are so extensively quoting from as if it was written by the NY Times editorial board was written by John Ashcroft’s right wing hack of a legal advisor. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/29/opinion/29kobach.html) Let’s stop pretending his word is THE TRUTH. If such a law is indeed on the books, give me a cite other than said hack.

I was born in Canada, taught in public schools in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and now live near the Canadian border, so I’ve interacted with all kinds of immigrants (documented and undocumented) and happen to be one. I have never heard of ONE person being arrested for this supposed crime in my 20+ years in the U.S. If it was a crime to not carry one’s papers with one at all times, then it is like the laws against sodomy that were extant until Bowers v. Hardwick. That is, rarely enforced, but something we need to get rid of, because they can be used to terrorize entire communities with the possibility of arrest.

]]>
By: Paul S. http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-613817 Fri, 07 May 2010 03:18:56 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-613817 @ Paul S. Just wondering, but what’s the source or authority for these sovereign nation’s “rights” to so determine? Beyond the mere ability to, which will be very variable across the globe. Nature? Nature’s god? What’s the primum mobile here?

Basically a few centuries of standard practice and the fact that nobody’s been able to come up with anything better. It may not be much from a theoretical point of view, but it’s probably about the best one can get in the messiness of actual practice.

]]>
By: Indyanna http://www.historiann.com/2010/05/06/arizonas-fugitive-immigrant-act-of-2010/comment-page-1/#comment-613792 Fri, 07 May 2010 02:44:15 +0000 http://www.historiann.com/?p=10901#comment-613792 @ Paul S. Just wondering, but what’s the source or authority for these sovereign nation’s “rights” to so determine? Beyond the mere ability to, which will be very variable across the globe. Nature? Nature’s god? What’s the primum mobile here?

]]>