Arizona passes anti-immigration law - UPDATE 4/23
Last week the Arizona state house and senate passed the most restrictive state measure against undocumented immigrants. Already the state has among the most restrictive laws against hiring them. Now police can stop anyone in the state to ask for documented proof they are here legally.
While it would not be a trespass being undocumented in Arizona, the police can charge them with a misdemeanor subject to a $500 fine. There are also provisions that make it unlawful to give a ride to the undocumented, though this is already covered by federal law (see Arizona Republic).
Protests were quickened by the Arizona Senate's passage of the bill. Prayer vigils are around the clock at the governor's suburban Phoenix home and protesters have been arrested. Gov. Jan Brewer has until Saturday to sign or veto the law. She can do nothing and the bill becomes law automatically. She is reported to be undecided. She favors restriction, but is uncertain about conflict with federal law and its impact on Arizona (see Arizona Republic).
One reason the governor hesitates is that there will be immediate court challenges. These would be drawn out and expensive. Also how the rest of the country responds is in question. Not all the response is negative. Some states are looking closely at the law to replicate in their state legislative houses. Washington also is looking carefully (see Arizona Republic).
The most widely publicized critique of the law came from Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who denounced the bill as "retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless." It implies that the undocumented come to this country to "rob, plunder, and to consume public resources." The implication that people can turn in the undocumented, at least to him, smacks of the techniques used in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. The cardinal blames not only the Arizona legislature, but points a finger at the Obama administration for not moving on comprehensive immigration reform (see Los Angeles Times).
4/22 Update: Reactions to the bill
The restrictive immigration bill passed by the Arizona legislature has stirred strong response across the nation. Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles made comparisons to Nazis and Communists, and that provoked the bill's parent, Sen. Russell Pearce, to retort that one who protected pedophile priest is the last one to speak (see Los Angeles Times).
The Governor, Jan Brewer, has not indicated whether she will sign the bill. She's getting plenty of advice and has until Saturday.
More serious local concern on the impact of the law comes from the business community and the police chiefs. Businesses tied to tourism and conventions are upset by what negative impression it will give visitors--especially free-spending conventioners. The food industry and manufacturing, which employs many of the undocumented, is also disturbed by the hassle of checking on immigration status of their workers. Business developers see it also as a disincentive for businesses to move to Arizona (see Arizona Republic).
The police are divided--the cop on the beat likes it, but the police chiefs who have to find the money to pay for it don't (see Arizona Republic).
The New York Times reports that Governor Jan Brewer has signed the bill.
Wow!
By Montana (not verified) on Friday, June 11, 2010Steve Blair is a typical knuckle dragging Arizona Republican and we all know that his party failed during the eight “W” years to deal with health care, immigration, energy, climate change and financial oversight and governance. Their only success, if you can call it that, is that they weaken all federal oversight and regulation over , energy (do you recall Cheney secret meeting with the big Oil companies), climate change and financial oversight and governance, to name a few. It also appears that the Republican Party is only good at starting wars (two in eight years, with fat contracts to friends of Cheney/Bush) but not at winning wars as seen by the continuing line of body bags that keep coming home. The Republicans party will continue turned inward to their old fashion obstructionist party (and their Confederacy appreciation roots) because they continue to allow a small portions (but very loud portion) of their party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” to rule their party. I will admit that this fringe is very good at playing “Follow the Leader” by listening to their dullard leaders, Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush, Savage, Sarah Bailin, Orly Taitz, Victoria Jackson, Michele Bachmann and the rest of the Blowhards and acting as ill programmed robots (they have already acted against doctors that perform abortions).
more factual information not fantasy facts
By Anonymous (not verified) on Tuesday, May 11, 2010- Associated Press
- May 10, 2010
US Embassy confirms Arizona man found dead in northern Mexico; 3 detained in case
U.S. officials confirmed Monday that an American citizen was found dead in northern Mexico.
The U.S. Embassy said the body of Ronald C. Ryan was recovered in Sonora state, across from Arizona, but gave no other details.
Jose Larrinaga, spokesman for Sonora state prosecutors, told reporters Sunday that Ryan's body was found the previous day partially buried near a creek on the outskirts of Santa Ana, a city 60 miles south of Nogales, Arizona. A cause of death had not been determined and the body was taken to the border city of Nogales, Mexico, for an autopsy, he said.
Larrinaga said Ryan, 67, of Phoenix, Arizona, had been reported missing May 3.
State police had reported detaining three men the following day who had left Ryan's pickup truck at a carwash in Santa Ana. Officers seized several automatic rifles, dozens of bullets and marijuana from the men, ages 18, 20 and 21, state police said.
Local media said two of the men are the son and a nephew of Jose Vasquez Villagrana, an alleged key operator of the Sinaloa cartel who was arrested in February.
Ariz Bill
By Al (not verified) on Tuesday, April 27, 2010forbids racial profiling and goes out of its way to avoid such a situation. Of course it always comes down to the individual official's behavior and how he addresses the suspect. But this business about profiling is so stupid. Of course you use profiling as part of a common sense approach to law enforcement. The law forbids the official from asking for papers without a reasonable cause. When I lived in San Diego in the 70's - 90's, if you traveled north on interstate 5 or 15 you ran into a border patrol search stop. This is not a new technique. My boss was an American citizen of mexican descent and we would be inspected and waved through.
you are being reasonable and truthful on this issue Al
By Anonymous (not verified) on Tuesday, April 27, 2010Your informed comments here are a relief on a subject that has a lot of people stirred up.
"The most widely publicized critique of the law came from Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, who denounced the bill as "retrogressive, mean-spirited, and useless."" Interestingly it was revealed by CNN in the press on the same day, that the Cardinal helped a Mexican priest accused in a molestation case to escape back to Mexico to avoid prosecution, but THAT was NOT, "retrogressive, mean-spirited, etc..."" and yet no one was stirred up about that.
Ariz Bill
By Al (not verified) on Tuesday, April 27, 2010is mirrored after the federal law. Beware the fear mongers on this issue. The Obama administration, along with the previous ones, is derelict in their duty regarding the fundamental mission of defense of this country which includes addressing the illegal immigration issue. Ariz Gov wrote the feds for help some 5 times with no answer. American citizens's property are being overrun and damaged, federal lands are being environmentally damaged, and people killed by illegals and the State, in the absense of the federal authority, should do nothing? A major attribute of this country is the rule of law and some suggest breaking it because of what? aiding and abeting illegal activity? All the States should demand the federal gov't give them authority to do what Ariz is doing or come in and do their job. If the feds ignore, then the States must do what they must do.
As someone stated before
By Anonymous (not verified) on Friday, April 23, 2010As someone stated before this country is based on emigration. If the so called Americans (incorrect term since that refers to anyone on the American continent) think that the illegal immigrants have no right in trying to succeed in life here, then what did they do a few 100 years back? They forcefully took this land from the native Americans that were already established in the new land. But they don't ever bring that up, since it wouldn't benefit them.
So this new law will only encourage what is already going on. Racial profiling, If someone looks Latin, or different than them it will now be a crime. So these people will be shunned from society since they will probably not even be safe in their own homes. This instead of being proactive it is just pushing the U.S. back and making them comparable to Nazi Germany.
you would need to understand the terms you are using first ...
By Anonymous (not verified) on Friday, April 23, 2010Yes, someone stated that this country is based on emigration but they were as wrong as you are. The word you are looking for is immigration.
This kind of ignorance cloaked in faux outrage, without facts, is what makes it hard to have a civilized, substantive conversation. Because you failed to learn about Western Civilization and how it shaped our country does not mean that it is not important. The freedoms you enjoy came from the ideals of Western Civilization, not from the Indian nations. Whether Timbuktu or the Lakota would have provided a better structure for our society is moot. Western Civilization triumphed and that is what gives you the very freedom to live in ignorance of the language that you have chosen. Comparing this law to Nazi Germany shows your ignorance of Nazi Germany, as well as dimishes the real suffering of the victims of it Hitler's regime. This law is a seatbelt law by comparison. It is enacted if you are stopped for something else. You would be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt if you are stopped for another purpose and are also not wearing a belt. This is the same thing. And do not think that for 2 minutes any other country on earth would allow you to squat illegally for any length of time, especially Mexico.
Re: you would need to understand the terms you are using first
By The_Truth (not verified) on Friday, April 23, 2010"that is what gives you the very freedom to live in ignorance of the language that you have chosen."
How do you know what his chosen language is? Perhaps English is his second language.
"This law is a seatbelt law by comparison. It is enacted if you are stopped for something else."
Tell that to the cop that pulled me over during "Click it or Ticket" month for no reason other than to try and reach his secret quota. Seatbelt laws are a joke, but that's a different topic.
"And do not think that for 2 minutes any other country on earth would allow you to squat illegally for any length of time, especially Mexico."
This reminds me of a scene from Batman Begins in which Ducard tries to get Bruce Wayne to kill a criminal who murdered someone. After Bruce refuses to do it and says he's not an executioner, Ducard then says, "Your compassion is a weakness that your enemies will not share." To which Bruce responds, "That's why it's so important. It separates us from them."
So no, we aren't like other countries which is what separates us from them. The fact that we aren't like other countries is a large reason as to why most people would probably choose to live here over any other single country in the world. So why must we conform? Other countries don't have say the level of freedom of speech that we enjoy here, should we then conform to their standards? We are unique and that has been a key ingredient to our success.
Peace!
The Truth has hardly set us free ...
By Anonymous (not verified) on Saturday, April 24, 2010I have followed your remarks through a number of subjects on here. Despite the pretension of your nom de plume, it is clear that you do not even have a passing knowledge of The Truth. You are obviously intelligent, but dazzled by your own wit so that demonstrating it becomes your goal rather than listening to what people are really saying. It renders you utterly incapable of real compassion and empathy. In the end you just keep repeating trite progressive sound bites with a waspish self-satisfaction. You are not even conversant with the facts of some of these matters. You apparently believe that Truth is relative, a “relative” of yours alone (that was a joke). Even the use of the word , Peace is sardonic because you really wish nothing of the sort. It is a pity really, your talents are far too big for a pool this small, but bullies like you rarely want to take the challenge of real problem solving.
Re: The Truth has hardly set us free ...
By The_Truth (not verified) on Monday, April 26, 2010"it is clear that you do not even have a passing knowledge of The Truth"
It is? Why is that? Because I don't agree with your point of view on everything?
"it becomes your goal rather than listening to what people are really saying."
It is comforting to realize that you know what I am & am not listening to.
"It renders you utterly incapable of real compassion and empathy."
Listen to yourself... How can you POSSIBLY know my compassion & empathy levels? Who is the one sticking up for all the downtrodden on here? Yep, no compassion nor empathy on my end.
"trite progressive sound bites"
God forbid that we would actually "progress."
"Even the use of the word , Peace is sardonic because you really wish nothing of the sort."
This has become comical. What am I thinking right now? Please tell me since you apparently seem to know. If I didn't want to offer peace, I wouldn't.
"It is a pity really, your talents are far too big for a pool this small, but bullies like you..."
Who have I bullied? I have been respectful to the people I have conversed with. In fact, go look at my initial response to you above (the one after you compassionately called the initial poster ignorant) & then your response back to me and see which one of us has the tone of a bully.
Allow me to paraphrase: "I don't like you here because I like my pool to be filled with homogenous perspectives that are similar to my own so I don't have to challenge my belief schema."
Peace.
U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.

