Ice Cream and Immigration

This has been bothering me for a while. Just how low will Barack Obama go to distort the facts?

Barack Obama: "If you are a Hispanic-American in Arizona, your great-grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re gonna be harassed. That’s something that could potentially happen. That’s not the right way to go."

Remember, he holds a law degree from Harvard. He knows better.

[Tangent: You know what I find fascinating? Almost every online "news" story about this topic fails to post a link to the bill. This is very basic, people. When posting stories online, you can post LINKS to the FACTS, so PEOPLE CAN READ FOR THEMSELVES.]

Okay, back to the discussion. Here are some links. First, a summary of Arizona Senate Bill 1070:
http://lawbrain.com/wiki/Arizona_Senate_Bill_1070

And here is the bill itself:
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

This law does not authorize law enforcement officials to stop people and ask for their papers. This applies only "For any lawful contact..." That is, the law goes into effect only when someone is suspected of committing a crime. Just as when I am asked to produce my driver's license if stopped for speeding.

The crux of the matter, then, is just what "lawful contact" means. So what does it mean?

Here's a column by Andy McCarthy that discusses this issue:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGZjZmY3OThiZWJkYTNiMDI4NzM4MGZiOTNhOTMzMzU=
Note this paragraph: "So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person."

McCarthy makes the further point that this law places more restrictions on law enforcement officers than are required by federal law: "...federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place."

McCarthy continues: "The Arizona law, by contrast, does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person's immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific 'reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States.' As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien."

Federal law does not appear to require reasonable suspicion for the latter. See the 2004 Supreme Court case Muehler v. Mena, "holding unanimously that you don’t even have to have reasonable suspicion to ask about someone’s immigration status" according to Rich Lowry. Here is a summary of this case:
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423

The Court held, in a 9-0 judgment, that officers had the authority to detain occupants of a house while executing a search warrant and (more importantly for the issue we are now discussing) that while the occupants were detained officers were permitted to question the occupants about immigration status even though they did not have reasonable suspicion.

In case you missed it, let me repeat: The Supreme Court ruled this way UNANIMOUSLY. Even the left wing of the Court agreed with Chief Justice Rehnquist's opinion.


For those of you who are still concerned, Arizona is expected to clarify that "lawful contact" explicitly excludes racial profiling as a reason to stop someone. This article sums up these developments:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/arizona-lawmakers-clarify-lawful-contact

It is my belief that people raising emotional objections to this law have not even bothered to read it. The law is a measured response to a real problem (as McCarthy says). There is a reason a large majority of Arizona residents support it.

Now, if you haven't read the law you shouldn't feel bad. Heck, you might be qualified for a job in the Obama administration. Much like not paying taxes might quality you for Treasury Secretary, not bothering to read laws you criticize might qualify you to be Attorney General. Case in point, Attorney General Eric Holder hasn't read the law, either, but that hasn't stopped him from commenting on it.

News story:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/13/holder-hasnt-read-ariz-law-he-criticized/

Interview transcript:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/14/transcript-holder-hot-seat-arizona-immigration-law/


Post script, May 19, 2010:
Readers might assume from the above that I am anti-immigration. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Putting myself in the other guy's shoes, I know damn well that I would try to come to the U.S., too, given the economic conditions in Mexico. I am not at all opposed to people who come here for the right reasons, to work hard and improve their lives. I think that with our overly generous benefits, however, some people come for the wrong reasons. The root cause here is not immigration, it is the welfare state. This post is already pretty long. I might resume this discussion and elaborate on my thoughts at a later date.