Memo To George Will: AZ Sheriff Calls SB 1070 "Racist "

George Will is concerned about 'outside agitators' telling Arizonans what to do. I wonder if Will thinks it is ok if an Arizona sheriff talks about it?

Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik calls SB 1070 "racist," "disgusting," and "unnecessary."

You think Will plans to write a column about this? Me netiher.

Speaking for me only

< The GOP Soul Loathes Latinos | Iowa Meat Plant Owner: U.S. Seeks Life for First Time, Non-Violent Offense >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He's right. (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Kimberley on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:47:20 PM EST
    He and his department are going to be sued no matter what they do. Why go down as thugs for racists and nativistic creeps?

    Besides, if police officers were enforcing every law on the books most of us would live behind bars. There is a healthy role for judgment and compassion in good police work.

    It strikes me that one of those (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:30:58 PM EST
    citizen lawsuits that the new law authorizes, brought against a courageous and law-abiding sheriff for defying the statute, would be a very effective way to get a test case going, if the sheriff would defend the case on the two strong pre-emption grounds (immigration enforcement is under federal control, and Congress has never required U.S. citizens to carry "papers" or other ID to "prove" their not-illegal status to local police).

    My brother has lived in Arizona since he (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by esmense on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:21:06 PM EST
    got his architecture degree from the University of Arizona in the early 70s. But he's getting ready to leave -- he's coming up to the Northwest this summer to check out property. This was the last straw, but, frankly, only one straw on top of a whole haywagon full of bad, reactionary conservative legislation that seems designed to make the state unliveable.

    I love the state, but the things I love most derive from the strong Hispanic and Native American influence on the culture. What makes the state unliveable are all the old people who earned their money in other, better economies and then come to retire in the Arizona with the expectation that they will, and the political clout to ensure they will, enjoy the benefits of low, low wages and almost non-existent taxes, etc. It is and long has been a very bad economy to make your living in  -- but a good one if you expect to live both well and cheaply on money you made elsewhere.

    My brother says some people are now saying workers, Hispanic and otherwise, should just leave the state -- and leave the retirees to fend for themselves.

    i'm also guessing (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:57:16 PM EST
    sheriff dupnik either isn't planning to run for re-election, or he's ok with being soundly trounced at the polls. the people of arizona have spoken loud and clear for years, "welcome to arizona, we hate you, drop your check book and leave, now."

    new state motto: Arizona, putting the AZ in nAZis!

    Interesting analysis (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:58:31 PM EST
    To be honest with you, I imagine Dupnik's election is dependent on Latino support.

    Pols are pols.


    And (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:22:06 PM EST
    The converse of the boycott on the tourist-oriented state of Arizona: Maybe those of us who feel strongly about this issue could also give a boost to Sheriff Dupnik. I'm planning to call within the day to say "Good for you for supporting the US Constitution>" It can help to point out the good measures...good reinforcement.

    Or (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:09:41 PM EST
    Pols represent their constituents... to put it in a less, um... contentious way.. lol

    To: Squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:27:17 PM EST
    Yes. That is one aspect that JFK wrote about long ago in "Profiles in Courage." (The old "when is leadership following the constituency and when is it moving a step ahead for the constituency to follow.")

    Nice (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    He had a beautiful way with words... great politician, imo.

    You mean (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    Ted Sorensen had a great way with words.


    "However, years later historian Herbert Parmet analyzed the text of Profiles in Courage and wrote in his book The Struggles of John F. Kennedy (1980) that although Kennedy did oversee the production and provided for the direction and message of the book, it was clearly Sorensen who provided most of the work that went into the end product.[3]

    In May 2008, Sorensen in his autobiography, Counselor, largely confirmed allegations that he had done much, if not most, of the writing. Sorensen wrote that he "did a first draft of most chapters," "helped choose the words of many of its sentences," and "privately boasted or indirectly hinted that [he] had written much of the book." Sorensen claimed that in May 1957, Kennedy "unexpectedly and generously offered, and I happily accepted, a sum" for his work on the book. The sum Kennedy paid to Sorensen exceeded half the book's royalties from its first five years of sales and led Sorensen to inform Kennedy that he was disinclined to push for recognition of his participation."


    Huh? (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    Non Sequitur..  

    and so they are. (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:14:09 PM EST
    Pols are pols.

    that said, i just looked up the demographics for pima county, AZ, from the 2000 census. according to the official tabulation, 29.3% of the county's population was hispanic (of any origin), and 61.5% was solely caucasion.

    unfortunately, it doesn't provide a breakdown by registered voters. conceivably, sheriff dupnik (depending on how popular he is), could win handily, with or without hispanic support.


    30% (none / 0) (#7)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    is not insignificant if they all (or even 95% of them) vote the same way.  The caucasion vote is probably more likely to see some split on this one.

    Census Not a Good Prediction of Voters (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dan the Man on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:56:20 PM EST
    According to the census, Arizona was around 30% hispanic in 2008.  But according to the 2008 election exit polls, only 16% of the Arizona voters in the 2008 election were hispanic.  So relative to the Arizona population, hispanics in Arizona are a lot less likely to vote.  If the 2008 election is any indication, the numbers of Hispanic voters in Pima County would be around 15%.

    statewide vs local (none / 0) (#3)
    by CST on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    politics can be vastly different.

    The mayor of Phoenix is planning to sue.


    And, to repeat (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:24:17 PM EST
    my comment immediately above. Let's give a boost to the mayor of Phoenix. People in those situations--without regard to inside reasons/motivation--can use & appreciate all notes of support.

    Liberal Press? (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:24:15 PM EST
    Arizona immigrant law animates Hispanics, Democrats

    by Tim Gaynor
    (Additional reporting by Steve Gorman in Los Angeles, Tom Ferraro in Washington and Catherine Bremer in Mexico City; Editing by Mary Milliken and Eric Walsh)

    The article implies that only Hispanics are bothered by this, and the politicians who depend on their vote... Them agin' us???

    Seems really odd to me that the writers would leave out all those who are not Hispanic and speaking out against the Arizona law.

    But then again, it looks like, can't be sure, that none of the writers are Hispanic..

    this seems to be a new meme (none / 0) (#14)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:50:13 PM EST
    yesterday someplace I saw people calling Obama racist for some comment he made about wanting more people of color involved in politics.

    no kidding.  will google.


    got it (none / 0) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:53:33 PM EST
    Of course he had the right (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:20:09 PM EST
    to say what he said.

    But what would you have said if Bush had done that in say, April of 2006 or October 2008.

    Playing the race card is not a good thing. No matter who does it.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:57:53 PM EST
    It gets scary, for some, when White Men are not the only ones being pandered to.

    you know (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    I am as cynical as the next person but why is it a bad thing to have more people involved in the political process.  ever.
    it has forever been the republican tactic to suppress turnout.  theres the rub.

    More People? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:08:50 PM EST
    That is the problem for some: More people, and the wrong people.

    This problem is in its infancy in the US, compared with Israel which is fighting a war against demographics.

    I guess Arizona is trying to be the White State... abeit with lots of underpaid dark skinned members of a service class..


    well yeah (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:10:50 PM EST
    I meant, you know, rationally.

    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:37:18 PM EST
    In Israel it is quite rational. At the current rate of Israeli Arab population growth v Israeli Jewish population growth, Israel will soon no longer be a Jewish State..

    Personally I always thought that was a bad idea...

    So goes the reasoning for the many GOP white male's fear. Their way of life is being threatened. The two big mistakes that they are making is that this country does not belong to them and things change.  

    But I guess it is the old landscape idea... with enough effort, sometimes brutal, a man can cultivate the wildness of nature to his liking.. nazi's tried it on a grand scale... oh well.. does not always work out.


    well (none / 0) (#23)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:40:09 PM EST
    I have very mixed feelings about Israel, who was there first and who has a right to be there.  and vote there.

    quite apart from any strategic concerns.


    Me Too (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:48:57 PM EST
    More so because, as a jew, I do not like to be associated with a right wing state, built on racial criteria. It is too much of a you become what you hate sort of thing..

    But as far as Arizona goes, it will be a power struggle, no doubt violence will build after white's get put in their place.


    you are far (none / 0) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:53:10 PM EST
    from the only jewish person I know of who feels this way.

    Yeah (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:56:17 PM EST
    The article points to one protest sign:

    "We don't give service to gringos from Arizona," was the phrase some Mexico City taxi drivers painted in white on their rear windows.

    Pima County's top lawman says he has no intention of enforcing Arizona's controversial crackdown on illegal immigration.
    My thoughts exactly. LE has more than enough to keep themselves occupied w/o putting this on their plate too.

    cherry picking sheriffs (none / 0) (#26)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:07:00 PM EST
    The fact that one sheriff says this doesn't make it right or wrong, any more than Joe Arpaio making inmates live in tents and wear pink underwear is pertinent to what the US should do about correctional policy.

    You missed the point of the post. (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Thanin on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 03:35:45 AM EST
    Tom Tancredo sez he supports the (none / 0) (#29)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:25:38 PM EST
    new Arizona law.  He sez Huffpo abridged his comments.  He says he would not approve if police officers were to pull people over to check papers just for the sake of checking papers, but that the law doesn't allow that, it only requires them to check if they've stopped somebody for some legitimate other reason.  (Um, like what, too much dust on the car license plate?)

    This was on Matthews this evening.


    As I said the other day (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:30:32 PM EST
    parts of this bill bothers me a bit, but can anyone tell me what is wrong with this column by Bryan York.

    The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency...where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person..."

    Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

    What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach,

    As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

    For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

    But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.


    I mean I know it is lots of fun to beat up on Repubs and try to garner votes and that quite a few on the Left believe in Open Borders...

    But this looks like exactly that to me.

    What is the problem and all that (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by christinep on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    Putting aside the civil rights and sociological and ideological and political issues, the problem is the misappropriation of the "reasonable suspicion" standard.(Disclaimer: My background is primarily civil law.) My understanding is that the State is using the language of criminal law and criminal enforcement to address what the US in its sovereign capacity has long addressed as a matter of civil violation. "Reasonable suspicion" is a concept/standard associated typically with criminal law. Importance of the distinction: The federal government action in immigration preempts state actions that would contravene or effectively undermine federal authority here. The central question would be whether there is any room for the state to add this type of regulation in the face of longstanding federal actions.

    Okay, your point is that it is (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:52:19 PM EST
    unconstitutional. State Rights lost out long ago.

    But as it is written, what is the actual problem? And outside of the desire for some to have Open Borders and others to garner votes and others to beat up on Repubs and Conservatives, a time honored tradition.... is the law unreasonable, especially given that no action can be taken unless law enforcement has been previously engaged with the suspect?

    And I am not being argumentative. Problems have existed for years and the Feds have, essentially, done nothing. 70% of the people in AZ support the law.

    And remember that I have stated that I support closing the border jam up and jelly tight and then giving all those here, who don't have a criminal background, a green card.


    More Like (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:28:55 PM EST
    70% of [500]... people in AZ support the law

    Read the latest for yourself (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:46:31 PM EST
    Thanks (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by squeaky on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:01:30 PM EST
    But, it would not matter to me if 100% of the residents of a state decided fascism was a good thing. It is unconstitutional, and immoral.

    By refusing to allow (none / 0) (#46)
    by me only on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 01:38:44 PM EST
    become a fascist state with 100% of the people agreeing, would we what, exactly?  Democracy?

    gawd (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:13:58 PM EST

    What is unbelievable? (none / 0) (#48)
    by me only on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:23:33 PM EST
    That I am pointing out that if 100% of the voters for fascism and squeaky denied it, that ya know, would be dictatorial?

    Some people choose to live in communes.  Do you have a similar problem with that?


    no (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 02:32:28 PM EST
    but I want you to keep going
    this can only get better

    Personally (none / 0) (#50)
    by Raskolnikov on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:22:37 PM EST
    I think the constitution is there often to protect us from our worst impulses.  Just because, say, a majority of people disapprove of gay marriage doesn't make it less discriminatory, if equal protection under the law has any meaning, and I hope the courts eventually uphold that on a federal level.

    There is a difference between (none / 0) (#51)
    by me only on Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:57:01 AM EST
    a slim majority and 100%.  I mean if 100% of the voters were against gay marriage, there is a very strong chance that we would amend the constitution (as was proposed, and has happened in many states) to preclude gay marriage.

    If 100% of the voters agree on something and the SC overturned it, one would have to wonder if we actually lived in a representative democracy.


    "Lawful contact" is a trick phrase (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Peter G on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:43:55 PM EST
    The Supreme Court has frequently pointed out that it is not unlawful for a p/o to approach anyone and attempt to initiate conversation, just to see what turns up.  "Lawful contact" does not mean "the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," contrary to the purported expert quoted above.  As long as a "reasonable person," as the Supreme Court puts it (meaning a very brave and constitutionally well-informed person, if you ask me) would feel free to walk away and decline the conversation, there is no violation of the law in the p/o's approaching that person and trying to trick them into thinking it is a lawful compulsory stop (which would require "reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot").  In real life, this means an Arizona p/o can walk up to anyone they choose (profile) and ask for ID, and if the person is not sufficiently well-informed to walk away without saying anything, their goose is, hypothetically, cooked.  

    So what, other than (none / 0) (#41)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:24:51 PM EST
    a van jammed with people speeding away from cops, legitimately constitutes "reasonable suspicion" that somebody is an illegal immigrant?

    Seriously.  How often do cops come on vans loaded with people speeding away?  I know it happens occasionally, but really.  What else could conceivably cause that "reasonable suspicion"?


    Bama Jeff... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:15:07 PM EST
    you was right, I was way off.

    This is good stuff...I'm starting to feel better about this blasphemy being shot down before implementation.

    Kdog, I'm glad I was correct about this one. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:19:30 PM EST
    Plenty of other serious problems with police powers, and AZ has more than its share of them. Too bad all of the sherrifs didn't come out this way.

    Pima County doesn't have the retirees or the conservatism in numbers that Maricopa does.


    don't need sheriffs to enforce it (none / 0) (#40)
    by diogenes on Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:23:33 PM EST
    From Yahoo today:
    "Many day laborers like Diaz say they will leave Arizona because of the law, which also makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and directs police to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants."

    Lawful contact (none / 0) (#45)
    by DancingOpossum on Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 11:12:13 AM EST
    Would "lawful contact" also apply to people who contact the police, say in an emergency? Someone's robbing your house, so you call the cops and they ask to see your papers? You ask the police for help and what, they can deny you if you don't have your papers? So people (at least Latinos) will just stop calling the cops? Stop testifying as witnesses? Waaaa?

    I have very mixed feelings about Israel, who was there first and who has a right to be there.  and vote there.

    It's not complicated at all, and has nothing to do with feelings but with historical fact. I don't want to derail the thread but the historical record is abundantly clear; for a close analogy, see apartheid South Africa, or any colonial settler state founded on mass expulsion and genocide of the indigenous population(including our own, yes).

    Back to Arizona. Surely the GOP, which knows nothing as well as it knows how to win elections, is going to wake up from this self-destructive spiral? Or do they really not care anymore, now that they can so gleefully and openly get their hate parties going?