The state of Arizona passed a law April 13 that makes being an illegal immigrant in the state a crime. The bill states that police can ask any person for proof of their U.S. citizenship, and if they fail to furnish such proof, they can be arrested.
This law, which is supposed to go into effect this summer, is widely unpopular and rightfully so. Issues pertaining to immigration have long been federal issues, not in the hands of states. Furthermore, state police and jails shouldn’t be burdened with the task of targeting federal issues such as immigration.
Police forces in every state already have enough to deal with as a result of diminishing budgets; passing a law that would further burden them with unreasonable tasks is unintelligible.
Following the bill’s passage, the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police released a statement expressing the group’s opposition of the law.
“The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police remains in opposition to Senate Bill 1070,” the release said. “The provisions of the bill remain problematic and will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner.”
Many officers throughout Arizona and other states have also expressed concerns that the law will effectively reduce cooperation between police departments.
In an interview with Educationnews.org, Police Chief Richard Meyers of Colorado Springs, Colo., discussed his concerns for the law.
“Enacting local or state laws to compensate for the inadequacies of the national system merely shifts the burden to an already overwhelmed police community,” Meyers said. “Almost every police department in the U.S. is struggling with shrinking resources and fewer police officers, and we’re still adjusting to the higher expectations on Homeland Security in the post-9/11 era.
“This is an example of the worst kind of unfunded mandate to local police that would diminish our ability to provide basic, core services to our communities.”
George Gascon, chief of the San Francisco Police Department and a former chief in Mesa, Ariz., was another voice in opposition of the law.
“It would have a negative impact on community policing and public safety, neighbors (in Hispanic neighborhoods) would be more hesitant to report crimes if they think their neighbors and family are here without authority,” Gascon said in an April 21 interview with Newsobserver.com.
One thing that makes this bill so different from other illegal immigration legislation is that it allows citizens to file suit against police departments if it appears the law is not being enforced enough. Giving people the power to sue officers for not enforcing a particular law enough is absurd.
Arturo Venegas, a former chief of the Sacramento, Calif. Police Department, also disapproved of the provision that allows departments to be sued.
“Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 essentially legislates racial profiling, putting police in the middle of the train tracks to face an onslaught of civil-rights violations lawsuits,” Venegas told the San Francisco Chronicle. “No other law in the country allows citizens to sue a government agency for not arresting enough people, but under Arizona’s S.B. 1070, any Arizona citizen can sue a local or state police agency because they’re not doing enough immigration law enforcement.
“At a time when Arizona and its local governments are having difficulty funding public safety properly, this makes no sense at all. S.B. 1070 will hurt people and divide communities, and it will do nothing to solve the ongoing failure of the federal government to reform our messed-up immigration system.”
President Barack Obama addressed the bill last week before it was signed into law. The New York Times reported Obama said that “failure to enact immigration reforms would open the door to irresponsibility by others.”
Obama said the law would threaten “to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”
If the president looks for one more issue to reform before November, it should be immigration. It is an issue that is above partisanship and one that is fundamental to everyone.
Andrew Taylor is an economics senior and may be reached at opinion@thedailycougar.com
oh zed
when the police do a good job, it’s a good thing! :D
when the police do something bad, it’s bad! D:
just because the police do good things doesn’t mean it’s okay when they do bad things!
okay, glad we got that sorted out.
oh hey duder almost forgot:
arizona just banned ethnic studies in their public schools:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/30/arizona-legislature-passes-banning-ethnic-studies-programs/
also, telling schools to fire teachers with thick accents:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/arizona-to-teachers-have-an-accent-then-dont-teach-english.php?ref=fpb
it would be nice if this utterly insane racism causes a serious anti-republican backlash this fall but who knows, maybe people will eat this garbage up.
But I bet you make sure your doors are locked in traffic.
Well I don’t know about you but as far as I know people generally do keep their car doors closed when they’re driving in general. =/
Correction: locked rather than closed (though people generally do that as well as their driving.)
have you ever thought that your worldview might be unduly influenced by your crippling fear of poor people?
I don’t believe its a fear of poor people. It’s more of a matter that I simply don’t give a damn about them and I’m not obligated to do so.
there’s really no reason to quote your party’s mission statement at me, i am well aware of it
And my party is? You seem to be making quite a lot of hasty assumptions without much substance to back them up.
hrmmm a guy who uses “liberal” as a slur, defends any and all conservative legislation, repeats republican talking points, and hates poor people. what party could he possibly belong to?
are you deflecting because david accurately pegged you as bourgeois trash?
If you read anything I’ve posted on this dump you’d know I’m not a Conservative, I’m a Moderate. Why you may ask? Because you idiots give good Democrats such a bad name that Liberal pretty much should be tossed around as a derogatory term. I defend some Conservative ideas because they make sense and I feel they’re well justified and explained. Frankly it seems nowadays the Conservatives actually use their heads for a change, something Liberals don’t (they cry foul against this bill and yet these politicians should know better since they are politicians in the first place that this bill is totally legit.)
This bill if anything for example shows the pure stupidity of the masses, they claim foul and racism before the bill is even put into effect and yet who is throwing the most stones and making the most racist remarks? Thats right the people against it. I’ve seen more hate against Whites since this bill has made its debut than hate against illegals that wasn’t out of defense of the bill (there are definitely people who are hating just for the sake of hate but then there are those who are just pissed illegal immigrants are leeching off our tax dollars and killing actual citizens and yet our federal government does nothing whatsoever to enforce the immigration laws. Of course I’m going to be for a bill to get rid of the people who commit such travesties.)
And you say I should feel compassionate for these idiots? Let alone compassion for the poor? My family and I worked our asses off to get where we are, the poor have NO RIGHT or ENTITLEMENT to what WE EARNED nor do I have any obligation to care whatsoever about the poor’s problems.
Caring probably has something to do with a general sense of humanity that reaches across party lines, as well as the fact that having homelessness is generally detrimental to society as a whole. That you lack such empathy, or the logic to understand that having transient populations puts people at risk and causes undue societal strain, is indicative of your lack of reasoning abilities and emotional maturity.
http://slohomeless.wordpress.com/faq/#what_is
Once again I have NO obligation to care about the homeless. Last time I checked there wasn’t any national catastrophe because we have homeless people. In fact last time I checked having homeless people was beneficial for our society, maybe you heard about a little thing called The Great Depression? You know where pretty much the majority of Americans were out of luck and had to live it out in tent cities and wait day and night in soup/bread lines? Sounds like homeless people to me. And what happened afterwards? We came booming back with even more gumption and can-do attitude. But of course not caring about the poor now obviously makes me a horrible person who no reasoning abilities. I mean come on, obviously it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that every poor person is entitled to my hard earned money that I worked for, not me the person who actually did the work. Obviously.
EDIT: But of course not caring about the poor now obviously makes me a horrible person who has no reasoning abilities
Bloody typographical errors.
Hahah you get so angry over nonsense.
you could have just said this and left it at that.
“In fact last time I checked having homeless people was beneficial for our society, maybe you heard about a little thing called The Great Depression?”
What chain of logic is this? It literally makes no sense.
“And what happened afterwards? We came booming back with even more gumption and can-do attitude.”
Literally because of government intervention.
I don’t think he means “beneficial” per se, but America sure as hell cannot be a place where EVERYONE is wealthy. Who would perform the tasks which we take for granted and consider “menial”?
There’d be a virtual hole in the service industry. So, it actually is a “Can’t have your cake and eat it” type of situation.
And the government intervention I believe you are speaking of was good at the time, but the fat cats in Washington, Democrat AND Republican, let the system become so bloated and expanded it so vastly that they are fiscally irresponsible in spending. Need I mention the $400 wheelchair that Congress paid (a price they set,btw) $1,200 for??
he said “homeless”, not working poor. zed’s saying that having a high rate of homelessness (and therefore unemployment because there is a crazy high correlation between the two) is a positive thing for the economy.
he thought the great depression was when the economy was strong in america. he literally doesn’t understand 10th grade history.
i mean, i know he shares your views and everything but why do you want to throw your support behind a guy who’s clearly never even watched a movie about the 1930′s.
Ahh, I see. I’m neither agreeing or disagreeing with him, just seeking a it of clarification in what he means. He may share some of my views, but that has no bearing on my last comment. =]
Learn to read. I never said anything that can come close to correlating that The Great Depression was good for the economy.
“In fact last time I checked having homeless people was beneficial for our society, maybe you heard about a little thing called The Great Depression? You know where pretty much the majority of Americans were out of luck and had to live it out in tent cities and wait day and night in soup/bread lines? Sounds like homeless people to me. And what happened afterwards? We came booming back with even more gumption and can-do attitude.”
CTRL+F, hmm no mention of the word economy at all in there.
right, you said “society”. my bad, what you said totally makes sense now.
do you wonder why no one is backing you up on this?
(it is because you are the universal toilet of the ages)
Yet your claim still makes absolutely no sense.
When you say, “last time I checked having homeless people was beneficial for our society, maybe you heard about a little thing called The Great Depression?,” it appears as though you cite the Great Depression as a reason why homelessness is “beneficial.”
For instance, if I said, “Magnetism is a powerful force of nature, perhaps you’ve heard about a little thing called the magnetic poles?” you would think they were correlated.
Meh, whatever. In the end I know for a fact this bill will pass and its legitimate. End of discussion.
BTW, once again learn to read. If you actually took the time to process my claim you’d understand it.
So let me break it down for you: During the Great Depression quite a bit if not most of society was homeless during that time, what happened afterwards? Americans took from that experience to better their lives and not take as much for granted. To say that experience was NOT beneficial whatsoever to American society is pure nonsense. If you still can’t figure that out then you’re simply beyond help.
Your claim was that homelessness, not the Great Depression, was beneficial. You merely cited the Depression as an example.
Please provide evidence that homelessness is good for society.
i’d explain how FDR expanded the role of the federal government to assist the jobless and destitute and the new jobs created by WWII but i honestly think you have a learning disability. instead of actually being aware of historical events and their impact, you create this retarded narrative about AMERICAN GUMPTION and oh god you are depressing.
this law will only serve to strengthen arizona’s reputation as a flyover state. it will have no impact on the only places in the US worth living in (the northeast, california, parts of oregon)
oh and
is something that is said only by the dullest and fattest people
Like I said, if you can’t figure it out then you’re simply beyond help. The homeless serve as a deterrent and as an example for something not to strive for in life to our society (or if in the case of The Great Depression being homeless was a motivator for people who became homeless to work harder once new jobs were created by the government and the war effort.) Its all common sense. Then again common sense seems to be something all Liberals seem to lack so why am I not surprised?
Anyways I’m done arguing with you twits since you lack common sense and reading comprehension (seriously, I’ve yet to see concrete proof that says all officers will become racists and act out of racial prejudice once the bill is put into effect.) The bill is going to be put into effect and its a legitimate bill so even if they try to take it into the courts to have the language and scope of the bill properly interpreted it should still stand. End of discussion (or not, I could care less. Go argue with a wall if you’re that desperate.)
lol
lol
lolllllllll